New Oxford Review blasts Benedict

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThomasMore1535
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, the editorial is wrong to blast the document for distinguishing between “deep-seated” homsexual tendencies and other, transitory desires. They insist that this changes previous discipline, when in fact this is not the case. Rather, to borrow from Cardinal Newman, it develops the discipline.

One has to distinguish between a serious homosexual disorder and sexual confusion that one may experience around the time of puberty. The former is what the Church is referring to when it describes as a “deep-seated” homosexual tendency. The later, however, as only a transitory problem, can be overcome.

Christopher West has actually written a lot on this second, “transitory” problem. He notes how he himself seemed to experience homosexual attractions around the time of puberty. It was a time of confusion for him. But it was quite clear that it was only a transitory problem for him, and nothing permanent. His “Good News About Sex and Marriage” book does an excellent job of describing this. Lots of men when they hit puberty are hit with these feelings, not because they have a fundamental homosexual attraction, but because they are confused. This has been documented. Just read Christopher West. This is what the Church means.

This is different from having a “deep-seated” homosexual tendency, which can be a lifelong struggle.
 
David Zampino:
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,
Click to expand...
Amen. That sums it up perfectly.
 
I can’t figure out NOR, are they so ultra-conservative that in fact, they are Liberal? Their founder is a former member of the Communist Party in America. What gives with that group?
 
40.png
seabird3579:
I can’t figure out NOR, are they so ultra-conservative that in fact, they are Liberal? Their founder is a former member of the Communist Party in America. What gives with that group?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this rumor of early Communist affiliation, but in a previous issue they totally deny it. They explain why this has come to be a rumor and say it is just not true. One may not like NOR, but it doesn’t make things better to spread rumors about them.

Even it was true, so what? I’ve done a lot of dumb things in the past. I hope no one holds them against me.
 
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
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.
Click to expand...
NOR did not say or imply that Instruction concerning… says we should respect homosexuals BECAUSE of the vile acts they commit. If you got that from their editorial, you speak a different language than I do.
 
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
Also, the editorial is wrong to blast the document for distinguishing between “deep-seated” homsexual tendencies and other, transitory desires. They insist that this changes previous discipline, when in fact this is not the case. Rather, to borrow from Cardinal Newman, it develops the discipline.

One has to distinguish between a serious homosexual disorder and sexual confusion that one may experience around the time of puberty. The former is what the Church is referring to when it describes as a “deep-seated” homosexual tendency. The later, however, as only a transitory problem, can be overcome.

Christopher West has actually written a lot on this second, “transitory” problem. He notes how he himself seemed to experience homosexual attractions around the time of puberty. It was a time of confusion for him. But it was quite clear that it was only a transitory problem for him, and nothing permanent. His “Good News About Sex and Marriage” book does an excellent job of describing this. Lots of men when they hit puberty are hit with these feelings, not because they have a fundamental homosexual attraction, but because they are confused. This has been documented. Just read Christopher West. This is what the Church means.

This is different from having a “deep-seated” homosexual tendency, which can be a lifelong struggle.
Click to expand...
This is what the NOR editorial said about the meaning of transitory:

The Catechism (#2357-2359) makes a clear distinction between homosexual “acts” and “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (also referred to as an “inclination” or a “condition,” which in the U.S. is often called an “orientation”). But the Catechism does not speak of a “transitory problem.” So, what is a “transitory problem”? It turns out that a “transitory problem” includes homosexual acts. Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, which issued “Concerning” and is responsible for its implementation, gave an interview to Vatican Radio on November 29, 2005. Speaking of “transitory problems,” he said: “For example, an uncompleted adolescence, some kind of curiosity; or perhaps accidental circumstances, a drunken state, maybe particular circumstances like a person who was imprisoned for many years. In these cases, homosexual acts do not come from a [deeply] rooted tendency… These acts are done because one wants to obtain some sort of advantage… These acts…do not constitute an obstacle to seminary admission or to holy orders” (italics added; translation from the Italian provided by Rocco Palmo).

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.” And in a Register news story (same issue), transitory problems might involve “experiences that occurred under the influence of alcohol, drugs or coercion, Cardinal Grochelewski [sic] said” (italics added). The neocon Register registered no objection to any of this, not even in its Editorial in the same issue.

This certainly opens up a can of worms. So you can be in jail for “many years” and commit homosexual acts, and still you can be admitted to the seminary. You can commit homosexual acts in a “drunken state” or under the influence of illegal “drugs,” and that’s O.K. You can commit homosexual acts “to obtain some sort of advantage,” and that’s O.K. You can “please” a superior or someone else, and that’s O.K. You can commit homosexual acts to earn money – which would include being a “gay” male prostitute – and that’s O.K. Good golly, Miss Molly, it’s a free-for-all!

Never mind homosexual acts; do we want priests who have been “imprisoned for many years,” who are druggies, who sell their bodies (and their souls) for money? This is hideous in and of itself.
 
40.png
miguel:
NOR did not say or imply that Instruction concerning… says we should respect homosexuals BECAUSE of the vile acts they commit. If you got that from their editorial, you speak a different language than I do.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what they are implying. They are saying that it is wrong that we should have respect for those who practice homosexual acts, that such respect is akin to respecting child molesters, etc. Christ calls us all to love each other as we love ourselves, no matter how bad the sinner is. That entails repsect, not for the acts of the person, but for the person himself. The only way that they can have a problem with the Vatican instruction is if they think that it says that we should respect homosexuals because they practice those acts.

Either that, or they are committing a heresy by saying that we should not love our enemies. So either way, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.
 
40.png
miguel:
This is what the NOR editorial said about the meaning of transitory:

The Catechism (#2357-2359) makes a clear distinction between homosexual “acts” and “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (also referred to as an “inclination” or a “condition,” which in the U.S. is often called an “orientation”). But the Catechism does not speak of a “transitory problem.” So, what is a “transitory problem”? It turns out that a “transitory problem” includes homosexual acts. Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, which issued “Concerning” and is responsible for its implementation, gave an interview to Vatican Radio on November 29, 2005. Speaking of “transitory problems,” he said: “For example, an uncompleted adolescence, some kind of curiosity; or perhaps accidental circumstances, a drunken state, maybe particular circumstances like a person who was imprisoned for many years. In these cases, homosexual acts do not come from a [deeply] rooted tendency… These acts are done because one wants to obtain some sort of advantage… These acts…do not constitute an obstacle to seminary admission or to holy orders” (italics added; translation from the Italian provided by Rocco Palmo).

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.” And in a Register news story (same issue), transitory problems might involve “experiences that occurred under the influence of alcohol, drugs or coercion, Cardinal Grochelewski [sic] said” (italics added). The neocon Register registered no objection to any of this, not even in its Editorial in the same issue.

This certainly opens up a can of worms. So you can be in jail for “many years” and commit homosexual acts, and still you can be admitted to the seminary. You can commit homosexual acts in a “drunken state” or under the influence of illegal “drugs,” and that’s O.K. You can commit homosexual acts “to obtain some sort of advantage,” and that’s O.K. You can “please” a superior or someone else, and that’s O.K. You can commit homosexual acts to earn money – which would include being a “gay” male prostitute – and that’s O.K. Good golly, Miss Molly, it’s a free-for-all!

Never mind homosexual acts; do we want priests who have been “imprisoned for many years,” who are druggies, who sell their bodies (and their souls) for money? This is hideous in and of itself.
Click to expand...
So I guess it was wrong for Our Lord to call St. Paul to become an Apostle, since he had been an active murderer and persecuter of Christians prior to that time. And I guess that it was wrong for Our Lord to call St. Augustine to the Bishopric, since he had committed so many sins of fornication that he probably couldn’t even remember them all.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Adultery and homosexual activity are BOTH disordered and a sin. In fact, they are both mortal sins against chastity.
 
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
That is exactly what they are implying.
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference between the NOR objecting to the Church saying they “profoundly respect” those who practice homosexual acts and the NOR objecting to the Church “profoundly respecting” persons BECAUSE they practice homosexual acts (your assertion).
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
They are saying that it is wrong that we should have respect for those who practice homosexual acts, that such respect is akin to respecting child molesters, etc.
Click to expand...
This is closer to what they said. They objected to the Church saying they profoundly respect those who engage in such acts. There is room for discussion on this point.
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
Christ calls us all to love each other as we love ourselves, no matter how bad the sinner is. That entails repsect, not for the acts of the person, but for the person himself.
Click to expand...
No arguement here.
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
The only way that they can have a problem with the Vatican instruction is if they think that it says that we should respect homosexuals because they practice those acts.
Click to expand...
That is your “only” interpretation even though you have an “either that…” down below. As I stated on another thread: …I think they were challenging a particular statement. At one level, their point is valid. Obviously, when talking about sinners, the Church holds we should hate the sin and love the sinner. At least I took the Church’s statement in this light. But even so, should they go out of their way to say they have “profound respect” for those who commit homosexual acts? I know they’re trying to be sensitive. And maybe that’s warranted for this politically-charged topic. But couldn’t they have picked some other phrase? Should they or would they go out of their way to say they have “profound respect” for Adolf Hitler? Theoretically, they could also defend that on the old hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner ground…but they’d invite a whole lot of valid criticism if they did. Some things are better left unsaid.
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
Either that, or they are committing a heresy by saying that we should not love our enemies.
Click to expand...
The NOR did not say this.
 
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
So I guess it was wrong for Our Lord to call St. Paul to become an Apostle, since he had been an active murderer and persecuter of Christians prior to that time. And I guess that it was wrong for Our Lord to call St. Augustine to the Bishopric, since he had committed so many sins of fornication that he probably couldn’t even remember them all.
Click to expand...
The NOR did not say any of this was wrong. You are jumping to the wrong conclusion.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Its a good magazine once you get past the letters to the editor and the editorials. They are so consumed with opposition to the Iraq war that it colors nearly everything they say.Last issue they declared two Popes had declared the Iraq War unjust(not true) and that catholic Soldiers were sining if the fought in it. This issue they comapred Joan of arc to the Iraqi Insurgents. The articles are good which is why i dont cacel my subscription.
 
I just have to say to one of the posters above that you don’t know factually the first or least thing about Gerry Matatics, nor do you have any right to assert that his mind is “diseased.”
That is simply outrageous.
 
40.png
Jaypeeto3:
I just have to say to one of the posters above that you don’t know factually the first or least thing about Gerry Matatics, nor do you have any right to assert that his mind is “diseased.”
That is simply outrageous.
Click to expand...
Is he not a sedevacanteist? I realize he didn’t start out that way, but…
 
40.png
Everyman:
I’ve heard this rumor of early Communist affiliation, but in a previous issue they totally deny it. They explain why this has come to be a rumor and say it is just not true. One may not like NOR, but it doesn’t make things better to spread rumors about them.

Even it was true, so what? I’ve done a lot of dumb things in the past. I hope no one holds them against me.
Click to expand...
I don’t repeat “rumors”, however, I did research the author and discovered quite a bit of information on him on the Internet where he, in his own words, describes his beginnings in the Communist Party. He claims christianity has changed him. I believe that, however, all of us carry over some of our past lives into the present. None of us are completely whole until we meet our Maker. Many of his “opinions” show “liberal leanings.”

I worry more about people who try to stifle free speech than about those who write with a particular “bent”, Mr. Everyman.
 
NOR reminds me of people (even CA posters sometimes) that may have something to say but do it in such a mean spirited way that it offends you even if their position is a valid one. Their paraphrasing of the Instruction may highlight a deficiency in the Instruction’s wording, but what did they expect the Instruction to say? That the Church profoundly disrespects practicing homosexuals? The rest of the world already seems to think that anyway. The more I think about it, the less optimism I have that this Instruction will be implementable; too many bishops have already undermined it through what amount to dissenting statements, and homosexuality is such a private matter (at least if the candidate in question is chaste) that many homosexuals will go under cover until they are ordained if they are determined to do so. The only hope is that some will self select and not enter the seminary since the Church has reemphasized its position. Fr. Neuhaus is right in comparing it to Humanae Vitae: firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/public.html
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
I think you need to calm down. Calling a Pope liberal is perfectly acceptable. John XXIII and Paul VI were considered liberal…in a disciplinary sense, not a doctrinal sense. NOR is questioning Benedict XVI’s discipline, not his orthodoxy. Saints have done as much.

As for NOR’s critique, one of their main points, is that nothing will change…and not simply because Rome put out a weak document. Those who expect yet another document out of Rome to have much of an impact on cleaning up the mess here, are going to be very disappointed. The disobedience that was prevalent before the document, will persist after. That’s what disobedient people do…they ignore Church documents, papal exhortations, and the like. And unless measures are taken to rid the clergy (and laity for that matter) of all these disobedient types, it will be business as usual. (Jesus talked of the weeds and the wheat. We can hope for it, pray for it, but we shouldn’t really expect the separation of the two until after the harvest.) Getting rid of disobedient bishops is a delicate operation…carrying the risk of schism. Patiently waiting for the man to die or retire, and appointing a better man in his place is usually the better option. Although a bad one can do a whole lot of damage. It’s a tough dilemma for a Pope.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
It is orthodox to support the Pope and the Magisterium! NOR is on their own!
 
40.png
Confiteor:
NOR reminds me of people (even CA posters sometimes) that may have something to say but do it in such a mean spirited way that it offends you even if their position is a valid one. Their paraphrasing of the Instruction may highlight a deficiency in the Instruction’s wording, but what did they expect the Instruction to say? That the Church profoundly disrespects practicing homosexuals? The rest of the world already seems to think that anyway. The more I think about it, the less optimism I have that this Instruction will be implementable; too many bishops have already undermined it through what amount to dissenting statements, and homosexuality is such a private matter (at least if the candidate in question is chaste) that many homosexuals will go under cover until they are ordained if they are determined to do so. The only hope is that some will self select and not enter the seminary since the Church has reemphasized its position. Fr. Neuhaus is right in comparing it to Humanae Vitae: firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/public.html
Click to expand...
I consider it mean-spirited and Dishonest to “imply” something bad about someone’s character without bringing Truth into the matter. You may think it “stealth” of you, I just consider it the same ole sinful nature resurfacing.

Let’s see, does your personal prayer often start like this: “Dear Lord, I thank you that I am not a Sinner like those CA posters…”

You’re so “stealth” you say Nothing of a personal nature on your ID page, at least I have “revealed” myself.

Lest the moderators think this is uncharitable, I would remind them that Truth is the Greatess of all charity.

Frankly, I’m a little annoyed at how many lies can float on this forum without interruption, but if someone comes along and is stern about their traditional beliefs, they get called on the carpet. Hypocrisy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top