R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
This thread is way off topic. Please return to the discussing what the Holy Father said.
This thread is way off topic. Please return to the discussing what the Holy Father said.
- Status
C
comrade1789
Guest
I don’t like the imprecision of his statement, as Pope Francis seems to be using the terminology created by the architects of the gay agenda so that they can frame all discussion on sexuality. I find it unfortunate, and it seems that Pope Francis would do well to exercise more precision in choosing words, and prudence in timing. If his goal was to say something that would immediately take all focus off what he accomplished at Rio and give his detractors the means to steal his thunder, then he succeeded.
I am not trying to be critical or unfair to our wonderful Pope, but his wording at times really leaves much to be desired. I’m sure as time goes on in his pontificate, and he gets weary of having to restate and clarify and qualify his off-the-cuff responses, he will pay more attention to the precision of his choice of words. Unfortunately, “Gay” is a very specific term, one that comes with a whole host of cultural and political implications. The MSM are not ignorant of this fact. Insisting on people using terms developed by folks who wish to promote unhealthy and sinful activity is not helpful. We must be precise in our terms, otherwise the entire discussion gets framed by those who have a much different agenda than what is healthy. The Vatican itself about a decade ago released a 900+ page document that I advice everyone on this blog to acquire for themselves, that addresses this very topic, and perhaps Pope Francis will soon be made familiar with it as well: Released by the
Pontifical Council for the Family, the document, Lexicon: Ambiguous and Debatable Terms Regarding Family Life and Ethical Questions can be downloaded at hli.org/files/lexcon-book.pdf.
Terms such as “orientation” “gay” and even “homosexual” are problematic. There is no such thing as a sexual orientation other than so-called heterosexual. Anything else is a lie, because the sex act itself is ordered and oriented to the opposite and complimentary sex. No, unfortunately, Gay is a very specific term, one that comes with a whole host of cultural and political implications. The MSM are not ignorant of this fact. Insisting on people using terms developed by folks who wish to promote unhealthy and sinful activity is not helpful. We must be precise in our terms, otherwise the entire discussion gets framed by those who have a much different agenda than what is healthy. The Vatican itself about a decade ago released a 900+ page document that I advice everyone on this blog to acquire for themselves, that addresses this very topic, and perhaps Pope Francis will soon be made familiar with it as well: Released by the
Pontifical Council for the Family, the document, Lexicon: Ambiguous and Debatable Terms Regarding Family Life and Ethical Questions can be downloaded at hli.org/files/lexcon-book.pdf.
Terms such as “orientation” “gay” and even “homosexual” are problematic. There is no such thing as a sexual orientation other than so-called heterosexual. Anything else is incorrect, because the sex act itself is ordered and oriented to the opposite and complimentary sex. If one is to use any of those terms, it should be first demonstrated the limitations of such terms before using them. As Pope Emeritus Benedict answered in his interview with Peter Seewald in The Light of the World (p,151-152):
"It is one thing to say that they (folks who identify as ‘homosexual’) are human beings with their problems and their joys, that as human beings they deserve respect, even though they have this inclination and must not be discriminated against because of it. Respect for man is absolutely fundamental and decisive.
“At the same time, though, sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual. We could say, if we wanted to put it like this, that evolution has brought forth sexuality for the purpose of reproducing the species. The same thing is true from a theological point of view as well. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and, in this way, to give humanity posterity, children, a future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality’s intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age.”
There is a problem with Pope Francis conceding terms such as “orientation” as Benedict spelled out above. As far as Pope Francis addressing the topic of “Gay” Priests, that would imply a Priest who experiences Same Sex Attraction, and promotes and embraces the culture and politics of what Gay is. A Priest who may experience that attraction (or more accurately, the distraction) but seeks to live a chaste and holy and celibate life and not distort the truth of sex, sexuality and marriage is a different story.
That being said, Pope Emeritus Benedict laid out the theological reasons why a man who experiences SSA should not be admitted to Holy Orders or to Religious Life in the same interview, (p.152-153):
“Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway. For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off center, and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken. The Congregation for Education issued a decision…that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because of their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being…The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.”
I am not trying to be critical or unfair to our wonderful Pope, but his wording at times really leaves much to be desired. I’m sure as time goes on in his pontificate, and he gets weary of having to restate and clarify and qualify his off-the-cuff responses, he will pay more attention to the precision of his choice of words. Unfortunately, “Gay” is a very specific term, one that comes with a whole host of cultural and political implications. The MSM are not ignorant of this fact. Insisting on people using terms developed by folks who wish to promote unhealthy and sinful activity is not helpful. We must be precise in our terms, otherwise the entire discussion gets framed by those who have a much different agenda than what is healthy. The Vatican itself about a decade ago released a 900+ page document that I advice everyone on this blog to acquire for themselves, that addresses this very topic, and perhaps Pope Francis will soon be made familiar with it as well: Released by the
Pontifical Council for the Family, the document, Lexicon: Ambiguous and Debatable Terms Regarding Family Life and Ethical Questions can be downloaded at hli.org/files/lexcon-book.pdf.
Terms such as “orientation” “gay” and even “homosexual” are problematic. There is no such thing as a sexual orientation other than so-called heterosexual. Anything else is a lie, because the sex act itself is ordered and oriented to the opposite and complimentary sex. No, unfortunately, Gay is a very specific term, one that comes with a whole host of cultural and political implications. The MSM are not ignorant of this fact. Insisting on people using terms developed by folks who wish to promote unhealthy and sinful activity is not helpful. We must be precise in our terms, otherwise the entire discussion gets framed by those who have a much different agenda than what is healthy. The Vatican itself about a decade ago released a 900+ page document that I advice everyone on this blog to acquire for themselves, that addresses this very topic, and perhaps Pope Francis will soon be made familiar with it as well: Released by the
Pontifical Council for the Family, the document, Lexicon: Ambiguous and Debatable Terms Regarding Family Life and Ethical Questions can be downloaded at hli.org/files/lexcon-book.pdf.
Terms such as “orientation” “gay” and even “homosexual” are problematic. There is no such thing as a sexual orientation other than so-called heterosexual. Anything else is incorrect, because the sex act itself is ordered and oriented to the opposite and complimentary sex. If one is to use any of those terms, it should be first demonstrated the limitations of such terms before using them. As Pope Emeritus Benedict answered in his interview with Peter Seewald in The Light of the World (p,151-152):
"It is one thing to say that they (folks who identify as ‘homosexual’) are human beings with their problems and their joys, that as human beings they deserve respect, even though they have this inclination and must not be discriminated against because of it. Respect for man is absolutely fundamental and decisive.
“At the same time, though, sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual. We could say, if we wanted to put it like this, that evolution has brought forth sexuality for the purpose of reproducing the species. The same thing is true from a theological point of view as well. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and, in this way, to give humanity posterity, children, a future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality’s intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age.”
There is a problem with Pope Francis conceding terms such as “orientation” as Benedict spelled out above. As far as Pope Francis addressing the topic of “Gay” Priests, that would imply a Priest who experiences Same Sex Attraction, and promotes and embraces the culture and politics of what Gay is. A Priest who may experience that attraction (or more accurately, the distraction) but seeks to live a chaste and holy and celibate life and not distort the truth of sex, sexuality and marriage is a different story.
That being said, Pope Emeritus Benedict laid out the theological reasons why a man who experiences SSA should not be admitted to Holy Orders or to Religious Life in the same interview, (p.152-153):
“Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway. For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off center, and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken. The Congregation for Education issued a decision…that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because of their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being…The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.”
C
comrade1789
Guest
Asked about “homosexuality” in monasteries and clergy (religious life in general) Benedict replied: “Well, that is just one of the disturbing problems of the Church. And the persons who are affected must at least try not to express this inclination actively, in order to remain true to the intrinsic mission of their office.”
One last resource that I find very illuminating on the topic, can be listened to or downlioaded for free from the Institute of Catholic Culture. 2 talks, one by a convert who experiences SSA, and another by therapist who has helped men and women who experience SSA for over 30 years. I suggest listening to Part 2 first. These talks will help you to frame the discussion.
instituteofcatholicculture.org/speaking-the-truth-in-love-christianity-homosexuality/
One last resource that I find very illuminating on the topic, can be listened to or downlioaded for free from the Institute of Catholic Culture. 2 talks, one by a convert who experiences SSA, and another by therapist who has helped men and women who experience SSA for over 30 years. I suggest listening to Part 2 first. These talks will help you to frame the discussion.
instituteofcatholicculture.org/speaking-the-truth-in-love-christianity-homosexuality/
M
McCall1981
Guest
I posted this in the other thread on the media misinterpreting Pope Francis’ words, but I think it fits here too.
This is google translated from the Vatican website from the Press Conference.
attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/07/30/news/31494.html
Patricia Zorzan:
“Speaking on behalf of the Brazilians. Society has changed, young people have changed and you see so many young people in Brazil. She did not mention abortion, marriage between persons of the same sex. In Brazil, a law was passed that extends the right to abortion and allowed marriage between persons of the same sex. Why did not talk about this?”
Papa Francesco:
“The Church has already expressed this perfectly. It was not necessary to go back, as I have not even talked about the fraud, deceit or other things which the Church has a clear doctrine!”
Patricia Zorzan:
“But it is a topic that interests the young …”
Papa Francesco:
“Yes, but there was no need to talk about this, but the positive things that open the way to the boys. Is not it? In addition, young people know exactly what is the position of the Church!”
Patricia Zorzan:
“What is the position of Your Holiness, we can talk about it?”
Papa Francesco:
“That of the Church. I am the son of the Church!”
This is google translated from the Vatican website from the Press Conference.
attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/07/30/news/31494.html
Patricia Zorzan:
“Speaking on behalf of the Brazilians. Society has changed, young people have changed and you see so many young people in Brazil. She did not mention abortion, marriage between persons of the same sex. In Brazil, a law was passed that extends the right to abortion and allowed marriage between persons of the same sex. Why did not talk about this?”
Papa Francesco:
“The Church has already expressed this perfectly. It was not necessary to go back, as I have not even talked about the fraud, deceit or other things which the Church has a clear doctrine!”
Patricia Zorzan:
“But it is a topic that interests the young …”
Papa Francesco:
“Yes, but there was no need to talk about this, but the positive things that open the way to the boys. Is not it? In addition, young people know exactly what is the position of the Church!”
Patricia Zorzan:
“What is the position of Your Holiness, we can talk about it?”
Papa Francesco:
“That of the Church. I am the son of the Church!”
L
livingwordunity
Guest
H
HansTrappist
Guest
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.
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.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I don’t know if anyone’s already posted this, but I thought we could use a little bit of humor! eyeofthetiber.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-declares-homosexuality-obligatory-for-all-catholics-new-york-times-reports/
K
kelvinf
Guest
On German state TV, the German translator translating what the pope was saying used the word “Homosexuelle” (Engl. homosexuals).
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Amen!!
T
Tarpeian
Guest
H
HansTrappist
Guest
Yeah, I think the use of the word “gay” is a problem (if in fact that was the term used…I’ll wait for the official transcript of the interview).
You see, the term “gay” no longer means what it originally meant. Originally, “gay” was just another word for “happy” or “joyful.” But it was twisted by the Satanists and now carries a very specific meaning in popular culture. In fact, calling oneself “gay” actually implies that one is a member of the “gay” lobby…the very lobbies that Pope Francis was railing against in his remarks.
Nevertheless, I understand what Pope Francis was saying - that it is possible, and in fact required, for a person with the homosexual orientation to live a chaste, holy life and we are not to judge such a person - yet I would like to see the original transcript and I certainly don’t trust BBC or any other Freemason press outlet to report accurately on the Holy Father’s remarks, given their past track record on such reporting.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
Speaking of other problems within the administration of the Holy See, including rumours of a ‘gay lobby’ within the Vatican, Pope Francis said there are many saintly people working in the Curia but also those who are not so saintly and cause scandals which harm the Church. Quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, he said that people with homosexual tendencies must not be excluded but should be integrated into society. “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?” he asked.
news.va/en/news/pope-holds-press-conference-on-flight-back-from-br
Official transcript is here:
news.va/en/news/139491
Here is what he said:
Quello di mons. Ricca: ho fatto quello che il Diritto Canonico manda a fare, che è la investigatio previa. E da questa investigatio non c’è niente di quello di cui l’accusano, non abbiamo trovato niente di quello. Questa è la risposta. Ma io vorrei aggiungere un’altra cosa su questo: io vedo che tante volte nella Chiesa, al di fuori di questo caso ed anche in questo caso, si vanno a cercare i “peccati di gioventù”, per esempio, e questo si pubblica. Non i delitti, eh? i delitti sono un’altra cosa: l’abuso sui minori è un delitto. No, i peccati. Ma se una persona, laica o prete o suora, ha fatto un peccato e poi si è convertito, il Signore perdona, e quando il Signore perdona, il Signore dimentica e questo per la nostra vita è importante. Quando noi andiamo a confessarci e diciamo davvero: “Ho peccato in questo”, il Signore dimentica e noi non abbiamo il diritto di non dimenticare, perché corriamo il rischio che il Signore non si dimentichi dei nostri [peccati]. E’ un pericolo quello. Questo è importante: una teologia del peccato. Tante volte penso a San Pietro: ha fatto uno dei peggiori peccati, che è rinnegare Cristo, e con questo peccato lo hanno fatto Papa. Dobbiamo pensare tanto. Ma, tornando alla Sua domanda più concreta: in questo caso, ho fatto l’investigatio previa e non abbiamo trovato. Questa è la prima domanda. Poi, Lei parlava della lobby gay. Mah! Si scrive tanto della lobby gay. Io ancora non ho trovato chi mi dia la carta d’identità in Vaticano con “gay”. Dicono che ce ne sono. Credo che quando uno si trova con una persona così, deve distinguere il fatto di essere una persona gay, dal fatto di fare una lobby, perché le lobby, tutte non sono buone. Quello è cattivo. Se una persona è gay e cerca il Signore e ha buona volontà, ma chi sono io per giudicarla? Il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica spiega in modo tanto bello questo, ma dice, Aspetta un po’, come si dice… e dice: “non si devono emarginare queste persone per questo, devono essere integrate in società”. Il problema non è avere questa tendenza, no, dobbiamo essere fratelli, perché questo è uno, ma se c’è un altro, un altro. Il problema è fare lobby di questa tendenza: lobby di avari, lobby di politici, lobby dei massoni, tante lobby. Questo è il problema più grave per me. E La ringrazio tanto per aver fatto questa domanda. Grazie tante!
Google translation is:
That of Msgr. Rich: I did what canon law sends to do, which is the subject investigatio. And from this investigatio there is nothing to which the accused, we did not find anything about that. This is the answer. But I would add one more thing on this: I see that so many times in the Church, outside of this case and also in this case, you go to look for the “sins of youth,” for example, and this is published. Not crimes, eh? crimes are something else: child abuse is a crime. No, sins. But if a person, or secular priest or a nun, has done a sin and then he converted, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, forgets the Lord and this is important for our lives. When we go to confession and say really, “I have sinned in this,” forget the Lord and we do not have the right not to forget, because we run the risk that the Lord does not forget our [sins]. It 'a danger that. This is important: a theology of sin. So many times I think of St. Peter has made one of the worst sins, which is to deny Christ, and with this sin they did Pope We have to think much. But, back to your question more concrete: in this case, I made the investigatio subject and did not find. This is the first question. Then, you spoke of the gay lobby. Mah! He writes a lot of the gay lobby. I still have not found someone who will give me the ID card in the Vatican with “gay”. They say that there are none. I believe that when one lies with a person, must distinguish the fact of being a gay person, by the fact of a lobby because the lobby, not all are good. That is bad. If a person is gay and seek the Lord and has good intentions, but who am I to judge? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in this so beautiful, but says, Wait a bit ', as they say … and says, “you do not have to marginalize these people for that matter, should be integrated into society.” The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers, because this is one, but if there’s another, another. The problem is to lobby for this trend: the lobby of the greedy, lobby politicians, lobby of the Masons, many lobby. This is the most serious problem for me. And thank you so much for doing this question. Thank you very much!
news.va/en/news/pope-holds-press-conference-on-flight-back-from-br
Official transcript is here:
news.va/en/news/139491
Here is what he said:
Quello di mons. Ricca: ho fatto quello che il Diritto Canonico manda a fare, che è la investigatio previa. E da questa investigatio non c’è niente di quello di cui l’accusano, non abbiamo trovato niente di quello. Questa è la risposta. Ma io vorrei aggiungere un’altra cosa su questo: io vedo che tante volte nella Chiesa, al di fuori di questo caso ed anche in questo caso, si vanno a cercare i “peccati di gioventù”, per esempio, e questo si pubblica. Non i delitti, eh? i delitti sono un’altra cosa: l’abuso sui minori è un delitto. No, i peccati. Ma se una persona, laica o prete o suora, ha fatto un peccato e poi si è convertito, il Signore perdona, e quando il Signore perdona, il Signore dimentica e questo per la nostra vita è importante. Quando noi andiamo a confessarci e diciamo davvero: “Ho peccato in questo”, il Signore dimentica e noi non abbiamo il diritto di non dimenticare, perché corriamo il rischio che il Signore non si dimentichi dei nostri [peccati]. E’ un pericolo quello. Questo è importante: una teologia del peccato. Tante volte penso a San Pietro: ha fatto uno dei peggiori peccati, che è rinnegare Cristo, e con questo peccato lo hanno fatto Papa. Dobbiamo pensare tanto. Ma, tornando alla Sua domanda più concreta: in questo caso, ho fatto l’investigatio previa e non abbiamo trovato. Questa è la prima domanda. Poi, Lei parlava della lobby gay. Mah! Si scrive tanto della lobby gay. Io ancora non ho trovato chi mi dia la carta d’identità in Vaticano con “gay”. Dicono che ce ne sono. Credo che quando uno si trova con una persona così, deve distinguere il fatto di essere una persona gay, dal fatto di fare una lobby, perché le lobby, tutte non sono buone. Quello è cattivo. Se una persona è gay e cerca il Signore e ha buona volontà, ma chi sono io per giudicarla? Il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica spiega in modo tanto bello questo, ma dice, Aspetta un po’, come si dice… e dice: “non si devono emarginare queste persone per questo, devono essere integrate in società”. Il problema non è avere questa tendenza, no, dobbiamo essere fratelli, perché questo è uno, ma se c’è un altro, un altro. Il problema è fare lobby di questa tendenza: lobby di avari, lobby di politici, lobby dei massoni, tante lobby. Questo è il problema più grave per me. E La ringrazio tanto per aver fatto questa domanda. Grazie tante!
Google translation is:
That of Msgr. Rich: I did what canon law sends to do, which is the subject investigatio. And from this investigatio there is nothing to which the accused, we did not find anything about that. This is the answer. But I would add one more thing on this: I see that so many times in the Church, outside of this case and also in this case, you go to look for the “sins of youth,” for example, and this is published. Not crimes, eh? crimes are something else: child abuse is a crime. No, sins. But if a person, or secular priest or a nun, has done a sin and then he converted, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, forgets the Lord and this is important for our lives. When we go to confession and say really, “I have sinned in this,” forget the Lord and we do not have the right not to forget, because we run the risk that the Lord does not forget our [sins]. It 'a danger that. This is important: a theology of sin. So many times I think of St. Peter has made one of the worst sins, which is to deny Christ, and with this sin they did Pope We have to think much. But, back to your question more concrete: in this case, I made the investigatio subject and did not find. This is the first question. Then, you spoke of the gay lobby. Mah! He writes a lot of the gay lobby. I still have not found someone who will give me the ID card in the Vatican with “gay”. They say that there are none. I believe that when one lies with a person, must distinguish the fact of being a gay person, by the fact of a lobby because the lobby, not all are good. That is bad. If a person is gay and seek the Lord and has good intentions, but who am I to judge? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in this so beautiful, but says, Wait a bit ', as they say … and says, “you do not have to marginalize these people for that matter, should be integrated into society.” The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers, because this is one, but if there’s another, another. The problem is to lobby for this trend: the lobby of the greedy, lobby politicians, lobby of the Masons, many lobby. This is the most serious problem for me. And thank you so much for doing this question. Thank you very much!
T
Tarpeian
Guest
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I dig this translation! bueno! bueno!
P
pepipop
Guest
One thing that I, personally have realised, is that I am not ‘surprised’ there is a gay lobby in the Vatican in the first place, which to me as a Catholic is quite an eye-opener (i.e. that I’m not shocked or unduly surprised)… No doubt, this is due to the MSM coverage over the past months about this issue and also the MSM global gay agenda, in general. However, what exactly does a ‘gay lobby’ actually lobby for at the Vatican? What are they actually doing there or what are they trying to achieve, in the home of Catholicism?
No doubt, I am not interpreting this correctly.
No doubt, I am not interpreting this correctly.
V
vames
Guest
V
vames
Guest
The expression “gay lobby” (with variants: gay mafia, lavender mafia) has been used lately in some Catholic circles, following the publication of this essay of a Polish priest:One thing that I, personally have realised, is that I am not ‘surprised’ there is a gay lobby in the Vatican in the first place, which to me as a Catholic is quite an eye-opener (i.e. that I’m not shocked or unduly surprised)… No doubt, this is due to the MSM coverage over the past months about this issue and also the MSM global gay agenda, in general. However, what exactly does a ‘gay lobby’ actually lobby for at the Vatican? What are they actually doing there or what are they trying to achieve, in the home of Catholicism?
No doubt, I am not interpreting this correctly.
lifesitenews.com/resources/with-the-pope-against-homoheresy
lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-expert-details-39huge-homosexual-underground-in-the-church39/
Then Pope Francis himself used the expression in the context (off the record) of a pastoral meeting:
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=51358
T
Tarpeian
Guest
I don’t like the imprecision of his statement, as Pope Francis seems to be using the terminology created by the architects of the gay agenda so that they can frame all discussion on sexuality.
By far one of the most astute observations in this thread.
I’m glad you picked up on this many don’t. We have become so infected with Americanism we have been blinded by this heresy. In fact Leo XIII picked up his pen and warned us in his encyclical “Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae.” Like most encyclicals few faithful read them, and many clerics fail to preach on them to the detriment of the Church.
Many would do well to look up Noah Webster. Notice the spelling of his name. He like the founders recognized what must be done to destroy Catholicism. And they weren’t subtle about their intentions. There must be in as many ways as possible, a radical divorce from Old Europe. Notice the spelling of his name? The very name of his book, “Webster’s Dictionary of the American Language” tell’s us something about his intentions in altering the spelling of such words as honour, centre, and recgonize. This change he called a “reform.” In a 1789 essay he justified it on several grounds, the most interesting Comrade, illustrates you’re point. The one that most concerned him was simply that it “would make a difference between the English orthography and the American… I am confident that such an event is an object of vast political consequence.” What was his goal?
…a national language is a band of national union. Every engine should be employed to render the people of this country national; to call their attachments home to their own country; and to inspire them with the pride of national character. However, they may boast of Independence, and the freedom of their government, yet their opinions are not sufficiently independent; an astonishing respect for the arts and literature of their parent country, and a blind imitation of its manners, are still prevalent among the Americans.
Webster’s efforts in this area soon received official commendation, and eventually prevailed. Here he realized a fact grasped by later revolutionaries: if all traces of the old regime are to be blotted out, the language and its manner of writing must themselves be changed. Kemal Ataturk, the Soviets, and Mao all did the same. The result was to make their nation’s literature difficult or impossible for the younger generations to read, in hopes of cutting them off from affection for the former state of their lands. It was an extension of this principle which led George Orwell to his horrific vision of “Newspeak” in 1984.
But webster and his kind were not merely concerned with how things were spelled. They were also concerned with rejecting the inheritance of Christendom in education. In another essay written in 1790, Webster argued for the banishing of classical and British literature from classrooms, and for their replacement with something else:
Another defect in our schools, which, since the revolution, is become inexcuseable, is the want of proper books. The collections which are now used consist of essays that respect foreign and ancient nations. The minds of youth are perpetually led to the history of Greece and Rome or to Great Britain; boys are constantly repeating the declamations of Demosthenes and Cicero, or debates upon some political question in the British Parliment…
Webster and the founders insured that the basic ideas of the Enlightenment so opposed to Roman Catholicism, became and remain the basic intellectual currency of not only this country but exported to all who embrace relativism. In a world of rhetoric, and propaganda now more than ever we need to pray that, The Holy Spirit give’s The Vicar of Christ not only Charity but clarity.
Pax,
Tarpeian
G
gam197
Guest
Welcome to the Forums!:tiphat:
G
gilliam
Guest
St. Thomas was talking about sin. SSA isn’t sin, it is a temptation. Resisting a serious temptation is not a sin. It also takes grace. See:
books.google.com/books?id=PmHImeFCzOYC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=thomas+aquinas+resisting+temptation&source=bl&ots=oQU3iqufvD&sig=mbrRIxhEibRoSX6m4uaX-INyiPY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9Fv4UY6RNuWyygHanYC4Bw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Don’t misunderstand Thomas Aquinas.
Don’t confuse temptation with sin
I think people are doing both.
Follow our holy father and don’t pass judgment on those with SSA. Instead look at yourself and try to always be and write charitably.
books.google.com/books?id=PmHImeFCzOYC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=thomas+aquinas+resisting+temptation&source=bl&ots=oQU3iqufvD&sig=mbrRIxhEibRoSX6m4uaX-INyiPY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9Fv4UY6RNuWyygHanYC4Bw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Don’t misunderstand Thomas Aquinas.
Don’t confuse temptation with sin
I think people are doing both.
Follow our holy father and don’t pass judgment on those with SSA. Instead look at yourself and try to always be and write charitably.
- Status