SSPX and women in positions of authority

[dixieagle]

Very good point. It’s also interesting that Gerard’s reply to this point was an appeal to the fact that “the times are different” because of modern gender confusion and acceptance of homosexuality.

While that is a valid viewpoint, I didn’t expect it from someone who can’t seem to understand that certain (i.e. not all) cultural standards are subjective and change over time.

An illustration of what I’m saying could be women wearing pants. It is always true that men must behave as men and women as women, but some of what defines that changes over time.

Therefore, one could say that in certain cultures and at certain times, it would have been inappropriate for women to wear pants. Now, pants are no longer seen as exclusively masculine, so it no longer matters.

The principle - men must be men, and women must be women - remains the same. Its application can, in some ways, change over time.

That is what Gerard doesn’t seem to understand about the event that sparked this whole discussion: his discomfort with the idea of a female referee for a boys’ basketball game is simply that: personal discomfort that is not a valid extrapolation of either the objective reality of human sexual difference or its subjective application today.

There’s nothing “mysterious” about the theology of the body: it is very practical and specific in addition to being theologically and spiritually profound. The fact that you see it as “useless” is proof that you really have gone off the deep end and don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.

You don’t have to agree with it and become a phenomenologist or anything; many informed Catholics choose not to. But to simply make a sweeping, audacious generalization about the whole thing being “practically useless” is beyond arrogant.

And as for the quote you referenced criticizing Christopher West:

I have read that book and the implication that West approves of or encourages anal sex could be made only by the carelessly ignorant or the purposefully deceptive. He specifically teaches otherwise; and as for “anal sex” as foreplay, he discourages that, too.

And the website you linked to describing how “liberal” EWTN is would have made me laugh if not for the fact that people actually believe it.

First criticism: that EWTN “promotes, defends, and advances” the “New Mass” - whose proper name is the Ordinary Form, by the way. If the universal Church has authoritatively approved and normalized its use, then “defending” it can hardly be damaging to the faith. Period.

It also states that EWTN has helped “undermine” adherence to some Catholic beliefs. Here are some examples of beliefs they claim EWTN helps to undermine:

(a) the infallibly defined dogma that outside the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved;

Only a schismatic with a faulty understanding of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” would make such a charge of EWTN. Nothing frustrates me quite like fundamentalism masquerading as genuine Catholicism.

(b) the closely related constant teaching of the Roman Pontiffs that the only means of achieving Christian unity is the return of the Protestant and schismatic dissidents to the Catholic Church;

yawn

Where does EWTN teach that Protestants shouldn’t have to return to the Church?

Oh, and here’s a rather bizarre charge:

Eighth, that EWTN promotes a cult of sexual gnosticism and “Natural Family Planning” (NFP)

So Natural Family Planning is immoral, is it? Gosh, I didn’t know this website’s authors were heretics as well as fundies.

Another wacky accusation was the “corruption” of the Faith through “combining” it with rock music. I guess I missed the authoritative pronouncement from the Magisterium on the objectively evil nature of certain kinds of music.

These people are crackpots. They need to grow up, or leave the Catholic Church and join some religion that actually fits their fundamentalist tendencies, like Protestant fundamentalism or radical Islam.

Thanks so much for this lucid, intelligent post. It won’t matter to Gerard, though…

 

[GerardP]

You assume that I love to mistake your positions. Like with most assumptions, it is wrong.

No. I guess you misread it…again…

It was unclear what your insinuation was, when you disliked the idea of Priests having feminine names AND then brought up Michael Rose’s book. I’m betting that Michael Rose wouldn’t have a problem with St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe choosing the name of Our Lady but that would mean little to you.

I didn’t bring up the book “Goodbye Good Men” because of Micheal Rose’s personal opinions, I brought it up because of the events that are mentioned in the book.

Do you think that the homosexuals running rampant in the seminaries didn’t get their cue from the previous practice of taking names of the opposite gender?

They took something that was innocent enough (however badly thought out) and took it to the natural conclusion.

As for your question, I would answer it that it would depend on the name. e.g. Roxanne would be horribly inappropriate.

Why would Fr. Roxanne be any different from Fr. Mary or Fr. Isabella, Fr. Clair, or Fr. Gertrude?

However a priest/seminarian who is known to pray the rosary daily should be allowed to choose Marie or Mary or even Maria as they are derivatives of Our Lady.

And what if he’s as queer as a three dollar bill?

BTW was it ever cleared up about St. John Vianney having a feminine name at some point in his life and how do you feel about that if indeed he did choose it?

The tradition of boys being given the middle name of Mary is specific to both the French and the Irish as I pointed out several pages ago. It was a mistake to do this. How would you feel about a big rugged guy like Cardinal Pell of Australia being elected Pope and then choosing a name like Mary the first.

 

[lak611]

Most of the nuns I know don’t “retire” at all, but only stop the work they do when physically impossible.

When they are no longer teaching, they work in prayer ministry. They still do work. They spend their time offering prayers. Many orders even take prayer requests from the public.

 

[GerardP]

Very good point. It’s also interesting that Gerard’s reply to this point was an appeal to the fact that “the times are different” because of modern gender confusion and acceptance of homosexuality.

While that is a valid viewpoint, I didn’t expect it from someone who can’t seem to understand that certain (i.e. not all) cultural standards are subjective and change over time.

Alright, to straighten this mess out won’t be too difficult.

1. I stated that the “times” of St. Maximilian were such that the error of using feminine names had less impact than today.
2. You seem to think that “cultural standards” dictate what is inherent to the nature of males and females.

Sorry, that ain’t it.

An illustration of what I’m saying could be women wearing pants. It is always true that men must behave as men and women as women, but some of what defines that changes over time.

Therefore, one could say that in certain cultures and at certain times, it would have been inappropriate for women to wear pants. Now, pants are no longer seen as exclusively masculine, so it no longer matters.

No. You fail to see as Cardinal Siri pointed out that as pants are no longer seen as exclusively masculine, that has lead to a 'gender neutrality" that is unnatural. Therefore both men and women have sacrificed their identities as men and women in order to accomodate women wearing men’s clothing.

The principle - men must be men, and women must be women - remains the same. Its application can, in some ways, change over time.

Men are designed by God as men and women designed as women by God in all times and all cultures. There is no application of that fact (not principal) There is only cultural accretions that either harmonize or go against that fact.

That is what Gerard doesn’t seem to understand about the event that sparked this whole discussion: his discomfort with the idea of a female referee for a boys’ basketball game is simply that: personal discomfort that is not a valid extrapolation of either the objective reality of human sexual difference or its subjective application today.

No. It’s not personal discomfort. It’s based on a much larger perception than you are willing to concede. There is a principal at work here. To coordinate and work to change the culture to one that is conducive to God’s order. The fact that this culture dehumanizes men and women and works against God’s order is what you refuse to see.

There’s nothing “mysterious” about the theology of the body: it is very practical and specific in addition to being theologically and spiritually profound.

Hah! That’s a laugh. It is a rather banal and patronizing reformulation of simple Catholic teaching in order to present Catholic teaching without having to spill the beans about curbing the passions, and the sins associated with a misuse of the reproductive process.

The fact that you see it as “useless” is proof that you really have gone off the deep end and don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.

You know, I have to laugh because that statement is such a non-sequitur. I can and do back up what I say.

You don’t have to agree with it and become a phenomenologist or anything; many informed Catholics choose not to. But to simply make a sweeping, audacious generalization about the whole thing being “practically useless” is beyond arrogant.

It is practically useless, I watch these speakers talk about TOB and they inevitably have to depart from it and start quoting traditional teachers like Augustine and Bishop Sheen in order to have it make sense. It’s an overly complicated Rube Goldberg-like invention for something that is far more simple if someone is willing to take the responsibility of being a Catholic seriously.

And as for the quote you referenced criticizing Christopher West:

I have read that book and the implication that West approves of or encourages anal sex could be made only by the carelessly ignorant or the purposefully deceptive. He specifically teaches otherwise; and as for “anal sex” as foreplay, he discourages that, too.

Exactly how does he “discourage” it? You can put the quote up since you have the book. Does he tell people that it is a sin crying to heaven for vengeance?

And the website you linked to describing how “liberal” EWTN is would have made me laugh if not for the fact that people actually believe it.

That’s a rather hollow laugh you would have to make considering that everything that Chris Ferrara documented is true. Do you even know what “moderate Modernism” is?

First criticism: that EWTN “promotes, defends, and advances” the “New Mass” - whose proper name is the Ordinary Form, by the way. If the universal Church has authoritatively approved and normalized its use, then “defending” it can hardly be damaging to the faith. Period.

That’s hardly an accurate conclusion. The Holy Father himself has written brutally about the Mass before he became Pope. (" a banal-on the spot product–a fabricated liturgy" )

Here’s what Ferrara actually wrote:

First, that EWTN promotes, defends and advances the “New Mass” and all the other “officially” approved “reforms” of the liturgy which have broken with Tradition in precisely the ways demanded by the Protestant rebels of the sixteenth century, and practically destroyed Catholic worship and Eucharistic faith over the past forty years, as even high-ranking Cardinals have admitted;

more…

 

[GerardP]

It also states that EWTN has helped “undermine” adherence to some Catholic beliefs. Here are some examples of beliefs they claim EWTN helps to undermine:

Yes. And they are fully documented with the show listings and the transcriptions. If you don’t believe Ferrara you can check out his sources. I know he’s telling the truth because I’ve actually seen the episodes he refers to.

(a) the infallibly defined dogma that outside the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved;

Only a schismatic with a faulty understanding of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” would make such a charge of EWTN.

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Page 87-89 if I recall describes and has a transcription of Fr. Groeschel denying EENS and substituting his own brand of indifferentism. I saw the show myself.

Here’s Ferrara discussing it:

CFN: You say in your book that EWTN effectively denies the de*fined, infallible Catholic doctrine “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.

CF: Most certainly. On EWTN shows conversion to the Faith is discussed entirely in terms of a “fullness” or “closer spiritual walk with Jesus” than people already have in Protestantism, and never in terms of conversion being a matter of spiritual life and death for the members of Protestant and schismatic “churches.” The Catholic Church is presented as the Cadillac of religions, while the others are still perfectly serviceable Buicks or Fords. And a number of EWTN “experts,” including Fr. Benedict Groeschel, openly declare essentially that the practitioners of all religions — all “good people,” really — are saved. The Church is presented as desirable, but not necessary for salvation. The sacraments are presented as promoting a spiritual “fullness,” but not as the means of salvation — directly contrary to the anathema of Trent. As Trent specifically declared in an infallible manner: let anyone who says the Sacraments instituted by Our Lord merely nourish Faith, but are not necessary for salvation, be anathema — that is accursed and expelled from the Church. But the Faith promoted by EWTN disregards every anathema of the Church concerning the objective necessity of membership in the Church for salvation. That is the ecumenical mindset. And EWTN promotes it to the hilt.

Nothing frustrates me quite like fundamentalism masquerading as genuine Catholicism.

As if you know what you’re talking about.

Where does EWTN teach that Protestants shouldn’t have to return to the Church?

You’ve got it wrong. Where does EWTN teach that Protestants MUST return to the Church?

Oh, and here’s a rather bizarre charge:

Eighth, that EWTN promotes a cult of sexual gnosticism and “Natural Family Planning” (NFP)

So Natural Family Planning is immoral, is it? Gosh, I didn’t know this website’s authors were heretics as well as fundies.

Bob Sungenis did a solid review of Ferrara’s book. He goes into detail showing some of the looney comments by Greg Popcak and gives the details and his own rebuttal to Fr. Groeschel’s heresy regarding EENS.

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/ewtn.pdf

Another wacky accusation was the “corruption” of the Faith through “combining” it with rock music. I guess I missed the authoritative pronouncement from the Magisterium on the objectively evil nature of certain kinds of music.

Cardinal Ratzinger 1985: Address to the International Church Music Congress in Rome

"In a way which we could not imagine thirty years ago, music has become the decisive vehicle of a counter-religion and thus calls for a parting of the ways. Since rock music seeks release through liberation from the personality and its responsibility, it can be on the one hand precisely classified among the anarchic ideas of freedom which today predominate more openly in the West than in the East. But that is precisely why rock music is so completely antithetical to the Christian concept of redemption and freedom, indeed its exact opposite. "

These people are crackpots. They need to grow up, or leave the Catholic Church and join some religion that actually fits their fundamentalist tendencies, like Protestant fundamentalism or radical Islam.

I suggest you grow up and stop writing things that make you look like a jackass.

Every one of your ignorant comments has been refuted and backed up.

So don’t pretend that you are some orthodox Catholic who knows what she’s talking about. You’ve got a half-baked understanding of the faith and you have a stiff-necked opposition to anything that upsets your apple cart. Well that’s just tough.

Either start cracking open some real books about what the Catholic Church really teaches or finish the job and become a secular Protestant.

I’ve only bothered to answer each of your inane, petty and intellectually vacant comments to show just how hollow each of them is. Normally I wouldn’t even bother to address this kind of verbal graffiti.

Get back to me when you’ve actually learned something.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard do you not realize that these names are actually the masculine names Joseph, Stephen, and Leon, that have been “taken over and feminized by women”? If a woman was given the name Joanne Pauline, or Stephanie Antonia her namesakes would still be John Paul and Steven Anthony.

Were they feminized for women? Why? If it doesn’t matter, why don’t we all have gender neutral names? You are admitting that there are masculine names and feminine names. They may have the same root or derivative. Gabriel and Gabriella are both named for St. Gabriel who while not being a man nor woman is represented as a man. Why do we have some nuns who are Sr. Benedict and then Sr. Benedicta? Aren’t they devoted to the same saint?

How could you possibly object to a priest adding the name of Our Lady to his religious name? Is she not the most perfect creature that God ever made? Is a man a sissy because he chooses to dedicate himself to our Blessed Mother as so many saints have done?

A man can dedicate himself to Our Lady without taking her name directly. The problem is sissies are going into the priesthood and I don’t want sissies taking Our Lady’s name and not living up to the masculine priestly standard.

And just as you related above a derivative name could be used maybe borrowing Marius or Mario to indicate a special devotion.

 

[GerardP]

What are your credentials to pass judgment on Theology of the Body? Are you a theologian?

I have a brain and I use it. I went to the course and watched it, I took notes and I read a significant portion of JPII’s original writings.

I also know that “Love and Responsibility” was the book that took a very gifted and intelligent concert pianist named Stephen Hough and convinced him that living a chaste life as a gay man was no longer suitable and now he’s actively living a gay “catholic” lifestyle thanks to JPII’s confusing philosophy. And this man is no idiot.

Hough writes:

stephenhough.com/site/index.htm

“I became a Catholic at the age of 19 and the teaching on homosexuality remained the same, although being unmarried now
became a respectable, even glamorous option. Priests, nuns and monks were all able to live safely without the enquiries: "Why aren’t you married?”, "Have you got a girlfriend?" I even considered the priesthood myself, partly to avoid having to answer such terrifying questions. **Yet I remained a musician, accepting the Church’s prohibition, buried under my work, avoiding "occasions of sin", **destroying certain friendships before there was any chance of them developing
into anything intimate. In many ways a happy yet somehow shrunken life. **It was when reading Pope John Paul II’s
famous book Love and Responsibility, published in 1960 when he was an auxiliary bishop in Krakow, that I first began to think again about this issue. **You cannot offer such a radiant and dazzling vision of love and human relationships to your readers, and then exclude those who happen to have "green eyes". Once you have affirmed, as he did controversially
and courageously for a Catholic bishop of his time, the sacredness of the human body and its self-gift in the sexual act, you have opened a floodgate of recognition for all who have both bodies to reverence and “selves” to give.
“It is not good that the man should be alone,” said God in the opening chapters of the Bible and of human history . the one blemish in an otherwise unblemished world, where everything was “very good”. Such an affirmation of companionship at the beginning of time is fresh and inspiring still; and, combined with new discoveries about sexual orientation
in the natural world, it opens up a radical challenge to previously confident assessments of the morality of gay relationships. To share a life of intimacy with another is the way the vast majority of men and women, regardless of their gender preference, are meant to live whole and holy lives. Such relationships are about more than making babies. They are about making love, because to do so is to be fully human,with sensitive, “musical” hearts attuned to vibrations that animals may hear but only men and women can hold. Celibacy is of value only as an affirmation of what is renounced
. the best given up freely because it is the best gift one can give. If celibacy is not rare,and a totally free donation, it has the whiff of something slightly perverse about it . literally “contrary to nature”.

This is the danger of JPII’s “feel good” philosophy. He evoked a contrary idea within a man who was bearing his cross heroically and now, he’s going to eventually face the devastation of the natural sanctions at work in his behavior and unless he turns from that path with the help of God’s grace, he’ll face the spiritual sanctions.

 

[seekerz]

I have a brain and I use it. I went to the course and watched it, I took notes and I read a significant portion of JPII’s original writings.

I also know that “Love and Responsibility” was the book that took a very gifted and intelligent concert pianist named Stephen Hough and convinced him that living a chaste life as a gay man was no longer suitable and now he’s actively living a gay “catholic” lifestyle thanks to JPII’s confusing philosophy. And this man is no idiot.

Hough writes:

stephenhough.com/site/index.htm

This is the danger of JPII’s “feel good” philosophy. He evoked a contrary idea within a man who was bearing his cross heroically and now, he’s going to eventually face the devastation of the natural sanctions at work in his behavior and unless he turns from that path with the help of God’s grace, he’ll face the spiritual sanctions.

People can use any writing or teaching to justify their sinfulness. Some even misinterpret Sacred Scripture and use it to that end. Does this misuse of it reflect badly in any way on those who penned it, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Stop, for a moment and think about the judgements you’re making. Some are seriously erroneous.

 

[GerardP]

People can use any writing or teaching to justify their sinfulness. Some even misinterpret Sacred Scripture and use it to that end. Does this misuse of it reflect badly in any way on those who penned it, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Theology of the body was not penned under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is the personal reflection of JPII as a private theologian. It has no magisterial character to it.

JPII’s philosophy is tailor-made to confuse. Hough even says he’d accepted the Church’s teaching and was happy. He didn’t even think about it again until he read 'Love and Responsibility".

How about JPII’s love and responsibility? His lack of prudence in his presentation of his toy philosophy has evoked error and heresy in any number of people at this point. He was responsible for the words he wrote. Hough is responsible for his choices. JPII’s philosophy helped him make the wrong choice.

Stop, for a moment and think about the judgements you’re making. Some are seriously erroneous.

What errors have I made?

 

[lak611]

Theology of the body was not penned under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is the personal reflection of JPII as a private theologian. It has no magisterial character to it.

Seekerz was referring to Sacred Scripture as being misinterpreted by some people. Obviously Sacred Scripture can be misinterpreted although it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise there would be no Protestants.

 

[GerardP]

Seekerz was referring to Sacred Scripture as being misinterpreted by some people. Obviously Sacred Scripture can be misinterpreted although it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise there would be no Protestants.

I understand. What I was pointing out is that Hough didn’t use JPII’s writing to justify his sinfulness. JPII’s writing was the catalyst by which Hough rejected the standard teaching of the Church and launched him into a modernist mindset that undermines the traditional teaching of the Church.

Now, Hough unfortunately thinks that his condition is natural and that he has the philosophical principals of a Pope to bolster his inclinations.

Without JPII he had no position except to accept the traditional teaching of the Church.

If he fell into sin, he at least knew that he had to go to confession and amend his life and if he didn’t, he knew where the door was to leave the Church.

I feel tremendously sorry for a man of deep feeling, powerful intellect and tremendous artistic output. He is also weighed down with a great burden and unfortunately the fog of JPII’s philosophy has caused him to endanger his life and soul.

 

[childofmary1143]

Do you think that the homosexuals running rampant in the seminaries didn’t get their cue from the previous practice of taking names of the opposite gender?

No I think that the homosexuals that are/were rampant in the seminaries became that way due to far more insidious things than just being named from the opposite gender.

BTW I would be curious as to your opinions on certain names that both genders have:

Shannon: boy or girl’s name?
Kelly: boy or girl’s name?

Why would Fr. Roxanne be any different from Fr. Mary or Fr. Isabella, Fr. Clair, or Fr. Gertrude?

If you can’t see how it would be different then I can’t help you.

And what if he’s as queer as a three dollar bill?

Well if he’s queer then he shouldn’t be in the seminary in the first place but I sincerely hope that in the spirit of Michael Rose’s book you won’t drive out a good seminarian because he wants to honor Our Lady by having a derivative of her name in his name.

The tradition of boys being given the middle name of Mary is specific to both the French and the Irish as I pointed out several pages ago. It was a mistake to do this.

That is your opinion. Nothing more.

How would you feel about a big rugged guy like Cardinal Pell of Australia being elected Pope and then choosing a name like Mary the first.

I would say that it is his right and who are we to criticize otherwise.

 

[childofmary1143]

I have a brain and I use it. I went to the course and watched it, I took notes and I read a significant portion of JPII’s original writings.

We all have brains and we all use it as well. That is hardly credentials for a theologian. Attending A course neither makes you an expert on it. It reminds me of the line in the movie A few good men: “I keep forgetting, you were sick the day they taught law at law school”. Theology of the body is a 4 year University level degree.

I also know that “Love and Responsibility” was the book that took a very gifted and intelligent concert pianist named Stephen Hough and convinced him that living a chaste life as a gay man was no longer suitable and now he’s actively living a gay “catholic” lifestyle thanks to JPII’s confusing philosophy. And this man is no idiot.

The Devil is no idiot either but that doesn’t mean I should listen to him either.

 

[seekerz]

I feel tremendously sorry for a man of deep feeling, powerful intellect and tremendous artistic output. He is also weighed down with a great burden and unfortunately the fog of JPII’s philosophy has caused him to endanger his life and soul.

Your sorrow is misplaced. There is a world of difference between being born with an inclination and giving into the temptations that such an inclination makes one prone to.

We all know of families with negative traits that seem to pass from one generation to the next. Does being born in such a family automatically make one an unworthy human being deserving of ridicule and abuse or does ***choosing to act ***upon that negative trait make one a sinner?

I would go further and state that there is no one I know who is not prone to some negative inclination (such as bad temper, violent tendencies or idiocy); meaning that there exists a stronger tendency to exhibit such behavior than the average person. ***Unless wrong actions or thoughts result from those innate tendencies however, we have not sinned. ***

 

[GerardP]

No I think that the homosexuals that are/were rampant in the seminaries became that way due to far more insidious things than just being named from the opposite gender.

I didn’t claim that that was the sole reason. I’m asking if you think female names for priests and male names for nuns is helping the situation or hurting it.

BTW I would be curious as to your opinions on certain names that both genders have:

Shannon: boy or girl’s name?
Kelly: boy or girl’s name?

I’m thinking of the old Saturday Night Live character named “Pat” the premise of the bit was an androgynous character that no one could determine the gender of.

Those names are claimed to be unisex in most sites that I looked over.

If you can’t see how it would be different then I can’t help you.

Oh, it’s just something that we “see” or “don’t see.” It’s not possible to actually come up with a reason for something?

Well if he’s queer then he shouldn’t be in the seminary in the first place but I sincerely hope that in the spirit of Michael Rose’s book you won’t drive out a good seminarian because he wants to honor Our Lady by having a derivative of her name in his name.

Her name or a derivative of her name? Why a female name and not a male name to honor her?

That is your opinion. Nothing more.

A little more. It happens to be a correct opinion.

I would say that it is his right and who are we to criticize otherwise.

Okay, but what if he chooses the name Pope Roxanne? What then?

 

[Nechasin]

A little more. It happens to be a correct opinion.

An opinion is an opinion. One is not more correct than another unless one is proved to be fact at which point it ceases to be an opinion. I respect your opinion, but I don’t totally agree with it.

I have to admit, that I really didn’t understand the extent of the question that I was asking and that it would generate such passionate responses. Just by the fact that we are all on this board, I think we are closer than it appears. We all agree that femininity needs to be protected, but disagree on where the line is drawn.

I would like to ask people to stop posting to this thread because it is very clear that neither side is going to convince the other side of their argument. I would really like this discussion to end before petty name calling starts which generally happens in cases like this. I appreciate all the responses.

 

[GerardP]

Your sorrow is misplaced. There is a world of difference between being born with an inclination and giving into the temptations that such an inclination makes one prone to.

The idea that someone is born with this inclination is preposterous for one thing. That is just pop psychology intruding on truth. God is not the author of sin. He didn’t create people with the inclination to rape or to engage in unnatural acts.

The point I’m driving home is that this man was dealing appropriately with his same sex attraction disorder and JPII’s “feel good” philosophy intellectually convinced him that he was incomplete as he was and provided him with a new belief that he could engage in a sinful lifestyle without it being sinful.

We all know of families with negative traits that seem to pass from one generation to the next. Does being born in such a family automatically make one an unworthy human being deserving of ridicule and abuse or does ***choosing to act ***upon that negative trait make one a sinner?

What does that have to do with JPII"s philosophy being prone to lead people astray?

 

[latinmasslover]

So is God lazy for having rested on the 7th day? That is the stupidest most ridiculous comment I have heard on these forums. As for feeding off the gov’t ever heard of Social Security. They collect that money having CONTRIBUTED to it. My God, what selfishness it is to criticize seniors for retiring.

Stupidest isn’t a word.

Obviously not all who retire are lazy, but look at many (note, I’m not saying most, though it could be!) People retire and then take the expensive trips, buy the expensive cars, have the expensive homes built. Why not work until your last day like any saint instead of taking a twenty-year break (NOT one day, 20 years)?

 

[Cristiano]

Retirement fosters laziness. Whatever happened to people working until the last day? Who’s bright idea was it that we should get to relax for the last 20-30 years of life feeding off the gov’t? Whatever happened to the work ethic in the Church?

You are correct! Those guys that want to retire are a bunch of lazy people! BTW Didn’t Cardinal Ratzinger asked for permission to retire twice?

 

[latinmasslover]

You are correct! Those guys that want to retire are a bunch of lazy people! BTW Didn’t Cardinal Ratzinger asked for permission to retire twice?

Why does he need to retire? He has responsibilities to the flock.
BTW, see post 277