Cardinal Marx: Church should see positive aspects of homosexual relationships [CWN]

[Blue_Horizon]

While there can be mitigating circumstances regarding whether a particular act is morally licit, such as violence against another person being justifiable if the other person is an aggressor and the violence against the aggressor is in self-defense, in other instances an act can never be moral. St. Thomas writes that certain acts “have a deformity which is inseparably annexed to them, such as fornication, adultery and other things of this sort, which can in no way be done morally” (Quaestiones Quodlibetales, 9, q.7, a.2). Recall that Canon Law, John Paul II’s FC, the CDF’s document from 1994 does not focus on mortal sin, but rather the objective sin of the “irregular” situation.

I I am not sure if your observation is quite subtle or your contribution is perhaps a little off topic?
Can you simplify your point perhaps?

I accept killing is grave matter yet on occasions can be done in a fully free act of self-defence.
And the reason is only because of the pr of double effect whereby the direct act is Not the killing. So really this boils down to a non imputable killing because the consent is not fully there but only indirectly there. But that’s a very subtle point you may not mean?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Would you say the same with regard to reading the New Testament? It’s quite older than an ‘older’ Catechism.

The parallel is a poor one.

There is an appropriate one, however.

Just as one greatly impoverishes oneself by recourse to a catechism written for a community over 400 years ago – when one properly benefits from hearing the voice of the Church today speaking to today with the knowledge it has today – one would greatly impoverish oneself reading either the New Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures relying on biblical scholarship of 150 or more year ago, antecedent to the Ecole Biblique, for example.

The Roman Catechism brought together a handful of experts of its day. Of course, a very great deal has happened in theology since those days. And The Catechism of the Catholic Church results from the collaboration of some of the greatest scholars of the era in which it was crafted.

What a joy and delight it was, for example, to spend time in the Holy Land with the benefit of modern archaeology’s insights – rather than relying on the outdated scholarship of ages long past that contained the merest fraction of what can be known today.

 

[JosieN]

Most people here would have no trouble understanding what Pope Francis means by the word Josie. Try not to over think it.

I am not as sure about this as you are. There are many ways to interpret it. I think it was meant for people who are mentally incapable of understanding what sin is. These words support my understanding, “A subject may know full well the rule, yet have **great difficulty **in understanding “its inherent values”,” If this is the case then they would not be in mortal sin or deprived of sanctifying grace because they have a mental disability which prevents them from understanding the wrong they do. It could refer to those who even if you explained to them why and what they were doing is wrong, they could not understand it. I do not think it applies to those who do not have great difficultly understanding things.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

More…

"The strong point of conservatives is that they conserve. They are faithful. They keep the faith. They are anchored in the faith. Their weak point is that they tend to be pugnacious and angry and graceless and merciless and loveless.

The strong point of liberals is their soft heart, their compassion. Their weak point is their soft head, their lack of principles, faith, fidelity, and anchors. They are strong on mercy, but weak on justice and on objective and unchanging moral principles—strong on love but weak on truth."–Peter Kreeft

Kreeft is a great writer.

 

[irenaeus1]

I I am not sure if your observation is quite subtle or your contribution is perhaps a little off topic?
Can you simplify your point perhaps?

I accept killing is grave matter yet on occasions can be done in a fully free act of self-defence.
And the reason is only because of the pr of double effect whereby the direct act is Not the killing. So really this boils down to a non imputable killing because the consent is not fully there but only indirectly there. But that’s a very subtle point you may not mean?

Murder is an intrinsic evil - meaning it is always and everywhere morally wrong, while killing is not necessarily an intrinsic evil. Adultery and fornication are intrinsic evils - meaning they are always and everywhere morally wrong.

 

[zz912]

You may have missed post #503.

I saw and read it. I refuted it as well. Your posts are in error as I noted previously.

 

[zz912]

Jesus had already established rapport with her, he literally saved her life, because he had rapport she listened.

No He didn’t. There is no indication that Jesus had ever met the woman caught in adultery before the encounter recorded in scripture.

 

[zz912]

More…

"The strong point of conservatives is that they conserve. They are faithful. They keep the faith. They are anchored in the faith. Their weak point is that they tend to be pugnacious and angry and graceless and merciless and loveless.

The strong point of liberals is their soft heart, their compassion. Their weak point is their soft head, their lack of principles, faith, fidelity, and anchors. They are strong on mercy, but weak on justice and on objective and unchanging moral principles—strong on love but weak on truth."–Peter Kreeft

Completely disagree with this broad-stroked stereotyping based on liberal mythology. Heaven help the people who are subject to the “mercy” of liberals.

 

[PRmerger]

Completely disagree with this broad-stroked stereotyping based on liberal mythology. Heaven help the people who are subject to the “mercy” of liberals.

What you mean, perhaps, is that you agree with the broad-stroked application, but that we understand that individuals may vary…and that this may be a spectrum.

For it’s clear that there’s hardly a person who can disagree with Kreeft’s observation–he is correct as it applies to generalities of conservatives and liberals.

 

[PRmerger]

Kreeft is a great writer.

To be sure!

 

[irenaeus1]

Let me repeat that.
Not all wrongs are sins.

“All wrongdoing is sin,…” I John 5:17

 

[zz912]

What you mean, perhaps, is that you agree with the broad-stroked application, but that we understand that individuals may vary…and that this may be a spectrum.

For it’s clear that there’s hardly a person who can disagree with Kreeft’s observation–he is correct as it applies to generalities of conservatives and liberals.

No, I disagree with the stereotypes in total. I don’t find liberals to be very merciful, and I find conservatives to be quite merciful.

The stereotype is based on the false notion that there is mercy without justice, or love without truth.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Well if the NT is different from the Catechism then we have a problem. God’s Word comes to us through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching Authority of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was established long before the Bible was compiled…by the Catholic Church.

It is a different type of text.

The parallel is a poor one.

There is an appropriate one, however.

Just as one greatly impoverishes oneself by recourse to a catechism written for a community over 400 years ago – when one properly benefits from hearing the voice of the Church today speaking to today with the knowledge it has today – one would greatly impoverish oneself reading either the New Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures relying on biblical scholarship of 150 or more year ago, antecedent to the Ecole Biblique, for example.

The Roman Catechism brought together a handful of experts of its day. Of course, a very great deal has happened in theology since those days. And The Catechism of the Catholic Church results from the collaboration of some of the greatest scholars of the era in which it was crafted.

What a joy and delight it was, for example, to spend time in the Holy Land with the benefit of modern archaeology’s insights – rather than relying on the outdated scholarship of ages long past that contained the merest fraction of what can be known today.

That is a much better way to put it.

No He didn’t. There is no indication that Jesus had ever met the woman caught in adultery before the encounter recorded in scripture.

I did misspeak, trust would be a better term albeit still imperfect. The woman understood that Jesus meant her no harm as he literally saved her life and could see he was a could person.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I disagree with the stereotypes in total. I don’t find liberals to be very merciful, and I find conservatives to be quite merciful.

The stereotype is based on the false notion that there is mercy without justice, or love without truth.

Example A that Kreeft is right.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

The parallel is a poor one.

There is an appropriate one, however.

Just as one greatly impoverishes oneself by recourse to a catechism written for a community over 400 years ago – when one properly benefits from hearing the voice of the Church today speaking to today with the knowledge it has today – one would greatly impoverish oneself reading either the New Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures relying on biblical scholarship of 150 or more year ago, antecedent to the Ecole Biblique, for example.

The Roman Catechism brought together a handful of experts of its day. Of course, a very great deal has happened in theology since those days. And The Catechism of the Catholic Church results from the collaboration of some of the greatest scholars of the era in which it was crafted.

What a joy and delight it was, for example, to spend time in the Holy Land with the benefit of modern archaeology’s insights – rather than relying on the outdated scholarship of ages long past that contained the merest fraction of what can be known today.

Very well stated. I could not agree more.

The same will be true 400 years from now, however, will it not? Why, given a sufficient enough history that allows us to make this observation, can we not see the Catechism of today in the same light, unless we arrogantly claim that we are at the pinnacle of human understanding that surpasses not only previous generations, but future ones? Can the Catholic Church not embrace and teach its Catechism while recognizing the reality that our knowledge and understanding of God’s creation will continue to grow and deepen and put its trust in the Holy Spirit to guide us into the future?

 

[irenaeus1]

The parallel is a poor one.

There is an appropriate one, however.

Just as one greatly impoverishes oneself by recourse to a catechism written for a community over 400 years ago – when one properly benefits from hearing the voice of the Church today speaking to today with the knowledge it has today – one would greatly impoverish oneself reading either the New Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures relying on biblical scholarship of 150 or more year ago, antecedent to the Ecole Biblique, for example.

The Roman Catechism brought together a handful of experts of its day. Of course, a very great deal has happened in theology since those days. And The Catechism of the Catholic Church results from the collaboration of some of the greatest scholars of the era in which it was crafted.

What a joy and delight it was, for example, to spend time in the Holy Land with the benefit of modern archaeology’s insights – rather than relying on the outdated scholarship of ages long past that contained the merest fraction of what can be known today.

While various aspects and subtle nuances in understanding doctrine has developed, nothing doctrinally has changed in 400 years, much less in 150 years. So, no, studying the Catechism of the Council of Trent or early Church fathers or the Councils prior to Vatican II or the Baltimore Catechism will not greatly impoverish oneself.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“All wrongdoing is sin,…” I John 5:17

That’s as helpful as opining all Blackboxes are colored black Irenaeus.
Perhaps we can move beyond the literal and discuss what different people from different times in different languages and cultures are really saying by taking a wider focus than zooming in on a 3 worded phrase?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Murder is an intrinsic evil - meaning it is always and everywhere morally wrong, while killing is not necessarily an intrinsic evil. Adultery and fornication are intrinsic evils - meaning they are always and everywhere morally wrong.

Obviously murder, by the very semantic definition is always morally wrong.
But one cannot see murder, one only sees killing.
Therfore if we are going to have an intelligent discussion the grist will be objective deeds like killing, adultery, fornication which are not morally biased to begin with.

Such deeds a moral theologian does NOT strictly call “morally wrong.” They are called “disordered” or grave matter. We do not yet have enough information to decide the moral quality of them. The word moral implies some degree of consent or understanding in the agent.

I am not going to relitigate this…if you had taken the time to come up to speed on this thread it’s been explained many times by many persons other than myself here.
You either get it or you don’t sorry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I saw and read it. I refuted it as well. Your posts are in error as I noted previously.

#503: I’ll not be continuing to discuss these matters with you ZZ as the requisite equanimity and openess needed to have a profitable dialogue I prudently judge to be missing at present."
No personal animosity, just prudence.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…Too many conservatives are more concerned with “truth telling” and appearing to be a good “traditionalist Catholic” than in actually doing things that result in the saving souls. When someone’s “truth telling” is so bad in order to satisfy their ego it isn’t just wrong, it is immoral.

I don’t think its right to presume that people are stating truths “in order to satisfy their ego”.
You don’t know what is in their hearts.

We should be careful about accusing our catholic brothers and sisters of immorality just because they say things with which we might disagree - especially where church teaching is concerned.

Too many Catholics concerned with truth?