Francis tipped his hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
A couple of good articles on what is happening behind the scenes at the Synod:

Francis tipped his hand
God always surprises us, Francis said at his morning homily before a controversial bishops’ report was released. So does this pope.
cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/14/francis-tipped-his-hand/

Some bishops want a do-over
They want the synod’s final report to emphasize faithful marriages and the seriousness of sin, and for the pope to confirm Church doctrine.
cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/14/some-bishops-want-a-do-over/
 
I think that our Holy Father is, like Teddy Roosevelt, talking softly, but carrying a big stick. The BBC had a great piece on the pastoral letter concerning the worth of gay individuals that was one of the best secular explanations I have read. Small steps are always preferable to giant leaps when trying to help the largest group in the world move forward.😉
 
kozlosap said:
I think that our Holy Father is, like Teddy Roosevelt, talking softly, but carrying a big stick. The BBC had a great piece on the pastoral letter concerning the worth of gay individuals that was one of the best secular explanations I have read. Small steps are always preferable to giant leaps when trying to help the largest group in the world move forward.😉
Click to expand...
Hey, I LIKE Teddy Roosevelt. Please don’t campare him to Pope Francis. I don’t want to lose my lunch!
 
The cardinal reporting the opening session said:

“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community,”

What gifts and qualities unique to homosexuals do they, indeed, have to offer, one wonders.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The cardinal reporting the opening session said:

“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community,”

What gifts and qualities unique to homosexuals do they, indeed, have to offer, one wonders.
Click to expand...
“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,” they said.

abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/bishops-acknowledging-reality-catholic-families-26152677
 
Ridgerunner said:
The cardinal reporting the opening session said:

“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community,”

What gifts and qualities unique to homosexuals do they, indeed, have to offer, one wonders.
Click to expand...
“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,” they said.
Click to expand...
Yes–they have the same “gifts and qualities” that all the rest of us have in our individuality and friendships. Having same sex attractions does not change the rest of the individual. But neither does it provide any unique gift, just as anything like a tendency to alcoholism or anger issues or other sexual proclivities offer any unique gifts. Those are all crosses, impediments, tendencies to sin. They are all challenges, not virtues.

And yes, of course, sacrifice and selflessness in relationships is good. In this case, though, it is the same as in friendships. A homosexual partnership is not the same as a marriage, and thus doesn’t have the fruitfulness unique to marriage, nor the sacramentality or status as the foundational family unit of society. It is not ordered to the parenting of children, or the original union of man and woman created in the beginning. It’s a qualitative difference.

So I think it’s misleading to use the words of the document. It suggests that some gift is unique to such partnerships. But its not. Its no different than what is possible in a friendship. And of course SSA people have the same gifts to offer as any other on an individual basis, and as friends. The Church never said any differently.
 
Sometimes one wishes the Pope imposed more laws on the various clerical spokesmen; like “Don’t attribute your own opinions to the Church, particularly the political opinions.”

Some of them have caused real problems, and the vague language some of them use is at the root of it, even if their intention isn’t. If everything has to be laboriously explained and if half of what gets said gets backtracked, something is wrong in the process.

cnn.com/2014/10/14/world/vatican-backtrack-gays/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
 
Ridgerunner said:
The cardinal reporting the opening session said:

“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community,”

What gifts and qualities unique to homosexuals do they, indeed, have to offer, one wonders.
Click to expand...
Interior decorating acumen
 
Arandur said:
Yes–they have the same “gifts and qualities” that all the rest of us have in our individuality and friendships. Having same sex attractions does not change the rest of the individual. But neither does it provide any unique gift, just as anything like a tendency to alcoholism or anger issues or other sexual proclivities offer any unique gifts. Those are all crosses, impediments, tendencies to sin. They are all challenges, not virtues.

And yes, of course, sacrifice and selflessness in relationships is good. In this case, though, it is the same as in friendships. A homosexual partnership is not the same as a marriage, and thus doesn’t have the fruitfulness unique to marriage, nor the sacramentality or status as the foundational family unit of society. It is not ordered to the parenting of children, or the original union of man and woman created in the beginning. It’s a qualitative difference.

So I think it’s misleading to use the words of the document. It suggests that some gift is unique to such partnerships. But its not. Its no different than what is possible in a friendship. And of course SSA people have the same gifts to offer as any other on an individual basis, and as friends. The Church never said any differently.
Click to expand...
Very well summarized. The gifts and qualities do not emanate from the homosexual inclinations.
 
Arandur said:
Yes–they have the same “gifts and qualities” that all the rest of us have in our individuality and friendships. Having same sex attractions does not change the rest of the individual. But neither does it provide any unique gift, just as anything like a tendency to alcoholism or anger issues or other sexual proclivities offer any unique gifts. Those are all crosses, impediments, tendencies to sin. They are all challenges, not virtues.

And yes, of course, sacrifice and selflessness in relationships is good. In this case, though, it is the same as in friendships. A homosexual partnership is not the same as a marriage, and thus doesn’t have the fruitfulness unique to marriage, nor the sacramentality or status as the foundational family unit of society. It is not ordered to the parenting of children, or the original union of man and woman created in the beginning. It’s a qualitative difference.

So I think it’s misleading to use the words of the document. It suggests that some gift is unique to such partnerships. But its not. Its no different than what is possible in a friendship. And of course SSA people have the same gifts to offer as any other on an individual basis, and as friends. The Church never said any differently.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak as to what the bishops mean by unique. But maybe the mutual aid and support SS partners give to one another would be considered unique because a heterosexual wouldn’t be in such a relationship. And the bishops recognize this and are meeting the homosexual couple where they are in their lives and journeys?
 
In some respects, the comments from the synod summary seem truisms. In other respects they seem to say too much. Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community. The Church ought to provide them a welcoming home.

The same might have been said about single people, who also tend to be forgotten in parishes. It might have been said of widows. It could have been said of young people, or the elderly, or of immigrants, or non-native speakers, or even of parolees.

To stir up even more ire, I note that the NY Times recently had an article about pedophiles, noting that their condition is a disorder, not a crime, and that a great many with such a condition scrupulously avoid acting on it. So the same sentiments could have said of pedophiles as well. But would it have been? If it had been, would the press have been so kind? There are many types of sexual attractions, but not everyone has an effective lobby. And no, I am not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles or even to widows or singles or parolees, just noting that any group of people might have gifts and qualities to offer the Church, and should be welcomed.
 
From the article in my prior post, some spokesperson is quoted as saying:

“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?”

Valuing their sexual orientation???

This is not the first time it has seemed to me some of these people who purport to speak for the Church are out of control and are simply speaking their own minds. But when they do that, they give the impression they are speaking for the Church when they aren’t.
 
I think we often see things from our own country’s politics. This would be an error. In some countries, homosexuals are persecuted. From that standpoint, yes, we should see God in them as we do in all humans and recognize that all humans should be treated as the Catechism states, “with dignity and respect”. Arresting people is not treating them with dignity. As far as Pope Francis blessing homosexual unions…it’s not going to happen. He is not saying that at all. We should be ready to accept EVERYONE. Their sins are between them and their confessors. A chaste homosexual, or a chaste divorcee, has every right to partake of the Eucharist.

Please trust in the Holy Spirit and let the final report speak for the Pope and the bishops. Patience and tongue biting for now. Trust that God will not let the Synod go astray.
 
Ridgerunner said:
cnn.com/2014/10/14/world/vatican-backtrack-gays/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Click to expand...
I think this will be my takeaway. Whatever happens, I know there are Cardinals that are at least sympathetic.
Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, echoed that sentiment.

“Regardless of the fact that this is a working document, it is still significant in that it reveals a strong current of affirmative attitudes at high levels in the church towards lesbians and gay people,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Ridgerunner said:
From the article in my prior post, some spokesperson is quoted as saying:

“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?”

Valuing their sexual orientation???
Click to expand...
If you quoted that one right, I see no need for all those ??? The CC is capable of valuing their orientation when without it they wouldn’t be in a place to offer the support that they do for their partners. It doesn’t mean the Church accepts their living arrangements or changes its definition of matrimony.
 
I was pointing out the pitfalls of using ambiguous language, expressing (apparently not very well) my wish that they refrained from doing that in a moral context. You can no more be certain of the proper interpretation of it than can I. Now explain to us the meaning of “valuing their sexual orientation.”
 
Ridgerunner said:
I was pointing out the pitfalls of using ambiguous language, expressing (apparently not very well) my wish that they refrained from doing that in a moral context. You can no more be certain of the proper interpretation of it than can I. Now explain to us the meaning of “valuing their sexual orientation.”
Click to expand...
This specific question was asked by a reporter at yesterday’s taped press conference. The query regarding #50 in the format was, “are we to value gays’ gifts and qualities because they are innate and emanate from their sexual orientation?” Card AB Bruno Forte first remarked that such an ontological question was difficult to answer. In the end, the question remained open as he only reiterated the exhortation to respect them.
 
Tigg said:
This specific question was asked by a reporter at yesterday’s taped press conference. The query regarding #50 in the format was, “are we to value gays’ gifts and qualities because they are innate and emanate from their sexual orientation?” Card AB Bruno Forte first remarked that such an ontological question was difficult to answer. In the end, the question remained open as he only reiterated the exhortation to respect them.
Click to expand...
But, with respect to His Excellency, obviously that passage means something specifically. So what is it?

And if they didn’t want people talking about it and scratching their heads, they didn’t have to release the document in its “working” form.* But they did. For a reason, whatever it is. So it’s perfectly valid to ask what things mean. And if the answer to a question about what this or that means is basically, “I don’t know,” then the question becomes, “Well, what’s the point in saying it?” If we had JPII still and he had a press conference on one of his Encyclicals, God knows he’d be ready with a wise and charitable answer for virtually any question.

It’s not about respect, authority, blah, whatever, it’s just about questions and reasonable answers. If that’s unreasonable then I don’t know why they released the working Relatio post disceptationem.

I’m not trying to stir anything up, just wondering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top