A word on Pope Francis for my fellow Traditionalist

[Mike30]

To clarify, a person should not reject something solely because it does not make sense to him. We accept all kinds of law changes and other things that do not make sense. If Carlin rejects Catholicism, it doesn’t ring true that he rejects it cause it doesn’t make sense. There are probably other reasons. (Like it’s inconvenient perhaps?)

Perhaps, but since he made more than a few statements on the subject and was very vocal aboutthose things, I will accept what he said about his own personal feelings on the issue. I do hope that he made peace with God and the Church and came home before he passed.

 

[clem456]

Perhaps, but since he made more than a few statements on the subject and was very vocal aboutthose things, I will accept what he said about his own personal feelings on the issue. I do hope that he made peace with God and the Church and came home before he passed.

Didn’t realize he died. Had a lot of laughs listening to his stuff years ago.

 

[OraLabora]

With respect to allowing gay marriage via the foot washing, I agree. I am not concerned that gay marriage will become okay in the Catholic Church.

HOWEVER, we continue to hear heretical comments made by other Church leaders/former Church leaders that civil unions should be allowed. There is also the ongoing question as to the pope’s stance on civil unions when he was Cardinal (there are two conflicting reports if I remember correctly). Because of these things, I think it is imperative for our Pope to speak **loud and clear **on the unchanging doctrine of the Church on this matter and put it to rest. After seeing some of his recent homilies, I feel more confident that he will indeed do this…it’s just a matter of time.

Not to hijack a thread, but to say that the Church won’t oppose civil unions for same-sex couples is hardly “heresy”. Charging someone with heresy is a very serious matter that shouldn’t be taken lightly nor with imperfect knowledge of canon law. None of us are qualified to make a charge of heresy stick.

The Church has de facto accepted that its jurisdiction cannot, in a pluralistic society, cover non-Catholics. The Church has lived with the fact that civil unions have existed for heterosexual couples for a very long time. The same thing with civil divorce.

The Church leaders who have adopted this view have not altered Church teaching. Same-sex marriage is not sanctioned within the Church. Homosexuals are still called to chastity like the rest of us. They are merely saying that it’s not something they’d oppose. It’s a recognition of the fact that others have different value systems. The Church can only bind Catholics. The Church has never been in the business of blessing civil unions and that won’t change. Same-sex “marriage” muddies the waters, because of the danger that some time later a society could try to compel the Church to marry same-sex couples or face civil or criminal sanctions, and it upends the very core of society, the family unit.

Now it may be imprudent for Church leaders to call for civil unions (for same or opposite sex couples for that matter) or even to just look the other way, and that can certainly be debated.

But it is most assuredly not heresy and it would behoove us to tone down the rhetoric somewhat.

 

[Lucky7]

Not to hijack a thread, but to say that the Church won’t oppose civil unions for same-sex couples is hardly “heresy”. Charging someone with heresy is a very serious matter that shouldn’t be taken lightly nor with imperfect knowledge of canon law. None of us are qualified to make a charge of heresy stick.

The Church has de facto accepted that its jurisdiction cannot, in a pluralistic society, cover non-Catholics. The Church has lived with the fact that civil unions have existed for heterosexual couples for a very long time. The same thing with civil divorce.

The Church leaders who have adopted this view have not altered Church teaching. Same-sex marriage is not sanctioned within the Church. Homosexuals are still called to chastity like the rest of us. They are merely saying that it’s not something they’d oppose. It’s a recognition of the fact that others have different value systems. The Church can only bind Catholics. The Church has never been in the business of blessing civil unions and that won’t change. Same-sex “marriage” muddies the waters, because of the danger that some time later a society could try to compel the Church to marry same-sex couples or face civil or criminal sanctions, and it upends the very core of society, the family unit.

Now it may be imprudent for Church leaders to call for civil unions (for same or opposite sex couples for that matter) or even to just look the other way, and that can certainly be debated.

But it is most assuredly not heresy and it would behoove us to tone down the rhetoric somewhat.

Church teaching does not support civil unions therefore Church leaders who say they wouldn’t be opposed ot them are stating something against Church teaching. Now if you don’t like term heretical belief/comment, then I’ll tone it down with “heterodox” belief, but in the end they mean the same thing to me.

Regardless of what you want to call it, maybe I’m crazy, but it seems to me that our Church leaders should be promoting Church teaching, not something else.

 

[JReducation]

With respect to allowing gay marriage via the foot washing, I agree. I am not concerned that gay marriage will become okay in the Catholic Church.

HOWEVER, we continue to hear heretical comments made by other Church leaders/former Church leaders that civil unions should be allowed. There is also the ongoing question as to the pope’s stance on civil unions when he was Cardinal (there are two conflicting reports if I remember correctly). Because of these things, I think it is imperative for our Pope to speak **loud and clear **on the unchanging doctrine of the Church on this matter and put it to rest. After seeing some of his recent homilies, I feel more confident that he will indeed do this…it’s just a matter of time.

A civil union would rise to the level of heresy if it declares such a union to be equivalent to marriage. The truth is that we already have such a law in our books. We have civil marriages around the world. No one pays much attention to them, because they’re between opposite genders. The gender issue raises the moral gravity of an already grave situation involving civil marriages. Also, civil unions seem to have different parameters and definitions from one country to another. I’m not sure that a systematic theologian would call a civil union heresy. Heresy, in Systematic Theology, has a very clear definition. Civil unions don’t seem to fit that definition.

The other issue is the urgency of such a statement. What we may believe is urgent and what the Pontiff believes is urgent is not always going to be the same. We have to go with what he believes is urgent. We have no control over him and we certainly don’t have the big picture that he has.

Interesting point from the bolded statement.

The late comedian George Carlin once said that this was the very thing that caused him to lapse from Catholicism. The simple fact that the Church could change its rules any time it wanted to. He said that to him that made no sense. If the Church says a law is a law then it should be a law that pertains to everyone all the time. It should not be a law one day, then not a law, then a law again.

Not saying that I agree with Carlin, just that it is an interesting point.

I believe that Carlin was thinking like many Americans. In our legal system, laws are very difficult to change, because change requires a process that is costly and complex. In an absolute sovereignty, there is no such process. Laws change according to the mind of the ruler. The ruler can dispense with laws for certain situations, suspend them for a period of time. Such power is a foreign concept to Americans.

 

[Lucky7]

A civil union would rise to the level of heresy if it declares such a union to be equivalent to marriage. The truth is that we already have such a law in our books. We have civil marriages around the world. No one pays much attention to them, because they’re between opposite genders. The gender issue raises the moral gravity of an already grave situation involving civil marriages. Also, civil unions seem to have different parameters and definitions from one country to another. I’m not sure that a systematic theologian would call a civil union heresy. Heresy, in Systematic Theology, has a very clear definition. Civil unions don’t seem to fit that definition.

The other issue is the urgency of such a statement. What we may believe is urgent and what the Pontiff believes is urgent is not always going to be the same. We have to go with what he believes is urgent. We have no control over him and we certainly don’t have the big picture that he has.

Brother, what is Church teaching on homosexual civil unions regardless of the country?

Wrt the urgency, I prefaced it with “I think”. Of course, the Pope may feel differently. And maybe he will feel differently because this doesn’t seem to be a universal issue (as in an issue throughout the world). However, i fail to see how a statement that reiterates Church teaching could hurt.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, what is Church teaching on homosexual civil unions regardless of the country?

I have never seen an official statement from the Vatican on civil unions. We have official statements on gay marriage, gay sex, gay rights and gay pastoral care.

The Church’s official position on gay sex would apply to civil union. Objectively speaking, a person who engages in gay sex is culpable of grave sin and the Church cannot condone it.

Condone is not the same as forgive, just in case anyone does not know. The Church must always forgive as Christ forgives.

I believe that this is what we will hear from Pope Francis, when he gets around to it. This is no surprise, because it’s already been said in so many ways. One wonders how many different ways one has to say something before people understand. Sometimes, I think that society is not listening or just plain stubborn.

 

[OraLabora]

Brother, what is Church teaching on homosexual civil unions regardless of the country?

There’s no need to bait our good brother. The teaching is that homosexual activity is gravely sinful. The Church also teaches that heterosexual activity outside valid natural or sacramental marriage is gravely sinful. Therefore there’s really no distinction to be made between one form of civil union or the other on the basis of sinfulness of the activity within; both heterosexual and homosexual civil unions can foster gravely sinful sexual activity.

However there is also the possibility of same- or opposite-sex civil unions that are chaste, but entered for reasons of financial convenience and mutual support this in fact may often be the case for elderly couples. My late mother and her spinster sister lived together for 30 years after my father died, in order to share expenses. They had no legal recognition, but there’s no reason why a couple could not enter a civil union for the same reasons, in order to protect legal rights such as pension transfers after death, etc.

Similarly, the Church denies marriage to a couple unable to consummate the marriage for reasons if irreversible impotence. Clearly a couple unable to have sex, entering a civil union because they can’t be married by the church, are not sinning. The Church cannot therefore oppose such a union. Such unions can and do exist (for instance between handicapped people), and far from being sinful can be a blessing for them. I know of several instances of elderly couples entering chaste marriages or civil unions because the love each other and want to ensure that the other’s inheritance rights are protected. Similarly an elderly same-sex couple past the age of being interested in sex could enter a civil union for the same reasons.

The Church should therefore not issue a blanket condemnation of civil unions because of the possibility they can be used in a manner consistent with Church teaching on sexuality. There is nothing inherent to a civil union that means it must be used as a vehicle for sinful sexual activity. Even within a marriage there can be sinful sexual activity, but that’s no reason to ban marriage.

The Holy Father can therefore say that the Church won’t “oppose” state laws on same-sex civil unions without giving rise to either heterodoxy or heresy, while at the same time consistently putting forth the view that sexual activity outside of a valid natural or sacramental marriage is sinful.

 

[clem456]

The Pope helps me to see that God’s economy…forgiveness, salvation, grace… is not a zero-sum game.

…a zero–sum game is a… situation in which a participant’s gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s).

The Pope reminds me not to fear giving totally to those who are seemingly “not worthy”, that there is plenty of God to go around for everyone. Unlike money and food.

 

[McCall1981]

**I have never seen an official statement from the Vatican on civil unions. ** We have official statements on gay marriage, gay sex, gay rights and gay pastoral care.

The Church’s official position on gay sex would apply to civil union. Objectively speaking, a person who engages in gay sex is culpable of grave sin and the Church cannot condone it.

Condone is not the same as forgive, just in case anyone does not know. The Church must always forgive as Christ forgives.

I believe that this is what we will hear from Pope Francis, when he gets around to it. This is no surprise, because it’s already been said in so many ways. One wonders how many different ways one has to say something before people understand. Sometimes, I think that society is not listening or just plain stubborn.

To the first bolded, what about that CDF document from 2003? Or is that a different kind of statement than what you’re referring to here (like a statement from the Pope)?

To the second bolded, what is it you expect to hear from Pope Francis?

 

[JReducation]

To the first bolded, what about that CDF document from 2003? Or is that a different kind of statement than what you’re referring to here (like a statement from the Pope)?

I may have misunderstood the original question. But I don’t think that this is the kind of statement that was being asked for. I poster to be saying that it had to be something from the pope. What came from the CDF was a statement based on the Church’s teaching on sexual activity between persons of the same gender. It’s a development of what’s already in the CCC.

To the second bolded, what is it you expect to hear from Pope Francis?

I expect him to repeat what’s in the CCC that sexual activity between people of the same gender is always gravely sinful. He may word it differently, but the concept is not going to change. It can’t change.

 

[McCall1981]

I may have misunderstood the original question. But I don’t think that this is the kind of statement that was being asked for. I poster to be saying that it had to be something from the pope. What came from the CDF was a statement based on the Church’s teaching on sexual activity between persons of the same gender. It’s a development of what’s already in the CCC.

I expect him to repeat what’s in the CCC that sexual activity between people of the same gender is always gravely sinful. He may word it differently, but the concept is not going to change. It can’t change.

I see, thanks

 

[JReducation]

I was reading the Holy Father’s statement at today’s audience. It’s rather fitting to this discussion. I think that at times we narrow down faith and morals too much. In other words, we tend to focus excessively on the sexual dimension of man to the detriment of the whole. The Holy Father spoke about the scripture and Jesus sermon on the final judgment. What jumps out at me is that we need to broaden our concern beyond sexual issues. Observe that I’m not saying we ignore sexual issues. I’m saying that we expand and see the whole of man as Christ sees us. I think the Holy Father brings this out in today’s address.
**
In the story, at the Lord’s left hand are those who did not assist their neighbour. “This tells us that we will be judged by God on charity, on how we have love our brothers and sisters, especially the weakest and most needy of them. Of course, we always have to keep in mind that we are judged, we are saved by grace, by an act of God’s gratuitous love that always precedes us. Alone we can do nothing. Faith is foremost a gift that we have received. But, to bear fruit, God’s grace always requires our openness to him, our free and concrete response. Christ comes to bring us the mercy of the God who saves. We have been asked to entrust ourselves to him, to make our good lives—made of deeds inspired by faith and love—match the gift of his love.”

“Looking to the final judgement must never frighten us,” the pontiff concluded. “Rather, it urges us to live the present better. With mercy and patience, God offers us this time so that we might learn every day to recognize him in the poor and the small, might strive for the good, and might be vigilant in prayer and love. The Lord, at the end of our existence and of history, may then recognize us as good and faithful servants.”
**

 

[Lucky7]

There’s no need to bait our good brother. The teaching is that homosexual activity is gravely sinful. The Church also teaches that heterosexual activity outside valid natural or sacramental marriage is gravely sinful. Therefore there’s really no distinction to be made between one form of civil union or the other on the basis of sinfulness of the activity within; both heterosexual and homosexual civil unions can foster gravely sinful sexual activity.

However there is also the possibility of same- or opposite-sex civil unions that are chaste, but entered for reasons of financial convenience and mutual support this in fact may often be the case for elderly couples. My late mother and her spinster sister lived together for 30 years after my father died, in order to share expenses. They had no legal recognition, but there’s no reason why a couple could not enter a civil union for the same reasons, in order to protect legal rights such as pension transfers after death, etc.

Similarly, the Church denies marriage to a couple unable to consummate the marriage for reasons if irreversible impotence. Clearly a couple unable to have sex, entering a civil union because they can’t be married by the church, are not sinning. The Church cannot therefore oppose such a union. Such unions can and do exist (for instance between handicapped people), and far from being sinful can be a blessing for them. I know of several instances of elderly couples entering chaste marriages or civil unions because the love each other and want to ensure that the other’s inheritance rights are protected. Similarly an elderly same-sex couple past the age of being interested in sex could enter a civil union for the same reasons.

The Church should therefore not issue a blanket condemnation of civil unions because of the possibility they can be used in a manner consistent with Church teaching on sexuality. There is nothing inherent to a civil union that means it must be used as a vehicle for sinful sexual activity. Even within a marriage there can be sinful sexual activity, but that’s no reason to ban marriage.

The Holy Father can therefore say that the Church won’t “oppose” state laws on same-sex civil unions without giving rise to either heterodoxy or heresy, while at the same time consistently putting forth the view that sexual activity outside of a valid natural or sacramental marriage is sinful.

And there’s no need for you to keep chastising me. I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[Lucky7]

I have never seen an official statement from the Vatican on civil unions. We have official statements on gay marriage, gay sex, gay rights and gay pastoral care.

The Church’s official position on gay sex would apply to civil union. Objectively speaking, a person who engages in gay sex is culpable of grave sin and the Church cannot condone it.

Condone is not the same as forgive, just in case anyone does not know. The Church must always forgive as Christ forgives.

I believe that this is what we will hear from Pope Francis, when he gets around to it. This is no surprise, because it’s already been said in so many ways. One wonders how many different ways one has to say something before people understand. Sometimes, I think that society is not listening or just plain stubborn.

Thank you for your thoughtful response Brother. I was asking because I was willing to admit I was wrong regarding Church teaching if in fact there was none. It is interesting that there is none per se. Regardless, like you said, the Church can not condone it based on its teaching on gay sex. However, we are experiencing certain leaders of the Church who are condoning it. It appears it isn’t just society that isn’t listening. I tend to think the former is more of a concern than the latter.

 

[Jaysuitical]

I was reading the Holy Father’s statement at today’s audience. It’s rather fitting to this discussion. I think that at times we narrow down faith and morals too much. In other words, we tend to focus excessively on the sexual dimension of man to the detriment of the whole. The Holy Father spoke about the scripture and Jesus sermon on the final judgment. What jumps out at me is that we need to broaden our concern beyond sexual issues. Observe that I’m not saying we ignore sexual issues. I’m saying that we expand and see the whole of man as Christ sees us. I think the Holy Father brings this out in today’s address.
**
In the story, at the Lord’s left hand are those who did not assist their neighbour. “This tells us that we will be judged by God on charity, on how we have love our brothers and sisters, especially the weakest and most needy of them. Of course, we always have to keep in mind that we are judged, we are saved by grace, by an act of God’s gratuitous love that always precedes us. Alone we can do nothing. Faith is foremost a gift that we have received. But, to bear fruit, God’s grace always requires our openness to him, our free and concrete response. Christ comes to bring us the mercy of the God who saves. We have been asked to entrust ourselves to him, to make our good lives—made of deeds inspired by faith and love—match the gift of his love.”

“Looking to the final judgement must never frighten us,” the pontiff concluded. “Rather, it urges us to live the present better. With mercy and patience, God offers us this time so that we might learn every day to recognize him in the poor and the small, might strive for the good, and might be vigilant in prayer and love. The Lord, at the end of our existence and of history, may then recognize us as good and faithful servants.”
**

A priest from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter said in a homily "Murder is a mortal sin; but God wants us to be more than not-murderers."

Earlier this week, Papa Francisco quoted Paul VI, so often maligned, so often forgotten – how many Catholics under the age 50 known anything about him? – as “the great Paul VI”. The true purpose of the Council – “the Council of the Fathers” as Pope Benedict put it – was not to embrace the world, but to present the Church teaching as comprehensively addressing all the concerns that are addressed in culture, that the teaching office of the Church had far more to say concerning the sins of the world than only things directed toward the more sensational and grievous of sins against bodily purity. Those sins stem as much from misery and loneliness as they do from idolatry and self-indulgence; and the kindred sins, the ones that always come in company with impurity, preceding it and surrounding it, are the sins that act as a guard around it. And only divine charity can pierce that guard and reach the isolation and misery of the soul that is seeking to assuage its own anguish.

 

[McCall1981]

A priest from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter said in a homily “Murder is a mortal sin; but God wants us to be more than not-murderers.”

Earlier this week, Papa Francisco quoted Paul VI, so often maligned, so often forgotten – how many Catholics under the age 50 known anything about him? – as “the great Paul VI”. The true purpose of the Council – “the Council of the Fathers” as Pope Benedict put it – was not to embrace the world, but to present the Church teaching as comprehensively addressing all the concerns that are addressed in culture, that the teaching office of the Church had far more to say concerning the sins of the world than only things directed toward the more sensational and grievous of sins against bodily purity. Those sins stem as much from misery and loneliness as they do from idolatry and self-indulgence; and the kindred sins, the ones that always come in company with impurity, preceding it and surrounding it, are the sins that act as a guard around it. And only divine charity can pierce that guard and reach the isolation and misery of the soul that is seeking to assuage its own anguish.

Wow, this is a really great post

 

[Lormar]

Wow, this is a really great post

I agree.

 

[Rich_C]

Wow, this is a really great post

+1!

 

[Lucky7]

Can someone dumb down that post for those of us who don’t understand it?