|
|
Post by cato on Dec 18, 2023 23:43:34 GMT
Today's radical u turn on blessing gay unions is seismic stuff. Francis has put aside two millenia of Christian doctrine and practice in the cause of inclusion.
I am quite stunned by this shocking news which calls much more than this para liturgical ritual into question. I ll post more later when I have prayed and reflected. These are unprecedented days for Catholicism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 19, 2023 11:15:13 GMT
Do you think it's as bad as that? I know it seems a wafer-thin distinction that the couple is being blessed, and not their relationship, but it still seems a crucial one.
I found the infamous footnote in Amoris Laetitia more difficult to swallow, since that actually involved the sacraments. I'm not happy about this, but I haven't found myself as distressed as many of my fellow conservative Catholics. Perhaps I am wrong.
I do think our knowledge of homosexuality has changed. For most of Christian history it seems to have been viewed as a deliberate perversion, whereas now it seems clear that lots of people are exclusively attracted to their own sex, for whatever reason, and it's not something they have control over. It doesn't make homosexual acts any less wrong, but perhaps it should inform our pastoral approach.
I know a gay man who told me he would take an injection to be heterosexual if he could.
Am I simply trying to reduce cognitive dissonance, squaring the circle between obedience to the Pope and traditional teaching? Yes, I think you could say that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 20, 2023 11:59:57 GMT
Do you think it's as bad as that? I know it seems a wafer-thin distinction that the couple is being blessed, and not their relationship, but it still seems a crucial one. I found the infamous footnote in Amoris Laetitia more difficult to swallow, since that actually involved the sacraments. I'm not happy about this, but I haven't found myself as distressed as many of my fellow conservative Catholics. Perhaps I am wrong. I do think our knowledge of homosexuality has changed. For most of Christian history it seems to have been viewed as a deliberate perversion, whereas now it seems clear that lots of people are exclusively attracted to their own sex, for whatever reason, and it's not something they have control over. It doesn't make homosexual acts any less wrong, but perhaps it should inform our pastoral approach. I know a gay man who told me he would take an injection to be heterosexual if he could. Am I simply trying to reduce cognitive dissonance, squaring the circle between obedience to the Pope and traditional teaching? Yes, I think you could say that. Any priest in doubt could always follow Leo XIII, who, when requested to bless a Church of England group, used the first incense blessing of sung mass: Ab illo benedicaris,in cujus honore cremaberis,amen. Scientific input has it's place, but still: Gaudium et spes stated "deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not paid upon himself but which he must obey" John Paul's catechism called the activity disordered- as I mentioned before, it's not like we're trying to return to the 1950s- it almost seems to no longer be the Church of Vatican II even, or of John Paul's Do-Not-Be-Afraid-era. |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 20, 2023 12:18:16 GMT
Today's radical u turn on blessing gay unions is seismic stuff. Francis has put aside two millenia of Christian doctrine and practice in the cause of inclusion. I am quite stunned by this shocking news which calls much more than this para liturgical ritual into question. I ll post more later when I have prayed and reflected. These are unprecedented days for Catholicism. His Holiness' efforts to put St Joseph in a central position almost seem contradictory; the man who had little choice but to remain celibate. Yes, we have had a mindset of a man and young woman who willingly embraced chastity before their espousal, and I do believe that he would have been specially graced with this, but the truth is: Mary, Joseph, John lived in a world no more enamoured with absolute abstinence than our own, the few that did might have been a bit strange: "Josephus wrote that the Essenes agreed with what most of the Pharisees were saying but pushed the and spiritual purity to the extreme, even to the point of abstaining from bowel movements on the Sabbath" (national geographic, dead sea scrolls). It's hard to see any reason why people can't receive individual blessings without bringing their rule-breaking into it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Dec 20, 2023 14:20:58 GMT
Today's radical u turn on blessing gay unions is seismic stuff. Francis has put aside two millenia of Christian doctrine and practice in the cause of inclusion. I am quite stunned by this shocking news which calls much more than this para liturgical ritual into question. I ll post more later when I have prayed and reflected. These are unprecedented days for Catholicism. His Holiness' efforts to put St Joseph in a central position almost seem contradictory; the man who had little choice but to remain celibate. Yes, we have had a mindset of a man and young woman who willingly embraced chastity before their espousal, and I do believe that he would have been specially graced with this, but the truth is: Mary, Joseph, John lived in a world no more enamoured with absolute abstinence than our own, the few that did might have been a bit strange: "Josephus wrote that the Essenes agreed with what most of the Pharisees were saying but pushed the and spiritual purity to the extreme, even to the point of abstaining from bowel movements on the Sabbath" (national geographic, dead sea scrolls). It's hard to see any reason why people can't receive individual blessings without bringing their rule-breaking into it. Last line perhaps (?) might give the only ( ) in face of affrontal display. To get these model excuses so called popesplaining for anything again and again is demoralising for almost any mind apart from the open humanists still hoping against hope despite ten years murky waters - "he was and is valid, nothing else are conceivable facts, nothing more to investigate, every concern is closed case so shut up and like whatever for anything goes when it comes issued from a Francis office". |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 20, 2023 17:03:39 GMT
His Holiness' efforts to put St Joseph in a central position almost seem contradictory; the man who had little choice but to remain celibate. Yes, we have had a mindset of a man and young woman who willingly embraced chastity before their espousal, and I do believe that he would have been specially graced with this, but the truth is: Mary, Joseph, John lived in a world no more enamoured with absolute abstinence than our own, the few that did might have been a bit strange: "Josephus wrote that the Essenes agreed with what most of the Pharisees were saying but pushed the and spiritual purity to the extreme, even to the point of abstaining from bowel movements on the Sabbath" (national geographic, dead sea scrolls). It's hard to see any reason why people can't receive individual blessings without bringing their rule-breaking into it. Last line perhaps (?) might give the only ( ) in face of affrontal display. To get these model excuses so called popesplaining for anything again and again is demoralising for almost any mind apart from the open humanists still hoping against hope despite ten years murky waters - "he was and is valid, nothing else are conceivable facts, nothing more to investigate, every concern is closed case so shut up and like whatever for anything goes when it comes issued from a Francis office". Fair enough but surely there is the opposite possibility as well; that many Catholics are simply rejecting anything Francis says out of hand, because he says it. It seems many have stopped listening to him entirely, which is surely a mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 21, 2023 21:45:30 GMT
Fair enough but surely there is the opposite possibility as well; that many Catholics are simply rejecting anything Francis says out of hand, because he says it.
It seems many have stopped listening to him entirely, which is surely a mistake.[/quote]
Most Conservatives had very little problem with the last two pontificates as JP ii and Benedict were also Conservatives in a political as well as a doctrinal sense. The papacy did critique capitalism and our consumerist society but it also stood for values most Conservatives instinctively hold to. It held those values with clarity and with fidelity to the broad Catholic tradition.
Once apon a time we debated at length whether Francis was mistranslated or misquoted during the increasingly regular papal controversies until it dawned on most if not every catholic with a pulse this man is a reforming progressive who openly delights in causing chaos and in the raw use of power to silence critics. He has a radically different vision of the church than the previous popes who actually attended the second Vatican Council.
His revolutionary policies will either be vindicated in future pontificates and Rome will follow mainstream protestantism into social conformity and increasing decline. I fear this will be the case in order to preserve "unity" continuity and the voice of the increasingly erratic spirit.
Or he will be repudiated by a future pope or Church Council. The weakness of our current system where the pope can more or less do what he likes is not sustainable. Peter had 11 other brother apostles. Paul had public rows with Peter. Collegial government as taught by Vatican ii has been binned by a pope who claims he wants dialogue .The office needs checks and balances as the current papacy has made obvious. The last long weary years seem like the inner life of a Soviet style people's Republic. We talk the jargon of freedom but the reality is fear and persecution for defending what was true up to 5 minutes ago.
Those two options are the two least bad future scenarios. There is also a third one at the back of many peoples minds.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Dec 22, 2023 8:27:36 GMT
Likely he is no other than a blatant antipope. Time will tell. In the meanwhile several fall off, as in the third option (in Catholic sense a no no option) indicated by Cato here.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 23, 2023 22:38:37 GMT
Likely he is no other than a blatant antipope. Time will tell. In the meanwhile several fall off, as in the third option (in Catholic sense a no no option) indicated by Cato here. I don't think he's an antipope in that his election was valid. No cardinal elector has disputed this to the best of my knowledge. Hypothetically if a pope was to declare a heresy or sinful practice as de Fide there is no formal structure to correct him or sack him. Redefining the concept of blessings in order to give the green light to LGBTQA+ activities is deeply deceitful. The idea promoted by some conservatives that the Vatican didn't give permission for gay blessings is directly contradicted by the social media response of Father James Martin SJ who tweeted himself giving a blessing to two civilly married gay men active in their Catholic parishes. Fr Martin frequently gets one on one private meetings with his fellow Jesuit Pope Francis. |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 25, 2023 11:27:17 GMT
Likely he is no other than a blatant antipope. Time will tell. In the meanwhile several fall off, as in the third option (in Catholic sense a no no option) indicated by Cato here. I don't think he's an antipope in that his election was valid. No cardinal elector has disputed this to the best of my knowledge. Hypothetically if a pope was to declare a heresy or sinful practice as de Fide there is no formal structure to correct him or sack him. Redefining the concept of blessings in order to give the green light to LGBTQA+ activities is deeply deceitful. The idea promoted by some conservatives that the Vatican didn't give permission for gay blessings is directly contradicted by the social media response of Father James Martin SJ who tweeted himself giving a blessing to two civilly married gay men active in their Catholic parishes. Fr Martin frequently gets one on one private meetings with his fellow Jesuit Pope Francis. I've noticed a few African bishops giving a lukewarm response to the document the last few days. Looks like Catholicism is looking at the path to Anglican dissolution a lot closer than we thought possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Jan 27, 2024 8:46:45 GMT
Likely he is no other than a blatant antipope. Time will tell. In the meanwhile several fall off, as in the third option (in Catholic sense a no no option) indicated by Cato here. I don't think he's an antipope in that his election was valid. No cardinal elector has disputed this to the best of my knowledge. Hypothetically if a pope was to declare a heresy or sinful practice as de Fide there is no formal structure to correct him or sack him. Redefining the concept of blessings in order to give the green light to LGBTQA+ activities is deeply deceitful. The idea promoted by some conservatives that the Vatican didn't give permission for gay blessings is directly contradicted by the social media response of Father James Martin SJ who tweeted himself giving a blessing to two civilly married gay men active in their Catholic parishes. Fr Martin frequently gets one on one private meetings with his fellow Jesuit Pope Francis. He seems to have now defined what the blessing of same-sex couples is and what it isn't. Welcome,of course;I would have thought that 'defining' was what supreme pontiffs were initially meant to be doing. Objectivity from some bishops outside of Africa is welcome also- the archbishop of Granada in particular- a see which has a long history of conquering and being conquered. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 1, 2024 0:02:07 GMT
I believe the Irish bishops have invited Fr James Martin SJ a prominent LGBTQ+ advocate to a private meeting at the Knock shrine in Mayo of all places. One undisclosed bishop has expressed reservations.The other 25 are happy to go along with this mendacious charade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 1, 2024 14:56:44 GMT
I believe the Irish bishops have invited Fr James Martin SJ a prominent LGBTQ+ advocate to a private meeting at the Knock shrine in Mayo of all places. One undisclosed bishop has expressed reservations.The other 25 are happy to go along with this mendacious charade. At least it's private. Maybe they are going to urge him to give up spouting heresy? |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 1, 2024 23:48:38 GMT
I believe the Irish bishops have invited Fr James Martin SJ a prominent LGBTQ+ advocate to a private meeting at the Knock shrine in Mayo of all places. One undisclosed bishop has expressed reservations.The other 25 are happy to go along with this mendacious charade. At least it's private. Maybe they are going to urge him to give up spouting heresy? I somehow doubt that Maolsheachlann! The meeting seems to be a regular retreat the bishops hold every year but normally attracts no attention. I have been informed by a reliable spy of mine the invite to Fr Martin went out prior to the recent Roman decision on spontaneous blessings of couples. Still they could have cancelled it to avoid a kerfuffle. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Feb 2, 2024 7:59:53 GMT
I believe the Irish bishops have invited Fr James Martin SJ a prominent LGBTQ+ advocate to a private meeting at the Knock shrine in Mayo of all places. One undisclosed bishop has expressed reservations.The other 25 are happy to go along with this mendacious charade. That is the case: 25 out of 26 going along is not helpful to the embarrassingly sad lot of Catholics currently mocked as homophobes etc that hold on to Holy Mother Church teachings from the two thousand years before the Martin McCarrick Rupnik Francis homophile pushes. Comtemporary overall trend to "reason" and "express" how kind and innocent many among the sodomites "really" are in their doings, that may be very well from the various therapists point of view. But is that alright to adopt, from a Priest in Holy Mother Church in love with the Christ and different from the lost sheep in his heart and inner life? |
|
