J
JSmitty2005
Guest
If that’s what they said, I think they’re right too. It seems like an awesome magazine, exactly what the Church needs in a time like this. I think I might subscribe.
- Status
F
fkpl
Guest
NOR’s rhetoric can be heated but I think they are basically right here.
First off, the recent “Instruction” was clearly a hedged document written by committee. Its lack of clarity is evidenced by the outright insubordinate statements made by numerous American bishops and others like the Provincial of the Jesuits. Basically, they felt they had enough wiggle room to simply say “We have the right to ordain homosexual men unless we know they are sexually active.” Even though the Instruction does not in my opinion allow for this interpretation, the Vatican should have anticipated that the out-of-control American episcopate would get hyper-Jesuitical about it to undercut its spirit and letter. This was forseeable. The fact that the Vatican was incapable of generating a clear, concise and unambiguous disciplinary order on this subject speaks volumes about how high the Lavendar Mafia goes in the Church.
There is a basic confusion in some circles about homosexual orientation versus homosexual acts. Acording to the CCC having same sex orientation is not a sin in and of itself. It is a cross to bear. Homosexual acts, however, are “gravely disordered” and unnatural in addition to being mortally sinful. In this sense they are more greivous than heterosexual sins. There is, I believe, scriptural support for this but I don’t have the quote to hand. Pagan societies did not distinguish between orientation and acts. This distinction is a relatively modern development.
The good news is that the epidemic of homosexual priestly abuse in the Church is pretty much a thing of the past. Most of these lawsuits relate to abuses which occured in the late 60’s to early 80’s. In point of fact, most sex abuse allegations these days are made against Protestant clergy and non-ordained volunteers, not Catholics. I believe the incidence of child abuse is as high in Judaism as it is in Catholicism or Protestantism. It is just that the hierarchical orgainzation of the Catholic Church makes the collegation of mega-statistics possible whereas the decentralized nature of Protestant denominations and Judaism makes this kind of data unavailable.
The bottom line is that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained, whether or not they intend to remain celibate. Politically correct decision of the American Psychiatric and Psychological Assns. notwithstanding, homosexuality is a mental disease and a developmental abnormality. It’s not their fault they are that way, but they are morally responsible for their actions.
Our Church has gone much too far in its attempts to accomodate the secular material zeitgeist of the current age. We will suffer as long as we try to play this game. The answer to our current problem is not to become less Catholic but to become more Catholic.
NOR is a valuable publication and should be considered by all orthodox Catholics. Nobody has to buy 100% of what they read anywhere, however.
BTW, it is pefectly acceptable to criticize the pope on all matters on which he does not claim to be speaking infallibly. Such matters involve faith and morals but they do not involve matters of Church discipline. I think the Vatican is wrong on this one because they couched the Instruction in much too imprecise language. There is no wrong in pointing out that opinion.
We need to pray and above all keep the faith.
First off, the recent “Instruction” was clearly a hedged document written by committee. Its lack of clarity is evidenced by the outright insubordinate statements made by numerous American bishops and others like the Provincial of the Jesuits. Basically, they felt they had enough wiggle room to simply say “We have the right to ordain homosexual men unless we know they are sexually active.” Even though the Instruction does not in my opinion allow for this interpretation, the Vatican should have anticipated that the out-of-control American episcopate would get hyper-Jesuitical about it to undercut its spirit and letter. This was forseeable. The fact that the Vatican was incapable of generating a clear, concise and unambiguous disciplinary order on this subject speaks volumes about how high the Lavendar Mafia goes in the Church.
There is a basic confusion in some circles about homosexual orientation versus homosexual acts. Acording to the CCC having same sex orientation is not a sin in and of itself. It is a cross to bear. Homosexual acts, however, are “gravely disordered” and unnatural in addition to being mortally sinful. In this sense they are more greivous than heterosexual sins. There is, I believe, scriptural support for this but I don’t have the quote to hand. Pagan societies did not distinguish between orientation and acts. This distinction is a relatively modern development.
The good news is that the epidemic of homosexual priestly abuse in the Church is pretty much a thing of the past. Most of these lawsuits relate to abuses which occured in the late 60’s to early 80’s. In point of fact, most sex abuse allegations these days are made against Protestant clergy and non-ordained volunteers, not Catholics. I believe the incidence of child abuse is as high in Judaism as it is in Catholicism or Protestantism. It is just that the hierarchical orgainzation of the Catholic Church makes the collegation of mega-statistics possible whereas the decentralized nature of Protestant denominations and Judaism makes this kind of data unavailable.
The bottom line is that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained, whether or not they intend to remain celibate. Politically correct decision of the American Psychiatric and Psychological Assns. notwithstanding, homosexuality is a mental disease and a developmental abnormality. It’s not their fault they are that way, but they are morally responsible for their actions.
Our Church has gone much too far in its attempts to accomodate the secular material zeitgeist of the current age. We will suffer as long as we try to play this game. The answer to our current problem is not to become less Catholic but to become more Catholic.
NOR is a valuable publication and should be considered by all orthodox Catholics. Nobody has to buy 100% of what they read anywhere, however.
BTW, it is pefectly acceptable to criticize the pope on all matters on which he does not claim to be speaking infallibly. Such matters involve faith and morals but they do not involve matters of Church discipline. I think the Vatican is wrong on this one because they couched the Instruction in much too imprecise language. There is no wrong in pointing out that opinion.
We need to pray and above all keep the faith.
S
Sirach14
Guest
Why don’t you judge the magazine for yourself, and not be swayed by someone else.
A
AnthonyJ
Guest
If most Catholics believe like you that homosexual deviancy is no worse than adultery and pre-marital sex, then the RCC is in worse shape than I thought.
m134e5:
M
Marilena
Guest
Quote from : ThomasMore1535 “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.”
Iam glad I don’t get the review, and Iam VERY l oyal to Pope Benedict XVI! If I could boycott it I would, but we don’t get it
where we live.
Iam glad I don’t get the review, and Iam VERY l oyal to Pope Benedict XVI! If I could boycott it I would, but we don’t get it
where we live.
B
Beeline
Guest
Yes, NOR thinks that the new document is a watering down of the Church’s previous more stringent requirements concerning Homosexual seminarians and it is and many agree.
Many would prefer that the previous instructions
in this area be enforced. The priestly profession
has become a ‘gay profession’ in many ways.
Due to the changes in Society since the 60’s, their
numbers have increased to beyond their proportion
in society and while this should not be any alarm for
virtually any secular occupation it is a concern for the priesthood as has been borne out by the too numerous and expensive scandals we have experienced…
Its their opinion and they provide facts to buttress
their opinion…
Do you have a list of liberal publications we should
boycott also for similar ‘offenses’?
They make the analogy that the document is calling
for ‘respect’ for homosexuals and makes the point
I quote:
‘By that logic, we should have profound respect for fornicators, adulterers and child molestors’.
Are we making mountains out of mole hills??
How??
You have offered no proofs or quotes??
Anyone can have an opinion, liberal or conservative, especially if that opinion doesnt
conflict with Church dogma.
My opinion towards you is that this post is based on emotional hysterics.
My dear TM, I’ve read the article, they lay out facts
to make their points. Complaining that he is or is becoming too liberal is not saying ‘horrible things’
about him.
What most conservative will say about this Pope or
even JPII is that due to their pastoral role, that
at times even though they may talk tough and be conservative , they frequently dont carry the ‘Big Stick’ that us conservatives would like to see.
In the case of Pope Benedict they are saying that
he is not talking tough enough and is appearing too
soft or liberal. They didnt say a horrible thing, and I’ve got to say that this whole thread is just emotional
hysterics.
B
Beeline
Guest
Yes, NOR thinks that the new document is a watering down of the Church’s previous more stringent requirements concerning Homosexual seminarians and it is and many agree.
Many would prefer that the previous instructions
in this area be enforced. The priestly profession
has become a ‘gay profession’ in many ways.
Due to the changes in Society since the 60’s, their
numbers have increased to beyond their proportion
in society and while this should be any alarm for
virtually any secular occupation it is a concern for the priesthood as has been borne out by the too numerous and expensive scandals we have experienced…
Its their opinion and they provide facts to buttress
their opinion…
Do you have a list of liberal publications we should
boycott also for similar ‘offenses’?
They make the analogy that the document is calling
for ‘respect’ for homosexuals and makes the point
I quote:
‘By that logic, we should have profound respect for fornicators, adulterers and child molestors’.
Are we making mountains out of mole hills??
How??
You have offered no proofs or quotes??
Anyone can have an opinion, liberal or conservative, especially if that opinion doesnt
conflict with Church dogma.
My opinion towards you is that this post is based on emotional hysterics.
My dear TM, I’ve read the article, they lay out facts
to make their points. Complaining that he is or is becoming too liberal is not saying ‘horrible things’
about him.
What most conservative will say about this Pope or
even JPII is that due to their pastoral role, that
at times even though they may talk tough and be conservative , they frequently dont carry the ‘Big Stick’ that us conservatives would like to see.
In the case of Pope Benedict they are saying that
he is not talking tough enough and is appearing too
soft or liberal. They didnt say a horrible thing, and I’ve got to say that this whole thread is just emotional
hysterics.
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
You’ve obviously never read “The Good News About Sex and Marriage,” by Christopher West, who has done a fantastic job of presenting John Paul the Great’s theology of the body to the world. It is a fact that given advances in what we know about the human condition, there is such a thing as a “transitory condition” regarding homosexual tendencies. Christopher West is very frank in talking about these matters. He himself experienced such a “transitory condition” when he hit puberty, and he is very frank in talking about it. But he never entered into any homosexual relationship, and eventually this “transitory” condition left him. He is now happily married with children, raising an orthodox Catholic faimly. This is a condition that cannot simply be lumped in with a genuine, “deep-seated” homosexual tendency that one may never fully overcome in this lifetime. A distinction has to be made. Read “The Good New About Sex and Marriage.” He talks about this condition.
That is what the document means by “transitory conditions.” I do not understand why so many people have a problem with this.
This is not a change of the previous discipline, it is a development of it, to borrow from the conception of development of doctrine. There has to be a distinction between transitory conditions and deep-rooted conditions that pose a much more serious problem.
And regarding your question about whether I’m prepared to list liberal publications that should be boycotted, I would think that those publications would be so obvious to the people on this forum that it would be unnecessary to go through all them.
But, just to make you happy, why don’t we start with the New York Times, since even though it isn’t a Catholic publication, is trying to destory the Church, and always has been. In terms of Catholic publications, why don’t we start with the National Catholic Reporter. I could list more, but there are so many of them I doubt that there is enough room on this forum for all of them.
B
Beeline
Guest
Thanks for your reply.
You seem to have replied to me and not replied to me.
As to the book you recommend, I found book reviews
and little else. It seems a faithful book.
As to why NOR should be boycotted for saying horrible things about the Pope or going over the top
with their arguments against the latest Papal instrucions towards gays in the seminary, I tried to demonstrate that they didnt and supplied the missing
quotes you alluded to , you remain silent.
Goodday.
You seem to have replied to me and not replied to me.
As to the book you recommend, I found book reviews
and little else. It seems a faithful book.
As to why NOR should be boycotted for saying horrible things about the Pope or going over the top
with their arguments against the latest Papal instrucions towards gays in the seminary, I tried to demonstrate that they didnt and supplied the missing
quotes you alluded to , you remain silent.
Goodday.
- Status