New Oxford Review blasts Benedict

[ThomasMore1535]

To anyone who currently subscribes to the New Oxford Review, I would highly suggest that you cancel your subscription. In their editorial section of the current issue, they have decried the recent document regarding homosexuals in the seminaries as a change from previous Church Teaching, and as way too liberal.

They have even said that in approving of the document, Benedict XVI has “forefited his credentials” as a conservative Catholic. They also appear to have a problem with the fact that the document calls on us to respect homosexuals as persons, though not of course any of the homosexual acts that they may perform.

The article appears to think that by respecting those who perform homosexual acts, we will be respecting the acts themselves, which is of course ridiculous. The document itself repeatidly calls homosexual acts sinful and objectively disordered.

The New Oxford Review has slandered Pope Benedict XVI. I was going to provide a link to the article, but unfortunately it is password-protected, and I don’t want to get into any copyright trouble by posting the article on here.

But I would strongly urge anyone who is loyal to Pope Benedict XVI to boycott the New Oxford Review, because they have said horrible things about him.

I will conclude with how the article itself ends:

When Ratzinger became Pope, we orthodox Catholics were ecstatic. But it’s likely that Benedict’s papacy will be very unpleasant–even bitter, since we had such high hopes.

[T]here is a Lavender Mafia in the Church, and it goes all the way to the Vatican, and Pope Benedict will do nothing about it.

Boycott this magazine, and pray for them.

 

[Everyman]

As you can see in my thread “Homosexuals in the Seminary” on this same page, I read the same article, one that seems to have stirred alot of controversy.

I guess as a newbie to the Church I’m a bit confused on how the faithful should respond when they think the Supreme Pontiff has erred. Are we not allowed to criticize?

Instead of boycotting NOR, we should support them as one of the few orthodox Catholic publications out there, even if we don’t agree with everything they write. Just so long as they remain orthodox.

 

[Detroit_Sue]

I haven’t received my February issue yet. Sometimes they get a little over-the-top, but on the whole it’s still an orthodox publication, like Everyman said.

 

[Halo]

Was just thinking of signing up for that publication. Think I will stick with Ignatius Press publication. Catholic Report. Very good

 

[oat_soda]

NOR does do a good job on issues which are usually at odds with neoconservative funded publications like crisis magazine. the strong point of NOR is that they try to defend traditional catholic teaching even if it is unpopular to do so such as the church’s teaching on just warfare or economics. they, like any catholic, are free to criticize the church’s discipline -even if the pope is to blame.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Everyman:

As you can see in my thread “Homosexuals in the Seminary” on this same page, I read the same article, one that seems to have stirred alot of controversy.

I guess as a newbie to the Church I’m a bit confused on how the faithful should respond when they think the Supreme Pontiff has erred. Are we not allowed to criticize?

Instead of boycotting NOR, we should support them as one of the few orthodox Catholic publications out there, even if we don’t agree with everything they write. Just so long as they remain orthodox.

Out of curiosity, how has the Holy Father erred?

 

[Everyman]

JKirkLVNV:

Out of curiosity, how has the Holy Father erred?

I was merely writing speculatively. “*If *he erred” is what I mean. Are we not then allowed to give appropriate criticism?

I’m just trying to decipher the issue here. I’m not placing blame on anyone.

 

[oat_soda]

Out of curiosity, how has the Holy Father erred?

good question. as far as i can tell, they think he’s being too easy on homosexual religous in the church. NOR is very much against the gay lifestyle and homosexuality in general. they are opposed to church documents which state that while homosexuality is a grave depravity, they also say that those who are homosexual should be treated with the upmost respect. this is from the feb 06 NOR editorial by Dale Vree on *Homosexuals in the Seminary: Why the Priesthood Will Continue To Become a “Gay” Profession
*

The most egregious sentence is that those “who practice homosexuality” (italics added) are “profoundly respected.” So we should have profound respect for those who commit homosexual acts, which are mortal sins. By that logic, we should have profound respect for fornicators, adulterers, and child molesters.

The National Catholic Register had an interview with Cardinal Grocholewski (Dec. 11-17, 2005), where he explained what “transitory problems” are. He said basically the same things he said in the Vatican Radio interview, but added: “It may have been about pleasing a superior or someone he knows, or to earn money.”

The latest outrage is Benedict’s appointment of Bishop George Niederauer to be Archbishop of San Francisco. Niederauer is clearly “gay”-friendly. He pastored a parish in West Hollywood with a large “gay” congregation, where he said that homosexuals are “wonderful.” As Bishop of Salt Lake City, he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage.” He denies that there is a link between homosexual priests and the molestation and rape of boys. He helped found the Coalition of Concerned Religious Leaders in Utah, which supports “tolerance” for homosexuals. Topping it off, he has been praised by Sam Sinnett, head of Dignity-USA, and Francis DeBernardo, head of New Ways Ministry – both groups being comprised of proud “gay” and lesbian Catholics.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m confused now. When did the Holy Father (or anyone purporting to speak in his name) say that those who “practice” homosexulality are to shown respect? I was under the impression that we were to treat homosexuals(those suffering from “same sex attraction”) with respect (and I naturally assume we are to be even more respectful/helpful if they are chaste/celibate people) and at the same time, adhere to the teaching that homosexual acts were objectively sinful. Does NOR disagree with this? If they do, then I think they’re wrong. If NOR has, on the other hand, gotten hold of some document that say “practicing” homosexuals are to be accorded respect (ie, as though their actions were non-culpable), then I wonder if it might be a mistranslation or something. The Catechism has been revised and basically says the same thing as it did before, ie, respect for those suffering from SSA, they’re called to chastity, can be perfected in Christ, etc., and that homosexual acts can never be approved as they are gravely and intrinsically disordered.

If they said that we are called to hate the sinner, then that’s rather astonishing.

 

[arieh0310]

JKirkLVNV:

I’m confused now. When did the Holy Father (or anyone purporting to speak in his name) say that those who “practice” homosexulality are to shown respect? I was under the impression that we were to treat homosexuals(those suffering from “same sex attraction”) with respect (and I naturally assume we are to be even more respectful/helpful if they are chaste/celibate people) and at the same time, adhere to the teaching that homosexual acts were objectively sinful. Does NOR disagree with this?

Yeah, I think NOR is grossly misrepresenting the CCC:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

It says to respect and not discriminate those with tendencies, we are to respect the person not the action.

 

[m134e5]

arieh0310:

Yeah, I think NOR is grossly misrepresenting the CCC

That is because it is easy to condemn homosexuals to hell- whether they act on their temptations or not- and make their sin somehow worse than practically anything else than to love those they are disgusted by. Homosexual sex is disgusting to most people- so, to them, it’s somehow worse than adultery or fornication. (I know about the “intrinsically disordered” rhetoric and what not- so let’s not even go there- as far as the sinfulness of it is concerned, mortal sin is mortal sin). They do not see how anyone could possibly really want to have sex with someone of the same sex- they believe homosexuals have chosen to be attracted to the same sex (to be deviant, or whatever).

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I don’t know if homosexual sex is worse than adultery, but it is disordered and a sin. Whereas adultery is simply a sin. Perhaps simply is not the right word.

I thank the author of this thread for introducing me to what seems a very good publication. I think I’ll subscribe.

CDL

 

[David_Zampino]

ThomasMore1535:

To anyone who currently subscribes to the New Oxford Review, I would highly suggest that you cancel your subscription. In their editorial section of the current issue, they have decried the recent document regarding homosexuals in the seminaries as a change from previous Church Teaching, and as way too liberal.

They have even said that in approving of the document, Benedict XVI has “forefited his credentials” as a conservative Catholic. They also appear to have a problem with the fact that the document calls on us to respect homosexuals as persons, though not of course any of the homosexual acts that they may perform.

The article appears to think that by respecting those who perform homosexual acts, we will be respecting the acts themselves, which is of course ridiculous. The document itself repeatidly calls homosexual acts sinful and objectively disordered.

The New Oxford Review has slandered Pope Benedict XVI. I was going to provide a link to the article, but unfortunately it is password-protected, and I don’t want to get into any copyright trouble by posting the article on here.

But I would strongly urge anyone who is loyal to Pope Benedict XVI to boycott the New Oxford Review, because they have said horrible things about him.

I will conclude with how the article itself ends:

When Ratzinger became Pope, we orthodox Catholics were ecstatic. But it’s likely that Benedict’s papacy will be very unpleasant–even bitter, since we had such high hopes.

[T]here is a Lavender Mafia in the Church, and it goes all the way to the Vatican, and Pope Benedict will do nothing about it.

Boycott this magazine, and pray for them.

To be perfectly frank, I gave up on this magazine years ago. I am most suspicious of those who seem to insist that they possess some sort of infallibility greater than that of the Holy Father or the Church – and seem to damn those who ONLY agree with them 99% of the time as utter heretics! (Yes, I exaggerate – but not all that much!)

I see the early symptoms of the disease which seems to have affected Gerry Matatics.

Blessings,

 

[oat_soda]

I see the early symptoms of the disease which seems to have affected Gerry Matatics.

i think a better comparison would be robert sungenis. gerry matatics is too radical. NOR is between crisis and the remnant in the spectrum of moderate to ultra-traditional catholic periodicals. i would say it is similar to the wanderer.

i have a subscription and enjoy it but i can understand why someone wouldn’t like it. you have to read it with a grain of salt and realize the whole point of the magazine is mainly to criticize for better or worse.

 

[m134e5]

GregoryPalamas:

but it is disordered and a sin. Whereas adultery is simply a sin. Perhaps simply is not the right word.

This shouldn’t even be an issue. Just because something is disordered doesn’t make the intent of the person committing the sin worse, or distance them further from God than a man cheating on his wife. Adultery is equally as sinful as homosexual sex- both are mortal sins.

 

[Margaret_in_AZ]

I’ve read enough articles about the “Lavender Mafia” in the priesthood and this recent article in NOR really upsets me. It stated:

“,81 percent of the priest sex-abuse victims were boys. As of June 2005, the known settlements for pedophilia (the large majority being pederasty) total $1.06 billion. Church property has been sold to pay the settlements.”

This leads me to ask 2 questions:

1. Why should I give the Church my money? I don’t mind giving to Catholic charities, but the Church doesn’t seem to understand that if it doesn’t clean out the homosexual priests, the only place you’ll find a Catholic Chuch is in a strip mall!
2. I homeschool my children and why on earth would I want to encourage my son, if he felt called and were of age, to enter a seminary? From what I’ve read about them, they sound like the bath houses in San Francisco!

This is a serious problem that demands sweeping reform, as far as I’m concerned.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

m134e5:

This shouldn’t even be an issue. Just because something is disordered doesn’t make the intent of the person committing the sin worse, or distance them further from God than a man cheating on his wife. Adultery is equally as sinful as homosexual sex- both are mortal sins.

Correct. I would think that it is more difficult to overcome a disorder of natural law was all I was saying. I would think that it would take a lifetime of serious commitment to overcome homosexual tendencies. It would take a serious conversion to overcome adulterous behavior.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Margaret in AZ:

I’ve read enough articles about the “Lavender Mafia” in the priesthood and this recent article in NOR really upsets me. It stated:

“,81 percent of the priest sex-abuse victims were boys. As of June 2005, the known settlements for pedophilia (the large majority being pederasty) total $1.06 billion. Church property has been sold to pay the settlements.”

This leads me to ask 2 questions:

1. Why should I give the Church my money? I don’t mind giving to Catholic charities, but the Church doesn’t seem to understand that if it doesn’t clean out the homosexual priests, the only place you’ll find a Catholic Chuch is in a strip mall!
2. I homeschool my children and why on earth would I want to encourage my son, if he felt called and were of age, to enter a seminary? From what I’ve read about them, they sound like the bath houses in San Francisco!

This is a serious problem that demands sweeping reform, as far as I’m concerned.

I certainly agree with you. I do believe that we are the Church. Hence, I believe this problem will be solved…mostly. Where else are we to go? I, too am a convert. I know something of the struggle you must be facing. Yet, Protestantism is not the answer. Cleaning up the Church is.

CDL

 

[Margaret_in_AZ]

GregoryPalamas:

I certainly agree with you. I do believe that we are the Church. Hence, I believe this problem will be solved…mostly. Where else are we to go? I, too am a convert. I know something of the struggle you must be facing. Yet, Protestantism is not the answer. Cleaning up the Church is.

CDL

Gregory,
I would never leave the Church and I do agree that this problem will be solved. I just don’t want that solution to be as hard on the Church as it seems it’s going to be. If they don’t address this problem, at least in the U.S., they’re going to get their pants (or should I say pink albs!) sued off of them. Maybe that’s the only way. I fear we will see some very dark days ahead.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

oat soda:

NOR does do a good job on issues which are usually at odds with neoconservative funded publications like crisis magazine. the strong point of NOR is that they try to defend traditional catholic teaching even if it is unpopular to do so such as the church’s teaching on just warfare or economics. they, like any catholic, are free to criticize the church’s discipline -even if the pope is to blame.

I fully agree that the NOR has done an outstanding job of bringing to light the problems of neoconservatives. They should be commended for the work that they have done in this area.

Nevertheless, they are slowly becomming more and more ultra-traditionalist. Lots of their articles seem very suspicious of Vatican II, among other things.

The problem with the NOR’s editorial criticizing Pope Benedict XVI is that it seems to deliberately misrepresent what the document on homosexuals in the seminary actually says. The editorial leads one to believe that we are to have respect for those who practice homosexual acts BECAUSE they practice such acts, indeed that we are to have respect for the acts themselves, which is ludicrous. The document says no such thing. We are, rather, to respect homosexuals as people created in God’s image, as Christ Himself loves all sinners. This is far from respecting them because of the vile acts they commit.