Dutch cardinal says papal encyclical on gender theory might be needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
OXFORD, England (CNS) – The spread of gender theory is misleading so many Catholics that a high-level document may be required to correct the errors of the ideology, a Dutch cardinal said.
Cardinal Willem Eijk of Utrecht, Netherlands, said a papal encyclical or other magisterial document “might appear to be necessary” to counter the spread of the new theory that gender can be determined by personal choice rather than by biology.
He said even Catholic parents were beginning to accept that their own children can choose their genders partly because “they don’t hear anything else.”
Click to expand...
catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/dutch-cardinal-says-papal-encyclical-on-gender-theory-might-be-needed.cfm
 
Same with homosexuality. Maybe even a re-affirmation of Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia, women priests, etc. Stop the modernist heresy from spreading among the faithful.
 
Tim_D said:
The Church has been quite clear as of late about these topics.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. The groups promoting it with levels of success say it’s not magisterial. We must be perfectly clear.
 
The story is also covered in the Catholic Herald here.

I agree that an encyclical to counter false notions of gender would be appreciated as a counterweight to the false notions propagated in the culture.
 
Upgrade25 said:
Same with homosexuality. Maybe even a re-affirmation of Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia, women priests, etc. Stop the modernist heresy from spreading among the faithful.
Click to expand...
I doubt it would make much difference. Humanae Vitae, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and dozens of existing encyclicals are already ignored. Over the last 50 years many Catholics have taken official Church teaching as merely advisory. Even if Pope Francis were to write a short, unambiguous encyclical on gender theory those that disagree would simply ignore him and continue to spread their distorted reality as a Gospel truth. The current practice seems to be to simply keep presenting the same thing time and time again with the hope of chipping away at the truth. “Progressives” are playing the long game and are okay with moving inches as long as they are headed towards their target.

We live in an age where truth is defined by each individual instead of defined by God and articulated by his Church. We don’t suffer from modernism so much as we suffer from relativism.
 
Is there a way to expedite magisterial documents on such urgent matters? Longer the wait, the more damage will be done, more energy it takes to reverse it.
 
The problem is—encyclicals are not generally easy reads, especially for the modern reader. Let’s face it: our attention spans have shortened to the space of a Twitter posting. Encyclicals draw out teachings, explaining them at length, giving reasons. Their sentences often have subordinate clauses. News organizations would assign the reading of an encyclical to a lowly intern with instructions to tell us what it means in short punchy sentences, with an eye-catching headline.

We need another Archbishop Sheen to explain things. But…. He talked for an hour, used a blackboard and kept everyone’s attention. Could he keep our attention today? Whether it’s an encyclical or something else, better make the message short and clear, and repeat it often.
 
JimG said:
The problem is—encyclicals are not generally easy reads, especially for the modern reader. Let’s face it: our attention spans have shortened to the space of a Twitter posting. Encyclicals draw out teachings, explaining them at length, giving reasons. Their sentences often have subordinate clauses. News organizations would assign the reading of an encyclical to a lowly intern with instructions to tell us what it means in short punchy sentences, with an eye-catching headline.

We need another Archbishop Sheen to explain things. But…. He talked for an hour, used a blackboard and kept everyone’s attention. Could he keep our attention today? Whether it’s an encyclical or something else, better make the message short and clear, and repeat it often.
Click to expand...
Does a magisterial statement need to be an encyclical? Could the main point not be contained in a page or two?

If the Church has the same authority that St. Peter had, and he didn’t write volumes-long treatises, why can’t the same be done today?
 
Upgrade25 said:
Doesn’t matter. The groups promoting it with levels of success say it’s not magisterial. We must be perfectly clear.
Click to expand...
Really? The Church has not been perfectly clear about abortion, homosexuality, gay “marriage” and euthanasia? You may need to find a fresh media outlet because I have read many articles in mainstream media outlets about the Church speaking about these issues.
 
Tim_D said:
Really? The Church has not been perfectly clear about abortion, homosexuality, gay “marriage” and euthanasia? You may need to find a fresh media outlet because I have read many articles in mainstream media outlets about the Church speaking about these issues.
Click to expand...
People now pay attention to some news sources such as Senator Kaines views that the Church will change its teachings, some clerics on TV that don’t make it clear what the church teaches and Catholics thrmselves who have a mistaken idea of compassion. A few bishops speak up but many are silent. Priests take got granted that Cstholics should know this or they don’t want to make waves so it’s omitted. Also Cstholic education got the most part is slipping into secularism. We really need from the bottom up more catechezation and parents need to be the first.
 
Upgrade25 said:
Same with homosexuality. Maybe even a re-affirmation of Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia, women priests, etc. Stop the modernist heresy from spreading among the faithful.
Click to expand...
We don’t need re-affirmation of these teachings. What we desperately need is a willingness to use ecclesiastical discipline to sanction clergy and public figures among the laity who openly flaunt or dissent from these teachings. That is the only thing that will stop the madness. People need to be put to a choice - either get with the program or get off the ship. But I think it is obvious that this will not happen any time soon. We are moving in precisely the opposite direction, toward a more “inclusive” Church that welcomes all viewpoints and never, ever “insists” that its members tow the line.
 
Its good to see a prelate in very secular Northern Europe speaking up about these matters.
 
ctb95 said:
Its good to see a prelate in very secular Northern Europe speaking up about these matters.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it though?

Theology of the body is the answer. It is slowly gaining some traction. I’m convinced it’s the answer because it’s slow in the process of coming along and buts up against confusion and resistance.
 
2PT3 said:
We don’t need re-affirmation of these teachings. What we desperately need is a willingness to use ecclesiastical discipline to sanction clergy and public figures among the laity who openly flaunt or dissent from these teachings. That is the only thing that will stop the madness. People need to be put to a choice - either get with the program or get off the ship. But I think it is obvious that this will not happen any time soon. We are moving in precisely the opposite direction, toward a more “inclusive” Church that welcomes all viewpoints and never, ever “insists” that its members tow the line.
Click to expand...
You never cease to amaze me. :dts:
 
2PT3 said:
We don’t need re-affirmation of these teachings. What we desperately need is a willingness to use ecclesiastical discipline to sanction clergy and public figures among the laity who openly flaunt or dissent from these teachings. That is the only thing that will stop the madness. People need to be put to a choice - either get with the program or get off the ship. But I think it is obvious that this will not happen any time soon. We are moving in precisely the opposite direction, toward a more “inclusive” Church that welcomes all viewpoints and never, ever “insists” that its members tow the line.
Click to expand...
This seems very harsh and simply out of the question. What “ecclesiastical discipline” do you mean? “Get with the program or get off the ship?” You don’t want the Church to be inclusive? So, those signs that say “all are welcome” are just false? Do you want a small cadre of “true believers” and everyone who doesn’t toe the line in every particular out? Isn’t it the office of the Church to teach, not exclude? I appreciate the frustration, but tossing people out doesn’t seem like an effective response. It is very perilous to draw lines and put people to a choice. They might just leave and not come back.
 
OriginalJS said:
This seems very harsh and simply out of the question. What “ecclesiastical discipline” do you mean? “Get with the program or get off the ship?” You don’t want the Church to be inclusive? So, those signs that say “all are welcome” are just false? Do you want a small cadre of “true believers” and everyone who doesn’t toe the line in every particular out? Isn’t it the office of the Church to teach, not exclude? I appreciate the frustration, but tossing people out doesn’t seem like an effective response. It is very perilous to draw lines and put people to a choice. They might just leave and not come back.
Click to expand...
I am talking about public figures. And if we’re honest, haven’t they already left? They serve as a counter-witness and dramatically impair the Church’s ability to evangelize. They confuse the message and undermine the mission at every turn. It is extremely destructive to the Church’s mission to have so many people rowing in the opposite direction. That’s just how I see it.
 
2PT3 said:
I am talking about public figures. And if we’re honest, haven’t they already left? They serve as a counter-witness and dramatically impair the Church’s ability to evangelize. They confuse the message and undermine the mission at every turn. It is extremely destructive to the Church’s mission to have so many people rowing in the opposite direction. That’s just how I see it.
Click to expand...
I do think that the Church needs to speak out and clarify the Church’s position, especially when Catholic politicians and public figures misrepresent the faith. However, to go full attack mode on public officials is really uncharitable and doesn’t do a lot to help the Church in the eyes of the public.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top