Monday, October 13, 2014

Select synod roundup



Rorate Caeli Catholic World Report Fr. Z Robert Royal The New York Times


31 comments:








BenYachov

said...

Observing Trad selectivity filters are an interesting insight into their psychology. Here is what I see when I read this text by my filters.

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community:are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.
Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.END QUOTE

I don't see what the hysteria is about? Do I have to keep bring up this example?

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants."-Pope Benedict.

Why is being decent to people with same sex attraction such a problem? Why is acknowledging the good a problem?

People there is a moral difference between a guy who robs ten thousand dollars from a millionaire vs one who take the same amount from someone for whom that is their life savings. Both are evil but there is a moral difference. There is a moral difference between taking that money to pay off your brother's loan shark to save his life vs taking it to go on a shopping spree.

Well having gay sex is alway intrinsically evil but I think there is a moral difference between a monogamous gay couple (who are after all trying to imitate a natural couple) vs people who are promiscuous. Their affection and caring for one another is not a sin. The gay sex is the sin.

Lastly now that I re-read this I can see the Trad's hysterical counterpart in the extreme Progressive community saying "What do you mean my relationship with my life partner is not on the same footing as those of straight people? That is just code for my relationship being evil! What do you mean my relationship has `moral problems'"?!!

Of course progressives have their filters on and they block out the things I have seen above which indicates nothing is changing other then I am being exerted to be more kind and positive to gays in spite of their moral problems.

QUOTE NYT "Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said in an interview with The New York Times: “It should not be overvalued as a document of reference. It’s merely a working paper.”






BenYachov

said...

Gotta love Fr Z's insight here.





Anon. II

said...

Ben, your "filters" as equally amusing and fun to watch here. When it comes to observing liberal or modernist tactics, you either have no eye for subtlety, no nose for chicken excrement, or no stomach for acknowledging the evil of confusion. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Very predictable, and singularly unhelpful.

Much more helpful is the opposition being mounted by Cardinal Mueller and others from the more conservative quarters in the synod. If they all took your approach, where would they be?

You keep citing the promises of Christ and the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. But do you think any of this effects its purposes without the participation of willing human agents?

Let's try to be a little more constructive here. I liked your earlier suggestion that we shouldn't leave the clerical hierarchy out to dry, but that the laity should shoulder some of the responsibility of resisting error and confusion. This is where I think your whack-a-mole approach to trying to kill any opposition is ineffective. It plays into the hands of the enemy, by which I mean the ONE who does not wish us well.





Anonymous

said...

Fr Z says "This is the sort of trash that people are going to read about this Synod.”

Effective trash. As VOF said,

"“What will Catholics parents now have to tell their children about contraception, cohabiting with partners or living homosexual lifestyles? Will those parents now have to tell their children that the Vatican teaches that there are positive and constructive aspects to these mortal sins? This approach destroys grace in souls.

“It would be a false mercy to give Holy Communion to people who do not repent of their mortal sins against Christ’s teachings on sexual purity. Real mercy consists of offering people a clean conscience via the Sacrament of Confession and thus union with God.

“Many of those who claim to speak in the name of the universal Church have failed to teach the faithful. This failure has created unprecedented difficulties for families. No responsibility is taken for this failure in this disastrous mid-way report.”

“The Synod’s mid-way report will increase the incidence of faithful Catholics being labelled as ‘pharisees’, simply for upholding Catholic teaching on sexual purity.”

And as Robert Royal points out,

"the only thing the world takes away from this – people back home tell me National Public Radio and other outlets are really going to town – is that the Church is cozying up to gays. That the tone and perhaps the teaching seem to be changing. That divorced and remarried Catholics will soon be able to receive Communion by a process no one can actually explain without sounding like he’s babbling. But it will happen. The reality may prove to be something different, but that’s the message the Synod has now sent, whether it intended to or not. We’ll see before too long whether that message now can ever be fixed.”

The Pope has to know this, and yet stirs this pot. Does he believe potential legalism is more a worry than our kids being deceived into making false moral choices about sexuality and family life? John Thavis called this whole thing “an earthquake” before other voices rushed to say “Working document! Not much to see here.” I would not call it an earthquake but a small but clean strategic wound form which the air will now escape at a steady hiss. Being nice to monogamous gay couples? Living in the city, I actually know no Catholics who don't already operate this way. And I also know none of my many gay friends think the Pope or this new regime take Catholic teaching on homosexuality seriously. Conservatives and traditional lay people may tend towards lack of charity or over-harshness towards gays, sure, but they also have a pretty good smell sense. Spin it how you will, the effort here is "gradualism" towards dissolving traditional teaching. It is laughable to try to spin it otherwise or to suggest Trad hysteria. When we think saying gay unions "cannot be considered on the same footing" as marriage" is a rhetorical bulls eye, we are in trouble. "Same footing"? One enshrines a mortal sin, for Pete's sake.








BenYachov

said...


@Anon II
>Ben, your "filters" as equally amusing and fun to watch here. When it comes to observing liberal or modernist tactics, you either have no eye for subtlety, no nose for chicken excrement, or no stomach for acknowledging the evil of confusion. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Very predictable, and singularly unhelpful.

Rather I have absolute faith in the Infallibility and Indefectability of the Church. Try it sometime it is quite liberating to trust God and not men.
>Much more helpful is the opposition being mounted by Cardinal Mueller and others from the more conservative quarters in the synod. If they all took your approach, where would they be?

He is doing his Job which is further reason why I am not worried or hysterical unlike the usual suspects.
>You keep citing the promises of Christ and the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. But do you think any of this effects its purposes without the participation of willing human agents?

No infallibility is unconditional and guided by Divine Providence. Thus no formal error will become the doctrine of the Church. No and’s, if’s or but’s unless you want to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy that is what we have here. Immoral Popes(Alexander VI, Sergius III etc) did not change Catholic doctrine to justify their immorality unlike Joseph Smith or Muhammed who claimed God gave them women and it was moral for others to have them.
I don’t need to wax eloquent in Thomistic fashion on how God causes us to act freely blah blah blah but
I have confidence in the Holy Spirit. So I won’t worry. If you need fear go for it. I can’t help you.

>Let's try to be a little more constructive here. I liked your earlier suggestion that we shouldn't leave the clerical hierarchy out to dry, but that the laity should shoulder some of the responsibility of resisting error and confusion. This is where I think your whack-a-mole approach to trying to kill any opposition is ineffective. It plays into the hands of the enemy, by which I mean the ONE who does not wish us well.
It is not our Job to take out the long knives and war against the clergy. I can preach the Gospel & I don’t need Pope Francis’ permission to do so(not that I believe for a second he is against it). That is my point.
Cardinal Kasper can’t stop me and the Archbishop of Chicago can’t stop me and the Reactionaries left or right can’t either.





Sheldon

said...

>I don't see what the hysteria is about?

Ben, are you kidding???

Two points: (1) you don't seem to discern what's going on here. This whole piece was written by a guy who has an agenda of mainstreaming acceptance of same-sex relationship within the Church and has been roundly condemned as disingenuous by those who know this; and (2) you neglected to quote a key passage that reveals the author's intent when he suggests that Catholic communities should be "accepting and valuing of their sexual orientation ..."

You offer Pope Benedict's condom quote as an example of a homosexual nevertheless doing some good by trying to protect his partner from AIDS. But that's not the point, Ben. Nobody questions that sinners of any kind are capable of acts of kindness.

The problem is that author suggests that we ought to "accept and value" the disordered homosexual disposition itself.

This fact compromises everything else he writes in this section, as when he suggests that homosexuals "have gifts to offer" are capable of great "sacrifice," etc. Why? Because the question is whether these gifts are (1) in virtue of their being persons, despite their sexual orientation, or (2) precisely in virtue of their sexual disorientation.

That, my friend, is the problem. It is most adamantly NOT an issue of being disrespectful to the synod fathers or being disrespectful toward the pope. It is a matter of calling out error and confusion where it exists and simply demanding clarity. No more.

The world is languishing in confusion and even the Catholic world is dying of ambiguities, and you ask what's all the hysteria about? Come on, Ben. Get real.





Chris

said...

First: I encourage everyone to pray for the Synod fathers and the Holy Father himself.

Second: Out of mercy for everyone concerned, pray that the Synod be mercifully short.

Third: Remember that, quod Deus advertat, His Holiness should proclaim that homosexuality was a gift to be nourished and encouraged, since this would qualify as a novel doctrine, it wouldn't be protected under the mantle of infallibility -- by definition, not by my liking or disliking the proclamation.

Fourth: Our Lord suffered Himself to be captured, and asked His disciples to put away their swords. We, not being God, must keep our Rosaries at the ready, and our knees bent. Public processions wouldn't be out of place.





Anon. II

said...

>Rather I have absolute faith in the Infallibility and Indefectability of the Church. Try it sometime it is quite liberating to trust God and not men.

Really, Ben. You think that between us you alone have that absolute faith and liberating trust in God and not men? Really?

>[Mueller] is doing his Job which is further reason why I am not worried or hysterical unlike the usual suspects.

So you think (1) Catholic correspondents like Robert Royal and Michael Voris are not doing their job and are out of line for covering the Synod and noting problems in the Relato and attributing these to a revisionist faction among the bishops, and (2) that this means they are "hysterical" like the "usual suspects" and lack confidence in divine providence? Only those like you who condemn any criticism of ideas emanating from the hierarchy have that serene confidence and trust in God?

>... infallibility is unconditional ... Thus no formal error will become the doctrine of the Church. No and’s, if’s or but’s ...

Not even the SSPX questions that, but THAT isn't the issue. The issue is what those minding the chancery offices across the world are communicating to the faithful and to the world. And what that constituency is getting is a lot closer to the muddled message of the recent Relato than it is to the perennial teaching of the Church and the apostolic deposit of the faith.

Are you praying for the Synod fathers and the Holy Father? Or do you think they don't need prayer, because the Holy Spirit will guarantee the outcome regardless so we might as well grab another cold one from the fridge and sit down for an evening of trolling the blogs?





BenYachov

said...

Sheldon you should read more closely before your respond to me buddy.

>Ben, are you kidding???

I might ask you the same question.


>Two points: (1) you don't seem to discern what's going on here. This whole piece was written by a guy who has an agenda of mainstreaming acceptance of same-sex relationship within the Church and has been roundly condemned as disingenuous by those who know this; and (2) you neglected to quote a key passage that reveals the author's intent when he suggests that Catholic communities should be "accepting and valuing of their sexual orientation …”

Sheldon with all due respect I think you should re-check your powers of discernment because well I DID QUOTE YOUR KEY PASSAGE(go re-read what I wrote there is a good fellow). I just didn’t put it in bold also I note the statement itself ends in a question mark indicating it’s rhetorical not literal nature.

>You offer Pope Benedict's condom quote as an example of a homosexual nevertheless doing some good by trying to protect his partner from AIDS. But that's not the point, Ben. Nobody questions that sinners of any kind are capable of acts of kindness.

No the point is recognizing the good in the mist of evil. Evil is an accident not a substance. It has no ontological existence. That is Thomism 101.

>The problem is that author suggests that we ought to "accept and value" the disordered homosexual disposition itself.

Of course this is coming from a Faith that says things like “Oh Happy Fault! O Necessary Sin of Adam! Oh happy fall!” Even Michael Voris speaks how homosexuals might be victim souls who have an extra-ordinary opportunity for holiness. The homosexual disposition itself is objectively disordered.
That is if you give in to it or follow it then you will be lead to evil. But if you don’t have gay sex it can be something else & serve another purpose.

>This fact compromises everything else he writes in this section, as when he suggests that homosexuals "have gifts to offer" are capable of great "sacrifice," etc. Why? Because the question is whether these gifts are (1) in virtue of their being persons, despite their sexual orientation, or (2) precisely in virtue of their sexual disorientation.

At worst it is ambiguous so in charity I give the best interpretation possible within the framework of the truth. You seem oblivious to one important truth.
The Act of gay sex in and of itself is intrinsically evil. But the orientation is not intrinsically evil it is objectively disordered. But it can be good as the happy fault I mentioned. It is part of the goodness of God that He can bring Good out of evil.

>That, my friend, is the problem. It is most adamantly NOT an issue of being disrespectful to the synod fathers or being disrespectful toward the pope. It is a matter of calling out error and confusion where it exists and simply demanding clarity. No more.

You can request clarity and you can point out how this text might be abused by the liberal heretics but the principle of charity mandates I give it a fair hearing.

>The world is languishing in confusion and even the Catholic world is dying of ambiguities, and you ask what's all the hysteria about? Come on, Ben. Get real.

Where sin abound grace abounds even more. So I am not worried.

That having been said many Bishop don’t like this text & as the Vatican spokesmen said it is not a final draft. They will have to amend it & that will serve the need to clarify it. All will be well.

So I remain unmoved and unworried. My wife Rosemarie said “I am more worried about Ebola then a Church being overcome by the gates of Hell contrary to the Promise of Jesus”.

God bless.





BenYachov

said...

@Chris

Good call!

@Anon II

>Really, Ben. You think that between us you alone have that absolute faith and liberating trust in God and not men? Really?

Do you believe you are immune to observing reactionary tactics? That is is possible you have no eye for subtlety, no nose for chicken excrement, or no stomach for acknowledging the evil of schism, disobedience, dissension, detraction and spreading fear which is at odds with perfect love? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Is that not also predictable, and singularly unhelpful?

>So you think (1) Catholic correspondents like Robert Royal and Michael Voris are not doing their job and are out of line for covering the Synod and noting problems in the Relato and attributing these to a revisionist faction among the bishops, and (2) that this means they are "hysterical" like the "usual suspects" and lack confidence in divine providence? Only those like you who condemn any criticism of ideas emanating from the hierarchy have that serene confidence and trust in God?

I don’t know or care what they are doing right now. But I note today Bill over at the Catholic League explained the situation neatly without attacking the Bishops & he provided some simple clarity.

http://www.catholicleague.org/confusion-synod-report-mounts/

>Not even the SSPX questions that, but THAT isn't the issue.

I don’t agree. It is the basis for confidence in the Church even if it’s run by sinful men or even clueless men as you imply will always stand terrible as
an army with banners.

> The issue is what those minding the chancery offices across the world are communicating to the faithful and to the world.

Well what Benedict was saying about Condoms & Male Prostitutes was rather clear to those of us who made the effort to find out what he said.
But the lying media still said things like “POPE BENEDICT GREEN LIGHTS CONDOMS TO STOP SPREAD OF AIDS”. A lie will make it around the world 7 times while truth stops to tie it’s shoes. Whether the message is “clear” or “obscure” most people will hear it threw the filter of the media servant of it’s dark master below. By fighting the Bishops you are attacking the wrong enemy.

>And what that constituency is getting is a lot closer to the muddled message of the recent Relato than it is to the perennial teaching of the Church and the apostolic deposit of the faith.

If the message is muddled then clarify it with the apostolic deposit of faith(I just did it) . Or you can surrender to the liberals. Myself in the fictional words of a great pious Catholic Scotish High King (one smeared by some idiot English dude Will something,,,) I will not yield! To kiss the ground at Hans Kung’s feet! Before my body I throw my war like shield. So lay on Richard McBrien & MacDuff and damned be him who cries hold enough!

God bless.

>Are you praying for the Synod fathers and the Holy Father? Or do you think they don't need prayer, because the Holy Spirit will guarantee the outcome regardless so we might as well grab another cold one from the fridge and sit down for an evening of trolling the blogs?

We are commanded to pray by holy Writ & the Holy Father himself asks us to pray for him. So why would I not do so? The Church would succeed even without my prayers but I would have damaged myself for not offering them and I have to be always in communion with the Church for Outside the Church there is no salvation. I see no reason why I can pray, grab a cold one & play some MMORPG’s in the evening.

God Bless.





Mighty Joe Young

said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.




Mighty Joe Young

said...

Jesus established His Church for these two purposes; Sanctification and Salvation and those who have the Duty to Teach, Rule, and Sanctify are in public opposition to the Will of Jesus whose Will is to do the Will of His Father.

Sanctification and Salvation

Period.

The sodomisation of the Church has been so successful that the relatio praises the putative positive virtues of those engaged in a mortal sin crying to heaven for vengeance.

Now, let's have some fun with these bastids (they are NOT the children of the Church but, rather, the children of Satan)

Substitute any category of persons for sodomites and even with the assistance of some dynamite hash one could not envision public support for the putative positive values of these men:

Beastialists
S & M'ers
Neo-Nazi's
Widow abusers
Employers who don't pay their workers
Arsonists
Holocaust-Deniers
Cannibals

(make up your own category; it is fun)

As for what was said about sodomites, the same could be said for these folks - for they too are nice to their friends and families and don't kick their dogs but no Synod imaginable would ever engage in public praise of those folks.

Much of the calamity, heresy, and apostasy that trailed in the wake of Vatican Two might well have been avoided had several Bishops walked-out of the council and told the world they wouldn't participate in a progressive process whose machinations had been conspired about prior to the opening of the Council.

And no that would NOT have been schism.

Sadly, the Faithful Bishops missed the time of their visitation during Vatican Two and they will again miss the time of their visitation now.

After Vatican Two it was too late for Marcel and co. to effectively oppose the revolution after all of them had voted in favor of the documents.

Similarly, if they do not walk now, the Bishops will have little chance of hope after this Synod ends; and it clearly is the case the Bishop are pawns in the actualising of the agenda of the Bishop or Rome.

Like they did at V2, the modernists will drain the substance of previous Doctrine by their new praxis and they will do so after averring they have not touched Doctrine

Cest la vie.

It is every bit as much my church as it is theirs and there is no way in hell they are gonna run me oft.





BenYachov

said...

Well isn't this special?

How an Incorrect Translation of the Synod Report Fueled Controversy

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-an-incorrect-translation-of-the-synod-report-fueled-controversy/#ixzz3GK1F26M8

All this hysteria over nothing.

Two sad things here. The Media will lie & the Reactionaries first instinct believe them.





c matt

said...

Well having gay sex is alway (sic) intrinsically evil but I think there is a moral difference between a monogamous gay couple (who are after all trying to imitate a natural couple) vs people who are promiscuous.

I suppose - the former will only land in the 6th Circle vs. the 8th maybe. Your robbery examples aren't quite on point - the one robbing to save a life is acting under duress. What duress do gay couples have to continue being gay couples?





c matt

said...

Rather I have absolute faith in the Infallibility and Indefectability of the Church. Try it sometime it is quite liberating to trust God and not men.

Exactly. Which is why I do not trust BORF or Kasper or their ilk. I do not even trust Mueller and Burke and the ones on the correct side to be able to do much either. It has to be up to God because the rest of the Church is miserable. God promised the Church would survive - He did not promise in what condition or where at given moment.





c matt

said...

HV did not change doctrine,* yet the practice of contraception significantly increased among Catholics to the point it is indistinguishable from heathens (in fact, some circles of heathens may even practice less of it).

* Even its slight change of emphasis - seeming to equate the unitive and procreative aspects of the act, tends to downgrade the procreative, which use to be unequivocally the primary purpose.





Anon. II

said...

>How an Incorrect Translation of the Synod Report Fueled Controversy

You've got to be kidding! What a complete fool I was. Now I'm on my knees begging your pardon, Ben, and a TRUE BELIEVER again, a believer in "Everything is awesome!"

Now you know I'm kidding!

Ben, we couldn't ask for a better example of how the cheer leaders for the "Everything is awesome" and "Everything is fine" crowd will grasp at any straw in the wind to quell the slightest doubts about the emperor's having on clothes and everything being dandy in the world of Rome.

Anybody who doubts the politics at work behind all of this, just like the politics of the Rhine flowing into the Tiber at Vatican II, is simply blind sighted by his will-to-believe.

Sorry, ol' sport.





Anon. II

said...

Ben,

In your last meandering response to my queries, I must say I follow very little of what you're saying.

There are so many places I feel like you are not "listening" to what I'm saying, but only catching bits and snatches, and then just talking past me and knocking down straw men.

Why did you use the Pope Benedict "condom" remark? What's your point? Do you think any of us wouldn't agree with you that the media distorted what he said or that his intention was something other than what was portrayed in the media?

That's not the issue. That's not the issue. That's not the issue.

The issue is NOT that the pope or a bishop or a council has said something that, despite media twisting, is capable of an interpretation that conforms to Church teaching.

The issue IS that they have said things that all-too-readily feed the fires of misunderstanding by lending themselves to interpretations at odds with Church teaching.

You are correct to point out that what is needed is for people to point out what is CORRECT. What you don't seem willing to admit is that in order to do this, you have to distinguish what is correct from what is INCORRECT. You can do this courteously, but it still involves calling a spade a spade.





Anon. II

said...

Ben,

In your last meandering response to my queries, I must say I follow very little of what you're saying.

There are so many places I feel like you are not "listening" to what I'm saying, but only catching bits and snatches, and then just talking past me and knocking down straw men.

Why did you use the Pope Benedict "condom" remark? What's your point? Do you think any of us wouldn't agree with you that the media distorted what he said or that his intention was something other than what was portrayed in the media?

That's not the issue. That's not the issue. That's not the issue.

The issue is NOT that the pope or a bishop or a council has said something that, despite media twisting, is capable of an interpretation that conforms to Church teaching.

The issue IS that they have said things that all-too-readily feed the fires of misunderstanding by lending themselves to interpretations at odds with Church teaching.

You are correct to point out that what is needed is for people to point out what is CORRECT. What you don't seem willing to admit is that in order to do this, you have to distinguish what is correct from what is INCORRECT. You can do this courteously, but it still involves calling a spade a spade.





Sheldon

said...

>Sheldon with all due respect I think you should re-check your powers of discernment because well I DID QUOTE YOUR KEY PASSAGE (go re-read what I wrote there is a good fellow).

Ben, I am duly rebuked and herewith eat humble pie for a moment. My apologies for the false accusation.

Okay, my moment of humble pie eating is over.

The fact that you did quote the passage makes me wonder all the more why you did not seem to notice or comment on the hideous distortions of natural law and magisterial teaching in the Relato's remark that Catholic communities ought to "accept and value" the same-sex orientation of homosexuals.

You make a great show of instructing me in "Thomism 101" about the elementary principles (derived from Plotinus via St. Augustine) of evil as metaphysical privation, but you fail to connect the dots and make any inference that engages anything said here.

Another truism of Thomism 101 is what is articulated in ST Prima Pars, Q2, a3, in his response to the initial objection: that God allows evil to bring greater good out of it, a point for which you provide good examples.

But is THIS what "accepting and valuing [the homosexual] orientation" sounds like? Is THIS what you call giving a "charitable" interpretation to such a passage? Is it not a matter of turning yourself into a pretzel in order to call black white?

There is nothing about the "happy fault" language of our tradition that makes sin itself good, from the original sin of Adam to the ill effects of sin such as objectively disordered sexual inclinations. The language ("happy fault") is poetic, and it underscores the aforementioned truth, that God's redemptive plan allows good to come out of the wicked malice and evil performed by men.

You insist that charity demands that the text of the Relato be given a fair hearing. I believe all those faithful prelates who have roundly condemned it (Mueller, Burke, the Polish bishops, and many others) would insist that it has, and been found wanting.

Neither is my assurance of the Church's ultimate vindication troubled, although I must concede that those who go about "calling evil good and good evil" (Is 5:20) fail to bring out the best in me.





BenYachov

said...

Anon II

>There are so many places I feel like you are not "listening" to what I'm saying, but only catching bits and snatches, and then just talking past me and knocking down straw men.

Welcome to my world.

>Why did you use the Pope Benedict "condom" remark? What's your point? Do you think any of us wouldn't agree with you that the media distorted what he said or that his intention was something other than what was portrayed in the media?

Not just that but he found moral value in a man using condoms for homosex. Now homosex is intrinsically evil and in essence has no value. Condoms also can make it easier for someone to have homosex and that contributes to enabling the evil. OTOH Benedict acknowledge the use can be motivated by a concern for others and the beginning of a moral conscience. The thing about evil is that it is either some privation or it good distorted. But we can still find the spark of the good that can be fanned to a flame.

Now for what you think is the issue.

>The issue is NOT that the pope or a bishop or a council has said something that, despite media twisting, is capable of an interpretation that conforms to Church teaching.

>The issue IS that they have said things that all-too-readily feed the fires of misunderstanding by lending themselves to interpretations at odds with Church teaching.

Considering the circumstances and the nature of the media that looks to me practically like a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

>You are correct to point out that what is needed is for people to point out what is CORRECT. What you don't seem willing to admit is that in order to do this, you have to distinguish what is correct from what is INCORRECT. You can do this courteously, but it still involves calling a spade a spade.

You seem to think the Church has to always keep repeating the bloody obvious? Well maybe given the short attention span of the public and media at large that wouldn’t be such a bad thing to attempt but realistically they don’t have to keep teaching that homosex is intrinsically evil. They can assume it & evaluate the nature of gay relationships sans the propensity to have homosex & point out the good that is present.

Anon II do you ever actually talk or argue with gay people over what the CCC says about homosex? I have. It goes something like this you explain a homosexual orientation is objectively disordered the gay person responds “So I am disordered!!!”. Which does not mean to him/her “So I am not perfect just like everyone else”. This means to him/her “So you are telling me you who are straight are not as broken as I am. I am not normal therefore I am less than you!” Gays in my experience are won to Christ not because you make them ashamed of their gayness or feel inferior. But because you show them His Love. They then learn over time part of returning that love is to submit to the Divine Will & they move away from gaysex because they learn it is against the divine will of the one they love.

Can you dig it?*

*got the Warriors in my cloud I couldn't resist the reference.





BenYachov

said...

@Shaeldon

>Ben, I am duly rebuked and herewith eat humble pie for a moment. My apologies for the false accusation.

I like a guy who admits their mistakes and is self critical. I hope I can prove to be your equal in that when my turn comes.

>The fact that you did quote the passage makes me wonder all the more why you did not seem to notice or comment on the hideous distortions of natural law and magisterial teaching in the Relato's remark that Catholic communities ought to "accept and value" the same-sex orientation of homosexuals.

Well we now know the translation was wrong & I was just responding to what I saw at face value while thinking with the mind of the Church & interpreting it accordingly. Also you state there is a violation here of natural law and magisterial teaching but you don’t actually it seems go out of your way to explain what that happens to be? In short you are as vague and ambiguous as Vatican II.;-) Just saying…..but maybe at time goes on you will become more clear.

>You make a great show of instructing me in "Thomism 101" about the elementary principles (derived from Plotinus via St. Augustine) of evil as metaphysical privation, but you fail to connect the dots and make any inference that engages anything said here.

Welcome to my world.


>Another truism of Thomism 101 is what is articulated in ST Prima Pars, Q2, a3, in his response to the initial objection: that God allows evil to bring greater good out of it, a point for which you provide good examples.

>But is THIS what "accepting and valuing [the homosexual] orientation" sounds like?

Don’t you mean "accepting and valuing [the homosexual] orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony"?
Because that later modifier moves me to ask myself “How can a gay sexual orientation be of value”? To which I have already given an answer.
But since this all comes from a faulty translation anyway the point is moot.

> Is THIS what you call giving a "charitable" interpretation to such a passage? Is it not a matter of turning yourself into a pretzel in order to call black white?

What I don’t understand is why you separate the first part of that sentence from the second part as so to evaluate it sans the second part?

>There is nothing about the "happy fault" language of our tradition that makes sin itself good, from the original sin of Adam to the ill effects of sin such as objectively disordered sexual inclinations.

This is assuming the sentence taken at face value was meaning to teach the value of a gay sexual orientation was in it’s essence and not of accidental value which is the nature of the good value of the “happy fault” via the intervention of Divine Providence to bring about the Incarnation.





BenYachov

said...

Part II
>The language ("happy fault") is poetic, and it underscores the aforementioned truth, that God's redemptive plan allows good to come out of the wicked malice and evil performed by men.

Meaning it’s value is accidental not essential and without compromising Catholic doctrine that is the only conclusion I can give it since if I interpret it to mean a gay sexual orientation is valuable in essence then I would be compromising Catholic doctrine and we can’t have that.

>You insist that charity demands that the text of the Relato be given a fair hearing. I believe all those faithful prelates who have roundly condemned it (Mueller, Burke, the Polish bishops, and many others) would insist that it has, and been found wanting.

It gives the view points on giving communion to those in irregular marriages as championed by Cardinal Kasper which is old news. Which the Bishops will hash out & I support the view they are wrong. But I am not worried about those of the opposite view as long as their mentality is one of submission to the Church’s judgement. It is the potential rebels on either side that cause me concern.

>Neither is my assurance of the Church's ultimate vindication troubled, although I must concede that those who go about "calling evil good and good evil" (Is 5:20) fail to bring out the best in me.

A Gnu Atheist once challenged me by asking how can a purely Good God who contains no evil sustain the existence of a being of pure evil like Satan? Well the answer is obvious to any Thomist. Satan is not pure evil per say. The concept of any "being of pure evil" is an oxymoron metaphysically. As far as Satan has being and is actual he is good. So it was helpful for me to point out and value the good of Satan to clear the confusion of this poor Gnu but I certainly wasn’t saying Satan was now St Lucifer the Archangel.

The translation of the text it seems turned out to be bogus so the point is moot. But I certainly can if I put my mind to it thinking with the mind of the Church find value in a homosexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine. This certainly doesn’t translate saying a homosexual orientation is good in essence.





BenYachov

said...

This is even more interesting and special.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/good-news-from-the-synod-of-bishops-12-things-to-know-and-share

Cardinal Pell-[T]he document was an “incomplete resumé” of what the Synod Fathers had said it needed to be “enhanced and corrected”. He added that after the relatio had been presented three-quarters of the participants in the synod hall who had made interventions had voiced problems with the text. “The question of Communion for divorced and remarried is only the tip of the iceberg," he told The Tablet. "In seeking to be merciful, some want to open up Catholic teaching on marriage, divorce, civil unions, homosexuality in a radically liberalising direction, whose fruits we see in other Christian traditions,” he said. He added it was “strange that there was so little in the document on scriptural teaching and magisterial teaching on marriage, sexuality, family.” “The task now is to reassure good practising Catholics that doctrinal changes are not possible; to urge people to take a deep breath, pause and to work to prevent deeper divisions and radicalising of factions.”

Jimmy Akin says:
The English translation (flagged as “unofficial”) reads as if it was translated by a native Italian-speaker and then not checked by a native English-speaker.
It contains typos and grammatical mistakes, it uses words that either do not exist in English or that are not used in that way in English (what the heck is “the pastoral of the family” or “today’s pastoral” in this context?), and it contains translations that may be misleading."

Concern is a good thing but panic is useless and is a threat to Faith more so then Cardinal Kasper.







Pertinacious Papist

said...

>This is even more interesting and special.

I already posted on this. My good friend Jimmy points out nothing new here that we didn't already know, but he does so under his inimitably ebullient title in his own systematic way.

No one should be surprised that the Relatio didn't reflect the general tone of the meetings. It was a document produced by the saboteurs for their faction, aiming to railroad the message of the entire Synod.





Anon. II

said...

Mr. "Don't Worry, Be Happy" writes:

>I certainly can if I put my mind to it thinking with the mind of the Church find value in a homosexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine. This certainly doesn’t translate saying a homosexual orientation is good in essence.

And here Mr. "DWBH" shows just how much of the cultural cool aid of the Vatican II ethos he has imbibed.

Look at this statement! It's just like so many statements in the notorious documents of Vatican II!!

ON THE ONE HAND, it can be interpreted in accordance with church teaching IF you tweak the meaning here and there and squint real hard. In this case, we can eliminate its ambiguities as follows: Although the homosexual orientation is objectively disordered since it is oriented toward acts that are intrinsically evil, but we can still value and being of the homosexual person as created in God's image.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it can just as easily (perhaps more easily) be interpreted in conformity with the sexual anarchy of our times as viewing the homosexual orientation itself as benign, at worst. In this case it can eliminate its ambiguities as follows: Although gay sex may have its difficulties and even culpabilities, the homosexual orientation itself is not intrinsically disordered, and so our gay friends should be welcomed and affirmed and hugged and appreciated for having been gifted by this divine gift of happily gay orientation because of all that it has to offer and teach us.

Let me echo the words of Cardinal Dolan and say "Bravo!"





Anon. II

said...

We can "find value in the homosexual orientation" while denying that it is "good in essence"?

Vatican II Speak, through and through.





BenYachov

said...


So Anon II can you do me a solid and actually respond to my points with intelligent counter argument instead if dismissals & empty rhetoric?

Obviously I annoy people if I use terms such as "trads" and "Radtrad". But how are you any better with buzz words like "Vatican II speak"or "DWBH"?

Which I wouldn't mind if you actually included some counter real argument. But here we are......

Still, I have received worst insults in my life then merely being accused of being happy and not worried.

Happiness is a virtue btw so I think you for the compliment even if that was clearly not your intent.

>ON THE ONE HAND, it can be interpreted in accordance with church teaching IF you tweak the meaning here and there and squint real hard.

Cart before the horse. You are assuming a heterodox meaning yet you are contradicting yourself.

For example:
>In this case, we can eliminate its ambiguities as follows.

If this text is ambiguous(& I would not dispute that) then we can't know the real meaning that is allegedly heterodox? We are obligated to read it in an Orthodox way.

>it can just as easily (perhaps more easily) be interpreted in conformity with the sexual anarchy of our times as viewing the homosexual orientation itself as benign...

It is benign in so far as it is not acted upon. A heterosexual orientation is benign if not acted on or only acted on lawfully. If unlawfully then intrinsically evil acts are preformed. The only difference between these orientations is one has a lawful outlet the other has none.

>Although gay sex may have its difficulties and even culpabilities,

You mean gay sex is "morally problematic" to use the actual Vatican II speak being used here as opposed to straight sex between validly married people.

>the homosexual orientation itself is not intrinsically disordered,

If it was the CCC would have said so. It is merely objectively disordered.

>and so our gay friends should be welcomed and affirmed and hugged and appreciated for having been gifted by this divine gift of happily gay orientation because of all that it has to offer and teach us.

Or we can treat them like spiritual lepers & shout "unclean!" when we see them walking down the road. Perhaps that is more too you liking?

Still I like Michael's Voris take on gays. Hard to ever label him a complete reactionary when he shows such an awesome synthesis between orthodoxy and charity.

Victim souls with an opportunity for great holiness.

I like it.





BenYachov

said...

@Dr PB!!!!:-)

>No one should be surprised that the Relatio didn't reflect the general tone of the meetings. It was a document produced by the saboteurs for their faction, aiming to railroad the message of the entire Synod.

The semi-Arians tried to do that at Nicene and Protestant fellow Travelers tried that at Trent.

The only difference today is this can be streamed or caught on a cell phone real time.

They should just lock down the Synod and Catholics should just ignore the media till the Church officially speaks.

The worst that will come is something ambitious which can be given an orthodox interpretation or at best something clear and orthodox.

If ambiguous then orthodox Catholics should get out ahead of it and given an orthodox spin on it.

Why stamp your feet and let the liberals define everything? It's like watching Mit Romney campaign!

You go to war with the army and weapons you have not the ones you wish you had.


*I hope there is no double post my connection is acting up...





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Hey Ben,

You had a triple post of that last one. Your computer was acting up indeed.

Anyway, I have considerable sympathy for the idea that Catholic councils and synods ought to be incommunicado until their deliberations are finished.

Half the problem at this synod, like that at Vatican II, was bishops and other prelates feeling like they were in the lime light having to respond before a politically-correct, trendy-lefty world that would respond with mocking derision at anything consistent with Catholic tradition.

On the other hand, Cardinal Müller is saying that the faithful have a right to know what their bishops say in the process of deliberation. I can see that side of it too. Yet I think a lot of bad politicking could be avoided without the grandstands.





BenYachov

said...

Thanks Doc B for cleaning up the triple post. Again sorry about that.

Your a gentleman & a scholar.

Peace be with you good sir.