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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, and I wouldn’t trust Voris on anything dealing with the Church, the man has created a carrier on finding conspiracies in just about everything Church related. What we are seeing is a Synod (a discussion) and what they are doing is, well discussing. 😉
Do you get the impression that this working document was not supposed to be released yet, or that this was a trial balloon being walked back?

My impression is that it is a case of the former and not the latter.
 
They should not be. But does the reality correspond to the rule? At a Mass I personally attended, the priest announced that he saw no reason why anyone here should not receive Holy Communion.
So now that is church doctrine because one priest did this?

If the priests ignore the rules then no, the reality will not match the rules at all, but then that is the job of the priest, to match the two.
 
Actually, the etiology is wholly irrelevant to the morality of it. To be more tempted towards one type of sin does undermine moral agency as the person still has free will to resist them.
Then why bring up genetic ‘causes’? We all get tempted in numerous ways every day and most of them are natural, though some are not. In any sense there is no excuse for sin; we repent as best we can but we must repent.
The difference between “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically disordered” is roughly the difference between temptations and sin. Can we agree that temptation and sin are different things?
Yes, we can.

😃
 
Just as Jesus came for sinners, so too must the church be a “field hospital” to use Pope Francis’ language for sinners and those who are stray sheep.
Part of being a ‘hospital’ for sin is to keep the standards of what a healthy person is intact.

When the sick patients pretend that their illness is normal then the doctors have to try to get them out of that mental disorder.
 
Part of being a ‘hospital’ for sin is to keep the standards of what a healthy person is intact.

When the sick patients pretend that their illness is normal then the doctors have to try to get them out of that mental disorder.
But when many world governments are condoning their behaviour, by fully aligning it with heterosexual relationships and that they may marry - then such ‘sinners’ are going to be harder to convince that their behaviour is sinful and wrong in God’s eyes. Especially, when certain Christian denominations also recognise SSM, through church blessings.

I am not referring to fully catechised Catholics.
 
It is fine to welcome the prodigal son to come home; however it is the Church’s responsibility to teach the ignorant. Compassion without truth is not true compassion.

I read a paragraph from CatholicVote that says well:

The synod can release whatever they want to release but they should always make clear the Church’s doctrine and the Bible’s teaching about truth. Leaving the statements ambiguous is very detrimental and put lot of souls in danger.
Is truth without compassion and using deception to make the truth seem clearer better?
How does it disagree, I was referring to the Catechism sections below, and only homosexual acts are referred to as intrinsically disordered.

I was looking at this part of the catechism.

*353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”*142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The portion I bolded happens to basically be the definition of intrinsically disordered, several apologists have also said as much (such as Jimmy Akin). Something is intrinsically disordered when it is always wrong to use, not only is that true of fornication, but it is so true that it is the example that was used.
Thinking all this over, I’ve just realised something. What we are witnessing is undoubtedly a coup d’etat at the highest levels of Church government, or as Michael Voris put it, a revolution (in the French Revolution sense of the word). The *Relatio *is revolutionary. It cannot be equated with Catholic teaching in its controversial points. The realisation, though, is this: the majority of Synod fathers are going to cave in. In fact, there will be ***no ***organised and effective episcopal opposition to the proposals of the *Relatio *that have caused such a furor in the Catholic world.

The Synod fathers are under tremendous pressure, from below, from around and from above.

From below: the survey initiated by the Vatican and similar surveys shows that most Catholics throughout the world with the exception of Africa reject traditional Church teaching on many of the subjects covered by the Relatio.

From around: secular society backs the controversial *Relatio *proposals one hundred per cent. In our interconnected, hypercommunicative world, that means huge leverage.

From above: everyone knows that the drive for these proposals has come from the very top of the Church’s hierarchy. The prelates advocating them are emboldened by the knowledge that they have the support of the Chair of Peter itself.

The Synod bishops and cardinals hence have no support base, and most of them will not stand up and be counted as individuals. To do so means rebellion, and everyone knows where that leads. They are going to crumble like tissue paper. I am almost certain - and I hope I make a fool of myself and am proven wrong - that the *Relatio *will stand in its present form (with a few, minor alterations that will not substantially alter its message) and become the framework, the map, of the 2015 Synod.

After all, Catholic doctrine is not being ***directly ***attacked. Nobody is saying that homosexuals can marry in church, or that divorced and remarried Catholics are in a sacramental union. The Deposit of the Faith is untouched. It is just going to be put into a sealed chest and gently shoved aside, whilst the Church’s everyday practice towards divorced remarrieds, homosexuals, et al. becomes something very different.

Arius is indeed in town.
Michael Vorris is too busy chasing conspiracies theories all the time.
Then why bring up genetic ‘causes’? We all get tempted in numerous ways every day and most of them are natural, though some are not. In any sense there is no excuse for sin; we repent as best we can but we must repent.
I was showing examples of how it is irrelevant.
Yes, we can.

😃
Than we can agree there is a difference between “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically disordered”.
 
What is the difference?
The difference is the same as “temptation” and “sin” as “objectively disordered” is a synonym for temptation and intrinsically disordered is a synonym for sin. There is a difference, but the nuances aren’t big enough for most people to care.
 
ncregister.com/blog/joan-desmond/father-check-from-the-courage-responds-to-synod-report

Father Check from the Courage Responds to Synod Report

“Now Father Paul Check, who leads the international Courage apostolate, which helps Catholics with same-sex attraction live in accord with Catholic teaching on chastity, has expressed concern about this passage. During an interview today, he said that Courage members are worried and confused about the message from Synod”
 
While not exactly the same thing, the point still stands that even in a relationship with immoral elements there can still be good in it.

Actually, the etiology is wholly irrelevant to the morality of it. To be more tempted towards one type of sin does undermine moral agency as the person still has free will to resist them.

I am more tempted towards certain sins than you are and you are more tempted towards certain sins than I am, this does not undermine moral responsibility. Some people are more inclined towards alcoholism than others, this doesn’t mean that they can get smashed without sin.

The difference between “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically disordered” is roughly the difference between temptations and sin. Can we agree that temptation and sin are different things?
How can there be some good in an immoral relationship? That’s like saying a hostage and hostage taker have some good in their relationship.
 
Is truth without compassion and using deception to make the truth seem clearer better?
Truth never has any deception and truth always has compassion.

Homo behavior is a grave sin, it says clearly in both Old Testament and New Testament. Genesis 19 clearly states the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah due to their homo actions.

Deception is when you see a person in grave sin but pretend he is OK and don’t tell the person he needs to stop. Compassion is when you see a person in grave sin, tell the person with love and encourage his conversion.

.
 
Romans 1:18-32 condemn homosexuality, specifically verse 26- 27 that address to both female and male homosexuals:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Also refer to:
Matthew 19:1-8
1Cor 6:9-11
Galatians 5:19
Ephesians 5:3-7
Colossians 3:5-7
1 Tim 1:10

Any Christian wants to argue with the Bible?
 
Which is why I am scared. The Bible, both the Old and the New Testament, is very clear on the sinfulness of homosexuality - just as it’s clear on other sins. If the Church condones the practice of homosexuality as well as same-sex marriage, then what can be said other than the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church?

Pope Francis really needs to address this.
 
Romans 1:18-32 condemn homosexuality, specifically verse 26- 27 that address to both female and male homosexuals:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Also refer to:
Matthew 19:1-8
1Cor 6:9-11
Galatians 5:19
Ephesians 5:3-7
Colossians 3:5-7
1 Tim 1:10

Any Christian wants to argue with the Bible?
Excellent post PTL!👍 May God bless you! And NO, I do not want to argue with the Bible 🙂

A long time ago, someone in this forum, posted how all of this has been in the making for decades. It all started with shows like “Will & Grace” in the 90’s, showing us how a handsome, funny, caring, sucessful attorney, who happens to be gay, is sooo cool :rolleyes:😦 Sadly, a very popular show. Ever since we have been bombarded with all kinds of TV shows, movies, with homosexuality portrayed as normal, sexy, desirable. And of course the next stage in their plan was to become a victim & compare their problems to slavery. I think even Biden, in one of his “wonderful speeches”:rolleyes: mentioned how Hollywood & the TV industry paved the way for their cause. Sadly, if you go visit the Family section of the forum, you will constantly find that someone has a relative, friend, co worker living as an active homosexual. My mother mentioned, how even some of her Church friends over the years have soften their stance on this SIN. Why? Well, a lot of times its because they know someone in such a situation, and they cave in…The word SIN or Bible never come into the conversation…What I do not get, is that supposedly, they are a very small % of the population, but, it seems as if they had taken over our society, our schools, the reading materials (part of the Common Core program) showing 2 mommies or 2 daddies:( our politics, and now it wants to take over our belief system :eek:
 
Raymond Arroyo:
According to Card. Napier (and many other participants I have spoken with today) the document bears little resemblance to the actual discussions in the Synod. The Holy See Press Office this morning went to great pains to stress that this is just a draft–a working document-- that was never meant to offer conclusions. The question for us is: if this doesn’t reflect the true nature of the conversations or concerns of the Synod Fathers, why was it released? And who is responsible for the distorted content?
facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=879775055373664&id=110119339005910
 
Raymond Arroyo:
According to Card. Napier (and many other participants I have spoken with today) the document bears little resemblance to the actual discussions in the Synod. The Holy See Press Office this morning went to great pains to stress that this is just a draft–a working document-- that was never meant to offer conclusions. The question for us is: if this doesn’t reflect the true nature of the conversations or concerns of the Synod Fathers, why was it released? And who is responsible for the distorted content?
(Redirecting...)
 
Raymond Arroyo:
According to Card. Napier (and many other participants I have spoken with today) the document bears little resemblance to the actual discussions in the Synod. The Holy See Press Office this morning went to great pains to stress that this is just a draft–a working document-- that was never meant to offer conclusions. The question for us is: if this doesn’t reflect the true nature of the conversations or concerns of the Synod Fathers, why was it released? And who is responsible for the distorted content?
facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=879775055373664&id=110119339005910
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top