German synod father says Church could give 'private blessings' to same-sex unions [CH-UK]

[Brendan]

I have a suspicion that a lot of what the Pope says doesn’t reach US shores. Perhaps it is too hard to translate everything or perhaps it’s just selective reporting. From his earliest days as Pope, Pope Francis has been targeting the ‘blockers’. This was an early article from AsiaNews reporting his words about Vatican II and Pope St JohnXIII…

You still didn’t answer the question, who were they and how did they have power over the Magisterium.

I agree with the Pope that there are those who ‘want to go back’ SSPV comes to mind. But no where in the quote you provided does it state that those who ‘want to go back’ have any power over the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[MrSnaith]

It’s not ‘blessing a sin’ so much as blessing what it good. Alcoholics and other addicts used to be condemned holis bolis, but with advances in psychology it is recognised that addiction is a disease and that what a person is searching for in the bottle or drugs, is unconditional love. We now allow Catholic funerals for addicts and suicides and allow burial in Catholic cemeteries. What were thought to be irredeemable sinners are now understood to be ‘the afflicted’. Our understanding of disorders can change to help us be more merciful in our practices.

I’ve read through this thread, and I’m still not precisely certain what you’re advocating. You quote lots of people, and usually those quotes are of generic principles, all of which I whole-heartedly agree with. But, at the same time, you appear to be in support of “blessing” same sex sex. Is that true?

Of course, we need to be merciful to all people, including those who are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. That basic fact about them shouldn’t in any way be a factor of exclusion. However, if you’re going to compare this to alcoholism, then you must keep with the analogy. Alcoholics must abandon the drink. That is how they find freedom. Yes, walk with them through their struggle, but never support the sin. NEVER. Otherwise they fall back into darkness.

Nobody here, at least not that I’ve seen, has suggested we unjustly discriminate against people who struggle with same-sex attraction. That is not, and never has been the teaching of the Church, and all here have only ever advocated upholding the true doctrine of the Church, which they see threatened by the suggestion of acknowledging same-sex sex as good. It is not. It never will be.

But just because we cannot accept homosexual sex as good doesn’t mean that we can’t support such persons through their struggle, as long as we recognize that it is a struggle that they are working through. Not the struggle of dealing with “anti-homosexuality,” but rather the struggle to live a chaste and holy life. The same struggle we all face. That chastity implies NOT engaging in same-sex sex.

If we want to discuss two people of the same sex who are cohabitating, who are also each struggling with same sex attraction, but who successfully live celibate lives, that’s a question of its own. But we cannot, in any circumstance, bless a so-called “union” of same-sex couples, de facto supporting same-sex sex, which has always been declared by the Church, and back further into the tradition of the Jewish people, as evil. That CANNOT change.

 

[zz912]

I’m not ‘flirting with heresy’. If the Pope doesn’t condemn as heretics these Bishops and Cardinals who’ve been invited to present ideas to the synod for the sake of better walking with people… what qualifies you to?

Arius was allowed to present his ideas to the Council of Nicaea. He was still a heretic.

 

[Caldera599]

I’m not ‘flirting with heresy’. If the Pope doesn’t condemn as heretics these Bishops and Cardinals who’ve been invited to present ideas to the synod for the sake of better walking with people… what qualifies you to? I am endeavouring to counter the ‘hostile inflexibility’ of people that don’t want to allow the Church to seek knowledge and wisdom in the way she always has. This bishop may have it all wrong but he is contributing to the question under discussion in order that a fuller picture might emerge. We know for certain that since Vatican II, there have been a force of conservative traditionalists who’ve prevented the blood flowing through the veins of the Church because they want things to be how they want them… not let the Holy Spirit speak through lots of voices. Pope Francis has made it very clear in lots of ways, he is doing his darndest to dispel this type of inflexibility.

Yes, you are. You have repeatedly suggested that same-sex unions could be blessed by the Church. Sodomy is an intrinsically evil act, one that cries out to heaven for vengeance in fact. The idea that the Church can put a rubber stamp on this flirts with the idea that homosexual acts are acceptable or even good, which is heresy. The fact that the Pope hasn’t punished heretics doesn’t cease to make them heretics. And as for that “don’t judge” attitude, we’re SUPPOSED point out sin when we see it, and heresy is a sin.

Heresy isn’t supposed to be debated or examined. It’s supposed to be confronted and suppressed for the good of souls. Heresy is a mortal sin, a sin which will SEND SOULS TO HELL. If you think allowing heresy to propogate for the sake of “synodality” or “shaking things up” is OK, you’re being a party to it by ignoring it.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

:ehh: - shouldn’t that be … sin odd father?

Touche

 

[LongingSoul]

You still didn’t answer the question, who were they and how did they have power over the Magisterium.

Are you after names and phone numbers?

I agree with the Pope that there are those who ‘want to go back’ SSPV comes to mind. But no where in the quote you provided does it state that those who ‘want to go back’ have any power over the Magisterium of the Church.

Because I know how this will go, I want you to answer me this. Is your position that the reforms of Vatican II have not been impeded in any way by a force of stubborn resistance from within the hierarchy to any change? Yes or no.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’ve read through this thread, and I’m still not precisely certain what you’re advocating. You quote lots of people, and usually those quotes are of generic principles, all of which I whole-heartedly agree with. But, at the same time, you appear to be in support of “blessing” same sex sex. Is that true?

I support Pope Francis and the synod. He has invited Bishops and Cardinals to present ideas to the synod with the view to developing a better way to walk with certain groups of people cut off from the sacraments and other parts of Church life. The synod is not there to hear proposals and vote on those proposals. It is there to hear all the ideas and perspectives that are out their in the Church community with the view of finding a new way that both upholds the immutable truths of the Church and reflects Gods ‘medicine of mercy’.

Of course, we need to be merciful to all people, including those who are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. That basic fact about them shouldn’t in any way be a factor of exclusion. However, if you’re going to compare this to alcoholism, then you must keep with the analogy. Alcoholics must abandon the drink. That is how they find freedom. Yes, walk with them through their struggle, but never support the sin. NEVER. Otherwise they fall back into darkness.

I for one really look forward to having a more full teaching on homosexuality since in the last few years a number of people of this orientation have come into my life experience. I don’t want to keep them at arms length (which is what I tend to do because I feel squeamish about what they do)… I want to have a Catholic response that isn’t just telling them they are evil sodomites.

Nobody here, at least not that I’ve seen, has suggested we unjustly discriminate against people who struggle with same-sex attraction. That is not, and never has been the teaching of the Church, and all here have only ever advocated upholding the true doctrine of the Church, which they see threatened by the suggestion of acknowledging same-sex sex as good. It is not. It never will be.

This Bishop, Bishop Bode from what I read in a translator site, is suggesting a look at an aspect in the long term relationship of two people with homosexual orientation and I’ll tell you why this sort of thing peaks my interest. In my old parish there were a couple of ladies in their 60’s who were involved in the day to day maintenance of the Church and the Mass. They live together and attended Mass together daily and were well known faces around the Parish. One kept a sort of female masculine look… short hair and smart trousers etc. I never for a moment thought anything untoward and I’d even had a lot to do with that lady when we were involved in settling 16 Sudanese refugee families in the Diocese. Then one day someone implied to me that they were gay. I actually don’t even know if that is true but I was really shocked and I wasn’t able to be the same around them again. Soon after that my kids left school and we began going to another parish for more convenience and I never resolved my inner discord about them. I believe that my experience is that of lots of older Catholics. We have been brought up with a feeling about homosexuality that makes us judgemental and distant from them. I have longed for an authoritative teaching which helps me resolve that.

But just because we cannot accept homosexual sex as good doesn’t mean that we can’t support such persons through their struggle, as long as we recognize that it is a struggle that they are working through. Not the struggle of dealing with “anti-homosexuality,” but rather the struggle to live a chaste and holy life. The same struggle we all face. That chastity implies NOT engaging in same-sex sex.

How are we supposed to know the status of their struggle so we know how much support to give them? What if even though they are drawn to the Church they’ve been poorly catechised growing up? We are talking about people here who come in contact with the Church and the Churchs response to them.

If we want to discuss two people of the same sex who are cohabitating, who are also each struggling with same sex attraction, but who successfully live celibate lives, that’s a question of its own. But we cannot, in any circumstance, bless a so-called “union” of same-sex couples, de facto supporting same-sex sex, which has always been declared by the Church, and back further into the tradition of the Jewish people, as evil. That CANNOT change.

But the Bishop specifically talked about long term relationships in his interview so that’s what I thought we were addressing.

 

[LongingSoul]

Arius was allowed to present his ideas to the Council of Nicaea. He was still a heretic.

So what are you saying about Pope Francis’ invitation to the Bishops and Cardinals presenting their ideas to the synod? This is what you are failing to take up. You deem this Bishop a heretic and also myself… are you saying that even though Pope Francis asked for this approach… even though he himself has not called them out as heretics… that they actually are?

In your opinion, should I be refraining from Communion now? Do you think Pope Francis is really a Pope or what?

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, you are. You have repeatedly suggested that same-sex unions could be blessed by the Church. Sodomy is an intrinsically evil act, one that cries out to heaven for vengeance in fact. The idea that the Church can put a rubber stamp on this flirts with the idea that homosexual acts are acceptable or even good, which is heresy. The fact that the Pope hasn’t punished heretics doesn’t cease to make them heretics. And as for that “don’t judge” attitude, we’re SUPPOSED point out sin when we see it, and heresy is a sin.

Heresy isn’t supposed to be debated or examined. It’s supposed to be confronted and suppressed for the good of souls. Heresy is a mortal sin, a sin which will SEND SOULS TO HELL. If you think allowing heresy to propogate for the sake of “synodality” or “shaking things up” is OK, you’re being a party to it by ignoring it.

You demonstrate the type of attitude that Brendan claims doesn’t exist in the Church. I won’t indulge a person who thinks it is ok to call another a heretic the way you are.

 

[CaptFun]

Eventually we’re going to have to face up to the reality that quite a few people within the church no longer accept Catholic teaching regarding homosexual behaviour.

seems like … the greater facing up … will eventually be done by those who disregard Catholic teaching on … let’s just expand things and say …*** sinful *** behavior.

As for the numbers aspect of that … many are called, few are chosen. < see also the broad highway and the narrow door scriptures.

 

[Megan7]

Interesting accusation. What ‘blood’ was prevented from flowing.

If there is certitude in your level of knowledge, please outline who these traditionalists were and how they would have power over the Magisterium of the Church

Thank you, Brendan for your post. I would also like to know. Also, thank you for your wise CATHOLIC posts:thumbsup: God bless you!

CALDERA599 Thank you for speaking the TRUTH! God bless you!

SEAMUS L I share your same fears. And I still am in shock by it all. It is hard to believe, to accept. Thanks for your wise posts. This thread is depressing…
God bless you!

We must PRAY, do PENANCE & stay close to the SACRAMENTS!

PRAY for HOLY MOTHER CHURCH!!:knight1:

Saint Michael the Archangel Defend us from all of this evil!:knight2: (Feast Day is 9-29-15)

+PAX

 

[LongingSoul]

Thank you, Brendan for your post. I would also like to know. Also, thank you for your wise CATHOLIC posts:thumbsup: God bless you!

CALDERA599 Thank you for speaking the TRUTH! God bless you!

SEAMUS L I share your same fears. And I still am in shock by it all. It is hard to believe, to accept. Thanks for your wise posts. This thread is depressing…
God bless you!

We must PRAY, do PENANCE & stay close to the SACRAMENTS!

PRAY for HOLY MOTHER CHURCH!!:knight1:

Saint Michael the Archangel Defend us from all of this evil!:knight2: (Feast Day is 9-29-15)

+PAX

It is a shame that you are depressed by the thread. If Pope Francis is not depressed by the issue, then neither should you be. We are guaranteed that the Church will not teach error hence we can fearlessly explore the contemporary issues for the highest truth.

Prior to Pope Paul VI giving us Humanae Vitae in 1968 there was much discussion and diverse theological positioning in the Church. Many see HV as a victory over the liberals who saw no sin with the use of artificial contraception however what is not so widely remembered is that it was also a victory over the ultra conservatives determined to have NFP banned as well … as a contraceptive measure. Out of that robust debate, a doctrine of the Church was reformulated to reflect contemporary issues needing contemporary theology.

There of course are still those in the ultra conservative pack that believe NFP should not be part of Catholic family planning but an emergency measure in life and death circumstances. Despite the Church’s clear teaching, they hold to their ‘private judgements’ like the Protestants.

We can be assured by our faith that what comes out of the synod by way of Church teaching will be orthodox and error free. We can also be assured that while there will be some liberals disappointed by the scope of it… there will also be some conservatives still holding tight to their ‘private judgements’ despite the teaching of the Church.

Lets just see how the Spirit leads us why don’t we.

 

[Brendan]

Prior to Pope Paul VI giving us Humanae Vitae in 1968 there was much discussion and diverse theological positioning in the Church.

You mean that there was much opposition to established Church teaching on the subject. The Church had long decided that artificial contraception was wrong, even going back to the Middle Ages when the bishops preached so much against the prophylactic that they gave its modern name, the Contra Dominum or Condom.

It was reiterated again in 1930 in Pope Pius X’s Casti Connubii, and even included a warning against clergy who either promoted it, or turned a blind eye towards it.

1. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

1. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit

.

Out of that robust debate, a doctrine of the Church was reformulated to reflect contemporary issues needing contemporary theology…

Out of that rejection of established Church doctrine arose the same theology that had been taught for millennia.

And the same will be true anytime anyone attempts to dissuade the Church from it’s established teachings.

 

[JimG]

I doubt that we will see blessings–even private blessings–of either homosexual unions or cohabiting opposite sex couples. Or, for that matter, blessings of adulterous unions.

 

[LongingSoul]

You mean that there was much opposition to established Church teaching on the subject. The Church had long decided that artificial contraception was wrong, even going back to the Middle Ages when the bishops preached so much against the prophylactic that they gave its modern name, the Contra Dominum or Condom.

It was reiterated again in 1930 in Pope Pius X’s Casti Connubii, and even included a warning against clergy who either promoted it, or turned a blind eye towards it.

.

Out of that rejection of established Church doctrine arose the same theology that had been taught for millennia.

And the same will be true anytime anyone attempts to dissuade the Church from it’s established teachings.

Each time the issue has been addressed by the Church the teaching regarding natural family planning has become more refined and nuanced to encompass the growing science of fertility awareness and the holy nature of responsible family planning. Nevertheless there are still conservative legalists who read their own private interpretation of Church teaching to denounce the legitimacy of nfp.

Likewise who is to say the Church has not always valued a relationship of spiritual friendship and can now see it as an antedote to the widespread acceptance of homosexual relationship. A first step guiding people now and of the future away from sinful expressions of feeling in same sex friendship?

There is a nice overview of this idea from the Spiritual friendship organisation. What if the blessing of friendship is a portal for the grace needed to change the sinful behaviour?

spiritualfriendship.org/2015/09/10/friendship-and-catholic-teaching-about-homosexuality/

I’m not a theologian so I’m not making proposals. I’m just saying that in the history of the Churchs teachings, new avenues and understandings are opening up all the time and they help show us the way to heaven.

 

[JimG]

Spiritual Friends on Chastity, Romance, and Freudian Sublimation

 

[LongingSoul]

Spiritual Friends on Chastity, Romance, and Freudian Sublimation

Are you allowed to post from Crisis Magazine? It seems to be a quite toxic publication from the articles I’ve come across over time.

 

[LongingSoul]

Here is a better essay from the wonderful Alice von Hildebrand on the lost Catholic concept of friendship…

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/alicehildebrand/friendship.asp

 

[JimG]

Are you allowed to post from Crisis Magazine? It seems to be a quite toxic publication from the articles I’ve come across over time.

I wouldn’t call it “toxic.” It’s writers do take particular positions on controverted issues, but so do many magazines. And the concept of “spiritual friendship,” maintaining chastity while still pursuing romance, does elicit varying opinions.

 

[Brendan]

, I want you to answer me this. Is your position that the reforms of Vatican II have not been impeded in any way by a force of stubborn resistance from within the hierarchy to any change? Yes or no.

From within the hierarchy? The answer would be ‘No’.