Monday, April 29, 2013

Holy See's spokesman Fr. Lombardi now defending recognition of same-sex unions?

This is getting a bit old, as reported today:
Father Federico Lombardi, SJ, spokesman of the Holy See, to journalists assembled at the headquarters of the Association of the Foreign Press in Rome, on April 24:
"[I]t is a good thing for the child to know that he has a father and a mother"; [it must be] "made clear that matrimony between a man and a woman is a specific and fundamental institution in the history of mankind. This does not prevent that other forms of union between two persons may be recognized" (emphasis added).
We used to hear, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed"; and I used to think it was only groups like the ELCA Lutherans affiliated with my erstwhile teaching post for whom incessant ambiguities and vagueness was the hermeneutical key. Now it seems every position trotted out must die the death of 1000 qualifications, until the pew peasants don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of knowing where the Church stands.


Blindfella said...

Include the pope's support for civil unions (as Card-Abp of Buenos Aires) and that of Cardinal Theodore "Call-Me-Uncle-Ted" McCarrick and you have the unseemly spectacle of 3 cardinals (one of whom is now pope), one archbishop, and THE official Vatican spokesman taking a position in favor of sexual relationships between and among homosexuals. (After all, civil unions are nothing more than state recognition of an existing sexual relationship between unmarried persons)

I've come to terms with the fact that the Church changed dramatically (and radically) between 1962 and 1972. But is it really possible that she could have changed THIS much since February 28th?!

JM said...

Disturbing links. To say there is a lack of clarity on this entire, extremely current subject is an understatement. You want to not chicken out, too present the Church's unpopular truth, but suddenly you realize you may not know what you are talking about, in terms of the Church. All those very established Reverends and Fathers, at least, seem to take a very different tone. It would be nice to think a Pope would feel compelled to speak, or would it... Does anyone even have the clarity to know what to call Good and what to call Bad? It makes you really wonder what is in fact going on...

I am not Spartacus said...

To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle

Dear Blindfella. Orwell was right and you are not wrong but The Brick By Brick Bund, and other conservative catholics, became so inured to the revolution that they took as their putative traditional champion, Pope Benedict XVI, who was a revolutionary.

Even one who has never self-identified as a Traditionalist, Dr. E Michael Jones, in the April 2013 issue of Culture Wars cover story on Iran, Cultural Jihad in Tehran has a forceful recapitulaation of the events preceding Vatican Two and how the great Roman, Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani, approached Pope John XXIII in the conclave that elected him and pressed for an immediate Council to deal with the existing deadly but virtually invisible threat to the Catholic Church and the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Holy Office back then) was opposed at every turn by Joseph Cardinal Frings and his "young turk," Joseph Ratzinger.

It was Ratzinger who wrote the nasty attack against the Holy Office and Cardinal Ottaviani which was an intervention in the Council delivered by Cardinal Frings and then when the great Roman tried to defend the Holy Office, the revolutionaries shut-off his microphone and the New Theology Cardinals laughed at him openly.

And, as usual, the Traditionalist was proven absolutely right whereas the new theologian was proven wildly wrong but because nothing succeeds in this world like failure, Ratzinger became head of the renamed Holy Office, CDF, and then, sadly, Pope, and then the Brick By Brick Bund made its peace with the successful revolution and they recast the unchanged young turk as a Traditionalist.

Go figure..

Well, even Dr. E. Michael Jones ain't buying that B.S.

He identifies Time Magazine, CD Jackson, Malachy Martin (Double agent for the Jews) John Courtney Murray and America as the threat to the Catholic Church and so identified as such by the great Roman, Ottaviani.

On the other side, The American Pope (as Dr Jones identifies him) who abdicated, claims Dr. Jones, because he misread/misunderstood the plans of the American Imperium and because he had the humility to listen to God when God told him it was time to leave.

It is during these times of strife that I remember the words of my Uncle; It is always darkest before the storm

I am not Spartacus said...

Is the link to the Culture wars cover story I referenced

Pertinacious Papist said...

Shoot, IANS. I was hoping you were gonna say, "the darkest hour is before dawn"! All hope for the immediate future has fled, then? =)

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Dr. Well, that is because it was my realist Uncle and not the romantics, The Mamas and the Papas :)

As for Hope, that is all we have left; but, it is the Theological Virtue of Hope and admitting that is all you have is a confession of the dire straits ( had to keep up the music group references) the Barque of Peter is in for the foreseeable future.