Detroit's pacifist bishop resigns-Pope to announce the move today

[msproule]

frommi:

Modernist philosophy is not USELESS to Catholics

You are correct. As Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Humani Generis indicate, Modernist philosophy and theology are useful in getting one censured and discredited.

and once again your use of “faithful” concerns me, at no point did I see anyone in this thread say they weren’t “faithful”.

I doubt anybody would actually claim to be unfaithful and my hope is that nobody here is. However, the very belief of Modernists is that they are actually helping to guide the Church. They think they are the epitome of faithfulness.

Now, we got onto this sidebar subject because contraception was mentioned. (Actually, it was because contraception was not mentioned directly by the Holy Father.) My initial reaction was to infer that contraception is absolutely wrong, as confirmed in Humanae Vitae and elsewhere.

 

[msproule]

EtienneGilson:

Probably the most beautiful thing I have seen written on this website.

The rest of the passage is nice, too. The beginning (which was probably excluded for the sake of brevity) mentions the recent teachings by the Holy Father against relativism. However, to me the author seems to suggest that the Church can never be trusted to discern what is absolute, although this was probably not his intention. The point is that there are things of which we can be certain, and in those examples we submit with “humility and courage” to the beacon of Truth on earth, the Church.

I will pray for Bishop Gumbleton that he will be a force of peace and a missionary for Christ as he enters this exciting time

Me, too.

 

[EtienneGilson]

msproule:

You are correct. As Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Humani Generis indicate, Modernist philosophy and theology are useful in getting one censured and discredited.

Really? And what happened to Thomism in 1277? Many things have been condemned rashly only to later be vindicated. One only needs to recall Luis Olivier Duschenes, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Johann Adam Mohler and many other theologians once condemned and later vindicated.

Pascendi is a particularly regretable encyclical because it brought such an cloud over Catholic scholarship at a time of a great Thomistic revival that Catholic theology still suffers from it. Many historians also noted that prior to Pascendi, modernism didn’t even really exist but Pius X managed to formalize and enshrine it; creating a modernist crisis when one could have been avoided.

Simply look at the last few sections, especially on censorship and:
*
VII - Triennial Returns

1. Lest what We have laid down thus far should fall into oblivion, We will and ordain that the Bishops of all dioceses, a year after the publication of these letters and every three years thenceforward, furnish the Holy See with a diligent and sworn report on all the prescriptions contained in them, and on the doctrines that find currency among the clergy* vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

I guess I live in a modernist Church, given that censorship has nearly dissapeared. My bishop (nor any I am aware of) doesn’t provide the triennial report. The office of episcopal censor has been abandoned etc.

 

[msproule]

Thank you, EtienneGilson; You have reassured me of my position. That is, it is not for you or I (or Theologian X) to make such determinations.

Pascendi is a particularly regretable encyclical because it brought such an cloud over Catholic scholarship at a time of a great Thomistic revival that Catholic theology still suffers from it.

OK, if you say so…

Now can we please get back on topic?

 

[setter]

frommi:

Bp. Gumbleton has done plenty good. It takes an awful lot to stand up and say what you believe to be true and not react with rancor or bitterness when you are misrepresented by folks with an agenda that runs counter to the gospel.

True to his colors, retired Bp. Gumbleton has not skipped a beat even now that he is retired in spreading his version of the gospel:

The Peace Pulpit: Homilies by Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton

Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time
February 12, 2006

By special arrangement, The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company is able to make available Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton’s weekly Sunday homilies given at Saint Leo Church, Detroit, MI. Each homily is transcribed from a tape recording of the actual delivery and made available to you as an NCR Web site exclusive.

If we look at ourselves individually, as a church family, as a nation, might we discover ways in which we do the very thing that Jesus got angry about? Excluding people? I have a lot of contacts because I’ve sort of developed a ministry with homosexual people – gay men, lesbian women. It is difficult for them to find what they call a “gay friendly” church, because so many of the Christian, supposedly Christian churches, push them away, even say horrible things about them like they’re an abomination. Or even as our own church document says they’re disordered, “intrinsically disordered.” How evil. We have to change our attitude if we’re going to be like Jesus.

We commit ourselves to try to change our lives so that we become more like Jesus and we pass down the values of Jesus to our youngest members.

nationalcatholicreporter.org/peace/pfg021206.htm

 

[msproule]

I believe there is an error in his statement:
Or even as our own church document says they’re disordered, “intrinsically disordered.”
As far as I know, the term “disordered” is used by the Church to describe the acts, not the actors. This personalization of the term will elicit a disproportionately emotional response, whether or not that was his intent. The so-called “Peace Pulpit” homilies seem to employ such intent often, although surely not always.

If individual laity, priests, or even bishops happen to use the term this way, I would consider them incorrect, as well.

I may be wrong, and if somebody can point me to an authoritative source that backs Bishop-Emeritus Gumbleton’s statement, I will retract mine.

 

[setter]

msproule:

I believe there is an error in his statement:
Or even as our own church document says they’re disordered, “intrinsically disordered.”
As far as I know, the term “disordered” is used by the Church to describe the acts, not the actors.
I may be wrong, and if somebody can point me to an authoritative source that backs Bishop-Emeritus Gumbleton’s statement, I will retract mine.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated **homosexual tendencies ** is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. (CCC)

 

[msproule]

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated **homosexual tendencies **is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. (CCC)

This is not the same as saying: You are objectively disordered.

Rather, CCC 2358 states: You suffer from an objective (intrinsic, etc.) disorder.

I do not think it is quite the same thing. Is it?

 

[Brendan]

Crimney! He even got the theology wrong
+Gumbleton:

Or even as our own church document says they’re disordered, “intrinsically disordered.” How evil. We have to change our attitude if we’re going to be like Jesus.

The Church states that homosexuality is objectively disordered, not intrinsically.

The nature of the disorder (sexual love) is fine. Sexual love can be a good thing, so the instrinsic nature is fine.

The disorder is related to the OBJECT of the love, a person of the same sex.

So homosexuality is OBJECTIVELY disordered, that is, a disorder of object.

As mentioned above, the acts themselves are evil in nature ( intrinsically), homosexuality itself is a disorder of object.

The ordering of ones sexually love is improperly ordered (disordered) towards a false object (a person of the same sex).

In other words, Objectively Disordered.

If +Gumbleton is going to comment on Church teaching, could he at least get it right?

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

Crimney! He even got the theology wrong

The Church states that homosexuality is objectively disordered, not intrinsically.

The nature of the disorder (sexual love) is fine. Sexual love can be a good thing, so the instrinsic nature is fine.

The disorder is related to the OBJECT of the love, a person of the same sex.

So homosexuality is OBJECTIVELY disordered, that is, a disorder of object.

As mentioned above, the acts themselves are evil in nature ( intrinsically), homosexuality itself is a disorder of object.

The ordering of ones sexually love is improperly ordered (disordered) towards a false object (a person of the same sex).

In other words, Objectively Disordered.

If +Gumbleton is going to comment on Church teaching, could he at least get it right?

There was a 1986 document that used 'intrisically"

 

[Jesus4Me]

This thread seems to be closed, but I can’t help but add something. There are quite obviosly some who have been hurt by this Bishop. It not easy to do, but shouldn’t we love and pray for him instead of spend several days of posts trying to figure out if the guy was a worthy Bishop? He was not perfect and neither are we. But, aren’t we all worthy of the forgiveness purchased for us with Jesus’ precious blood? And, can’t we at least be charitable towards him? Every human being deserves that. Please pray for him.

It is not my intent to revive this thread - but I just read through the entire thread and felt I needed to reply.

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

There was a 1986 document that used 'intrisically"

If you are refering to the CDF document “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”

Here is the text

1. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, sect. 4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Note that this document just quotes a description of the homosexual condition.

In quotes from Persona Humana and here is the section it references.

This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

If you would note, Persona Humana referes to homosexual ACTS as being intrinsically disorders, not homosexuality itself.

And if you read the bolded text above, you would see that the 1986 CDF document describes exactly what I noted, that the disorder is objective, not intrinsic.

 

[setter]

This thread seems to be closed, but I can’t help but add something. There are quite obviosly some who have been hurt by this Bishop.

Not hurt, but offended by his offensive heterodoxy and open dissent as a shepherd of the Flock.

It not easy to do, but shouldn’t we love and pray for him instead of spend several days of posts trying to figure out if the guy was a worthy Bishop?

His heterodoxy and dissident views are well documented.

He was not perfect and neither are we. But, aren’t we all worthy of the forgiveness purchased for us with Jesus’ precious blood?

I do not hear anyone casting condemnation or unforgivenes on this continuing wayward albeit now retired shepherd of the Flock.

And, can’t we at least be charitable towards him? Every human being deserves that. Please pray for him.

We should absolutely be praying for the conversion and repentance of those, especially those in positions of influence, in the Church who lead others astray in matters of faith and morals.

 

[Detroit_Sue]

msproule:

I believe there is an error in his statement:
Or even as our own church document says they’re disordered, “intrinsically disordered.”
As far as I know, the term “disordered” is used by the Church to describe the acts, not the actors. This personalization of the term will elicit a disproportionately emotional response, whether or not that was his intent. The so-called “Peace Pulpit” homilies seem to employ such intent often, although surely not always.

If individual laity, priests, or even bishops happen to use the term this way, I would consider them incorrect, as well.

I may be wrong, and if somebody can point me to an authoritative source that backs Bishop-Emeritus Gumbleton’s statement, I will retract mine.

I’m sure the bishop chose his words very carefully. He inflames - that’s what he does. He purposely spouts out inaccurate statements that he counts on his parishioners ignorance. He did a confirmation down here last fall, and used his homily to blast the president and the war on Iraq. Yep. That’s real pastoral to a bunch of 13 year old kids. He always wants to be the star. You’re never sure if you are at a Mass or a rally with him.