Dramatic move as Synod Fathers set out new pastoral care for gays, cohabiting couples and divorcees

[gilliam]

Which bishops or cardinals wrote this travesty? Kaspar probably helped draft this.

This is only a working draft that the synod participants will be debating and amending this week. They will then vote on a revised text Saturday. “Whatever text is published will have no binding effect, not even as guidelines, but will only provide the basis for further reflection,” Cardinal Péter Erdő said at a press conference last Wednesday.

After that, there will be further reflection, study and discussion on all the issues in that text over the course of the coming year, leading up to October 2015, when the bishops will gather again in Rome for the ordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the family and produce a recommendation to the pope. The pope may or may not take any of it under consideration and issue any modifications to Church methods from it. We are told that there are not going to be changes in Church doctrine from this exercise.

All of this is a discussion; albeit a worldwide Church discussion, but still a discussion.

 

[CompSciGuy]

You know, even the very thought of this being brought up in this manner, if it is not a translation error, gives the impression that God is contradicting Himself. On the one hand, He destroyed because of these practices, now they are giving the impression that God has now changed His mind about homosexuality in the 21st century. I am surprised at the bishops, etc. who have not thought that this statement, if correct, would put God in a whole new light. What is there to value in this orientation, if God, saw it abhorrent enough to destroy two cities because of it. I hope this is just a translation error and not something that will take shape for doctrine, etc.

Amen to that…

 

[JackVk]

When it includes words of “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation”, that is apostasy.

A person is not their sexual orientation. What this could mean (just my speculation) is that we should not cudgel a gay person into becoming straight (God does not make mistakes; I highly doubt He would make someone gay and then blame them). Their same-sex attraction can be used as a witness to a life of chastity. Same-sex attraction, in and of itself, is not sinful. Acting upon it is.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

This would apply equally to polygamists. I’m assuming you were joking but it sounds like you and the above poster were comparing homosexuals to polygamists. That would be quite an insult to them; one which they definitely don’t deserve.

homosexual=/=polygamist
homosexual=/=pedophile
homosexual=/=horrible human being

I did not read that the poster compared homosexuals to polygamists.

Progressivism will not stop at normalizing homosexuality. By normalizing I do not infer that SSA individuals are not normal. Far from it. In my use I mean that in normalizing, society accepts SSA as a normal sexual orientation.

Recently there was an article in the NY Times about pedophilia being a disorder, a mental illness, not a crime.

nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html

A follow up article appeared today.

nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/10/13/discussion-of-pedophilia-turns-heated/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

If progressives formally declare pedophilia a mental disorder and push for acceptance, so can polygamy.

I am certain that at some point in the near future there will be a move for legalization of polygamy along with many other social and civil mores.

Eddie Mac

 

[gilliam]

When it includes words of “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation”, that is apostasy.

No it isn’t. Apostasy for a lay person is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apostasy

 

[FollowChrist34]

No chance, but as I follow the synod, I can’t help thinking about the Arian crisis. That particular episode started with a fairly harmonious council (Nicaea) and ended in a episcopal free-for-all that lasted over half a century. The trouble then, as now, was the secular world. The Church had come to terms with the political system in the person of Constantine and found herself inundated with a mass of converts who were following the wind’s new direction and had only a superficial understanding of what it meant to be Catholic. A pagan-Catholic doctrinal compromise - Arianism - found support in Constantine’s son, Constantius, and the game was on, led by pro-Arian bishops like Eusebius of Nicomedia (who baptized Constantine on his deathbed).

Catholicism today is under a similar pressure: many Catholics who have a superficial understanding of what it means to be Catholic, a Church who has come to terms with secular society, and now pressure on the Church to find a doctrinal compromise which is neatly achieved by leaving doctrine in the theology books and taking a caring, *pragmatic *approach to sinners who have no intention of renouncing their sin.

Result: chaos.

I do pray for the Church and do think we are facing chaos here. And my comment about doctrine was about the Church reinterpreting doctrine down the road and I stand by it. We have another Synod in 2015; we will continue to progress here, folks, don’t count it out. One silver lining, I would personally be much happier in a smaller Church that did not compromise doctrine; I honestly think “the other side” would be happier too in their own Churches. It would relieve so much pressure. Are we headed for a split? One wonders. Could actually be a really beautiful, restorative thing for the Church - that is Schneider’s argument. I just feel like the sandbox is getting a little too secular for my tastes, not to mention the sand flying everywhere.

 

[Lormar]

I do pray for the Church and do think we are facing chaos here. And my comment about doctrine was about the Church reinterpreting doctrine down the road and I stand by it. We have another Synod in 2015; we will continue to progress here, folks, don’t count it out. One silver lining, I would personally be much happier in a smaller Church that did not compromise doctrine; I honestly think “the other side” would be happier too in their own Churches. It would relieve so much pressure. Are we headed for a split? One wonders. Could actually be a really beautiful, restorative thing for the Church - that is Schneider’s argument. I just feel like the sandbox is getting a little too secular for my tastes, not to mention the sand flying everywhere.

I agree.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

What about the heterosexual couple who are known to be in an invalid marriage? Should they refrain from coming together?

Side by side in the same pew, yes.

How about, like, almost every couple in the pews? Polls show that most Catholics use artificial birth control. Should they not go to Mass?

Do they advertise it? Someone can use contraceptives without the world knowing about it, but the world knows about a homosexual couple pretty fast if they go about in public and do not hide the fact.

The bottom line: is the person who visits the church in any way endorsing sin? If he is then he can’t come in. It’s not uncharitable, uncaring or insensitive to say so.

 

[Pronger1]

No it isn’t. Apostasy for a lay person is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apostasy

Bishops pushing for homosexuality to be accepted and valued is apostasy. It is turning against God’s teachings and preaching it as truth just as Hymenaeus and Philetus.

 

[gilliam]

Bishops pushing for homosexuality to be accepted and valued is apostasy. It is turning against God’s teachings and preaching it as truth just as Hymenaeus and Philetus.

If they are, it would be heresy, not apostasy. But they aren’t. They are saying that homosexuals should be valued as everyone should be valued. There are things homosexuals could contribute to the community regardless of their sin. Same could be said for the rest of us, by the way. Read the document again. It is here:

Welcoming homosexual persons

 50.        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?

 51.        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.

 52.        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.

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-full-text-of-relatio-post-disceptationem

 

[InNomineDomini]

I don’t speak Italian, and so I’m going to have to wait for an official translation, especially with regard to paragraph 50, before jumping to certain conclusions.

In doing some research, however, I do wonder about this sentence:

*Le nostre comunità sono in grado di esserlo accettando e **valutando **il loro orientamento sessuale, senza compromettere la dottrina cattolica su famiglia e matrimonio?

*The bolded Italian word (gerund of valutare) seems to have a semantic range that includes concepts like:

To value (an item for its cost), to evaluate, to assess.

Perhaps the idea of paragraph 50 is something more like:

*Homosexuals have skills and qualities to offer the Christian community. Are we able to accommodate these people, and to ensure them a place in our fraternal community? [Homosexuals] often want to meet a Church that is a welcoming home for them. Are our communities capable of being accepting [of them] and of evaluating [the importance of] their sexual orientation, without compromising the Catholic doctrines on marriage and family?
*
Some folks seem to be treating this final question as if it is a rhetorical statement that implies we should accept and AGREE WITH homosexuality, and that, under ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES we should never encourage homosexuals to repent.

Well, that’s not what the text says.

In fact, the text clearly implies that we cannot accept or accommodate homosexuals, if they want to do something like “get married” or have the Church encourage them and help them to adopt children. This sort of compromise is unacceptable.Therefore, certain criteria have to be met in order for acceptance and accommodation to take place.

The room for discussion of these criteria is thereby opened.

These questions are posed within the context of:
*
The reflections put forward … are intended to raise questions and indicate perspectives that will have to be matured and made clearer by the reflection of the local Churches in the year that separates us from the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of bishops planned for October 2015.*

It will be “made clearer” how and in what manner the questions in paragraph 50 can be answered; and as for us, jumping off into discussions about whether God has “changed His mind” about homosexuality, sin, repentance, the need for a Savior, or anything else dealing with the fundamentals of the Catholic faith are simply irrelevant.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Do they advertise it? Someone can use contraceptives without the world knowing about it, but the world knows about a homosexual couple pretty fast if they go about in public and do not hide the fact.

The world does not know. A few presume and then spread gossip.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

I’m speechless.
St. John Paul mist be spinning in his grave.
What is Benedict XVI thinking now?

 

[Sy_Noe]

If you are upset, you can only imagine how much more upset I am. Tell me, was the Church wrong for two thousand years? Will the only sin be to mention sin at all now?

It has been my experience that to coddle people in their sins doesn’t result in many conversions. Sometimes, yes; I have seen it. Moreso, it only confirms them deeper in their sinful life since they are completely accepted without having to change one iota. Or have any remorse or shame.

Sorry, my very dear CAF family. This is about the end for me.

But if you truly believe the Church is Christ’s one and only true Church forever and is the only one with the Eucharist, where would you go?

 

[ringil]

This document seems to be a bit of an earthquake for some people. What do you all think?

For those reading the document, the news is in part III

No earthquake fo me. I trust the Church and what teachings she offers.

Then again I am not an armchair Cardinal or even Pope. It’s not my place.

 

[tskrobacz]

Not sure what the big noise is…there is no change to the teaching. Simply a change to the tone and language to ensure we “Catholics” are not misusing the teaching to practice bigotry or exclusion but instead recognizing and loving the dignity of the individual in ALL cases.

 

[phil19034]

I do pray for the Church and do think we are facing chaos here. And my comment about doctrine was about the Church reinterpreting doctrine down the road and I stand by it. We have another Synod in 2015; we will continue to progress here, folks, don’t count it out. One silver lining, I would personally be much happier in a smaller Church that did not compromise doctrine; I honestly think “the other side” would be happier too in their own Churches. It would relieve so much pressure. Are we headed for a split? One wonders. Could **actually be a really beautiful, restorative thing for the Church - that is Schneider’s argument. ** I just feel like the sandbox is getting a little too secular for my tastes, not to mention the sand flying everywhere.

While the counter-reformation did restore some things in the Church, it was not a beautiful thing. It destroyed the Church. The Schism between the East and West wasn’t a beautiful thing either. And the post Vatican I and Vatican II schisms are not beautiful either.

Anytime there is schism, it’s a terrible thing. Schism should be mourned, not viewed as a beautiful thing. A future schism would further damage the Church. Even if the Catholic Church becomes “smaller and better,” it would still mean that there are lots more souls without the full Truth of the Catholic Church.

 

[PaulinVA]

Side by side in the same pew, yes.

Do they advertise it? Someone can use contraceptives without the world knowing about it, but the world knows about a homosexual couple pretty fast if they go about in public and do not hide the fact.

The bottom line: is the person who visits the church in any way endorsing sin? If he is then he can’t come in. It’s not uncharitable, uncaring or insensitive to say so.

Wow. I totally disagree. Totally. A couple in an irregular marriage shouldn’t even come to Church and sit together? Really?

I have to ask you something. Can you cite any magisterial documents that support your position that people that seem to be steeped in sin should not go to Mass? Or, alternatively, a document appointing certain people in each parish to be the “Keepers of the Purity” to bar people they don’t consider worthy from entering?

 

[ringil]

Thank you for the two responses. I first edited my comment and then deleted it because I honestly don’t know what to think and don’t just want to rant in vain.

I was hoping that the church was finally leaving the decades of confusion and bad catechesis behind, but it seems we will go even deeper now.

Trush the Church. Don’t rest on your own concepts of what you want the Church to be.

I presume you are a layman so accept in humility and peace because that is what Catholics are called to do.

Otherwise you left left with the SSPX option which we know is faulty.

 

[gilliam]

I don’t speak Italian, and so I’m going to have to wait for an official translation, especially with regard to paragraph 50, before jumping to certain conclusions.

Official translation is here:
press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html

Paragraph 50ff reads:

Welcoming homosexual persons

 50.        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?

 51.        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.

 52.        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.