Correcting Fr. James Martin Yet Again, Differences Between Catholics &

  • Thread starter Thread starter irenaeus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
But because they are not properly ordered, they are disordered.
Click to expand...
This. One of the reasons I actually like Fr. James Martin, even though disordered or any other different than what is considered God made (which He did make these people)….He still speaks love to them. So difficult for persons to just speak love to someone exactly like themselves, but live the Gospel humanizes them in a way that makes us view them as worthy of our love. We love not our neighbor nor our enemy these days, it appears in this Jesuits case he is speaking the Gospel.
 
DENNYINMI said:
There is a beautiful thread in one of these forums right now where persons of SSA are exposing themselves to one another by way of their hearts. While we’re all arguing, we’re missing it. metoo
Click to expand...
How nice for them. Thanks for sharing!
 
DENNYINMI said:
He still speaks love to them.
Click to expand...
This is the root of many misconcpetions about the Church. The Church does not speak hate to anyone. The Church is open and welcoming to all who seek Christ’s mercy.
 
Yes, it’s heartwarming how we always welcome the stranger amongst us, Jesus in disguise. But, do we really? The answer to this isn’t answered collectively. The Church in formal reference does, but the members? Not always.
 
DENNYINMI said:
But, do we really?
Click to expand...
Yes, we do. Not every single parishoner is welcoming to every single newcomer, but I have never seen anyone shunned when they come to church. This idea that we do not welcome strangers is a stereotype that I have never seen in my experience.
 
Ah, but not a “stereotype” to the people who have been treated poorly.

People can be rude and unwelcoming. I have seen it. One sticks out in particular, a young mother with a 3 y.o. and a infant went running out of the Church, children in tow, because some busybody admonished her for letting her 3 y.o color on her tablet. The child was quiet, was not disprupting anyone, thw tablet was on silent and Mom was actually able to enjoy Mass.
She was in tears. She was new to the parish, new to the area, and newly widowed. It was only the 3rd time,she jad been there, and this was the first time someone spoke to her other than at the sign of peace.

Sadly, this happens more often than not.
 
CilladeRoma said:
Sadly, this happens more often than not.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t believe that it happens more often than not. There are plenty of families at every Mass I go to, even daily Mass at 6:30AM for that to be true. Also, the issue that I originally responded to was whether the Church is accepting or not, and I still have never been in a church anywhere that was anything less than welcoming of anyone who came in. Individual rude parishoners should not be taken to represent the Church at large.
 
alphonsus1 said:
Cardinal Muller, perfect of the CDF, says we can never ask a sitting Pope to resign (advising an aging Pope with Parkinson’s disease to resign is another question).
Click to expand...
Isn’t an aging Pope with Parkinson’s disease a sitting pope?
 
alphonsus1 said:
I would rather have “not properly ordered.” It is written in a kinder and more sensitive way, but still conveys that the acts are disordered.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t there be a change in meaning here? Perhaps objectively dis-ordered is meant to convey the opposite of properly ordered, while not-properly ordered suggests the absence of proper order rather than being in contradiction to proper order?
 
  1. Yes, a Pope is a sitting Pope unless he voluntarily resigns. We must interpret Cardinal Muller’s remarks in the most positive light, especially given his language barrier (he is a German speaker). By “never,” he likely was not intending to speak about extraordinary circumstances like Parkinson’s disease.
  2. “Ordered” just refers to the good that the will inherently directs itself towards. An act that is evil by its very nature is deprived of a good in its object. So “not properly ordered,” “intrinsically evil,” “inherently disordered,” “evil in itself,” “inherently evil,” all are close synonyms referring to the same thing: that the act is deprived of a human good in the moral object of the act. Finally, “disordered” does not refer to the gravity of how bad the act it. That is why it can be replaced with “differently ordered,” or “not properly ordered,” and as long as “objectively grave depravity” (adding ‘objectively’), then the meaning of just how bad homosexual sex acts actually are remains the same.
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
By “never,” he likely was not intending to speak about extraordinary circumstances like Parkinson’s disease.
Click to expand...
That’s your personal interpretation. Perhaps a man as highly educated as Cardinal Muller knows the meaning of the word never and deliberately chose that? After all, words such as almost and generally and unless and except might have been chosen to be placed with never to create the meaning you seeking to assign to a very specific choice of wording.
 
alphonsus1 said:
“Ordered” just refers to the good that the will inherently directs itself towards. An act that is evil by its very nature is deprived of a good in its object. So “not properly ordered,” “intrinsically evil,” “inherently disordered,” “evil in itself,” “inherently evil,” all are close synonyms referring to the same thing: that the act is deprived of a human good in the moral object of the act. Finally, “disordered” does not refer to the gravity of how bad the act it. That is why it can be replaced with “differently ordered,” or “not properly ordered,” and as long as “objectively grave depravity” (adding ‘objectively’), then the meaning of just how bad homosexual sex acts actually are remains the same.
Click to expand...
The different expressions have different shadings and theologians will be sensitive to these nuances and choose their words very carefully.
 
There is a difference in meaning. Yet both meanings are true. The set of things differently ordered contains all those things not properly ordered, which contains all things objectively disordered.

If the Church ever does change the language to be more pastoral, and yet convey the full meaning, there are other ways to do that, albeit more wordy ways. For example, you can say that homosexual marriages are differently ordered after giving the proper order of marriage, and presenting that proper relationship as the singular order for marital intimacy. Then saying that homosexual marriages are ordered differently would have context. That’s a lot of words just to replace a couple.
 
Last edited:
I get your point, although I would suggest that the set of things differently ordered could include both properly ordered and objectively disordered due to the differences between them.
They are ordered differently.
 
It’s all about the little, incremental changes with the homosexualists and their agenda.
 
Last edited:
The words “objectively disordered” already assume “different.” Different as in, ‘ordered toward an abominable act.’
 
The language objectively disordered seems less broad, more precise. Why risk the possibility of sowing confusion through promoting a change which seems to offer less clarity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top