Here's the part about gay people:
Every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence. Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.And gay marriage:
In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, ‘as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.’ It is unacceptable ‘that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex.
Posts
28 comments:
We need to forget about fighting for traditional marriage. Trump has taught us that doesn't work.
Instead, we need to fight for sodomy laws. That's a step further and how they got their foot in the door to begin with (no worries, no such thing as a slippery slope).
Let's push for the whole enchilada. If they want to compromise at traditional marriage, maybe we will listen.
oooh, first comment. I read various excerpts before starting work today, and came to the conclusion rather quickly that there were no conclusions to be drawn -- that everyone could read into it what they wanted to, and that the bigger question of its impact will only be known over time, as we see how people react to it. Will, for instance, the German cardinals decide this is their cover for declaring that annullments are no longer necessary? etc.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janetheactuary/2016/04/what-does-the-pope-say.html
Nothing new there. Except maybe emphasis or tone. But the media sure slices and dices all of Francis' statements and writings and twists them to the media's own narratives.
This could (and probably will), at the same time, be viewed as (1) evidence that the church is bigoted and Francis is finally going to be the one to make it change to fit the world; and (2) evidence that the church is bigoted and will never change.
"Frequently, sex education deals primarily with 'protection' through the practice of 'safe sex.' Such expressions convey a negative attitude towards the natural procreative finality of sexuality, as if an eventual child were an enemy to be protected against. This way of thinking promotes narcissism and aggressivity in place of acceptance."
Watching the secular media try to cover this Pope = lulz.
Pope. Catholic. Got it.
"Every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration" Nothing new there. Hey, Pope, what do you think you're doing, regurgitating doctrine? Disappointing.
'marriage' Nice touch, Pope. But why the scare quotes? Next time, check first with a real Catholic, like Tony Kennedy, Washington, DC, who knows a thing or two about one's concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
I read recently of a long estranged mother and son and a father and daughter who plan to get married.
It's all about lo-o-ove, Justice Kennedy (and great sex say the mom and daughter). Who could have foreseen such things? LOL.
Maybe now he'll let priests wear beards. I mean, it can't be as unclean as sodomy...
"The Pope exhorts us to "The Joy of Love" ("Amoris Laetitia")."
Hee--that'll make a cool line at the singles' bar tonight.
I don't have a problem with the Church never wanting to sanctify gay marriage. They are under no constraint to treat people equally and can freely discriminate on this and any other issue as they see fit. Because marriage has become a civil contract rather than a religious covenant it is reasonably fair to argue that the state should not discriminate on this matter.
I guess Springsteen will now cancel his concert in Vatican City in protest.
The basis for my objection to Obergefell had nothing to do with a church or a pope.
My objection to Obergefell is that just over 60% of my fellow citizens voted for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage in the traditional sense. I'm not a Catholic, and never looked to any church for guidance or advice on the issue. So the Pope isn't persuasive to me on matters of Fourteenth Amendment analysis.
But as is always the case with such matters (popes as well as Supreme Court justices), the mainstream medi will pour on lavish praise whenever there is a hint of social progressivism, and there will be scorn (or no attention paid at all) if social progressivism isn't forthcoming. Carrot and stick, in print. "The (Linda) Greenhouse Effect," if you are a member of the Supreme Court.
That is how the discussion ratchets in a social-progress direction. Big news praising the "good," and nothing but dark condemnation otherwise.
I read it in its entirety--mostly full of things that make you say "no duh" and it was very poorly composed. One section would contradict another, yet another would underhandedly denigrate a group of scholars and prelates--but at the same time F1 was doing what he just called the others out on. Overall, I'd give it a "meh."
"it was very poorly composed"
True of all of this Pope's writings. He's no Benedict, that's for sure.
Based on the excerpt, this is the closest this Pope has come to agreeing with me. Real progress, Francis.
Today's generation of liberalism embraces the religion of selective exclusion (i.e. pro-choice) of politically unfavored transgender and transsocial orientations. Surely, the Pope, let alone Christianity, does not endorse a liberal (i.e. variable or selective) ideology of tolerance that changes on a whim with each generation.
‘as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.’
This is a little stronger than even I would say it, but it is mostly true.
Even in the 70s, when we regularly called people "Faggots" as an insult, I had gay neighbors and a gay friend, and I always thought it important to treat them respectfully as individuals, not as a group or as part of a cause celebre'.
Even in the early 80s, when AIDS hit and freaked everyone out, I thought it should be treated simply and solely as a medical condition, and to stay away from politics, hysteria and gay rights or recriminations.
But, now in the 10s, we are being told by the left that a marriage between a man and man is no different than a marriage between a man and woman, because....love and because...equality.
And, I don't buy it. There certainly is a room for gay couples in society to live, thrive and survive like the rest of us. But telling me that gay marriage is normal and I must accept it, is like telling me 2 + 2 = 5 under the new Math guidelines, and I must get used to it.
Sorry, I won't. And I tell this to my gay friends, love ya, go far in life, etc, etc, but NO, I don't think gay marriage is equivalent to traditional marriage, sorry.
I'm generally speaking loathe to discuss the res catholica here, at least insofar as serious stuff goes, but I will admit that I used to look forward eagerly to Benedict XVI's texts; the reigning Roman Pontiff's writing style and his emphases are sometimes puzzling to me. While phrase amoris laetitia could come straight from old Ovid the greater joke is that while I could've read the exhortation in Arabic this morning, there isn't yet a Latin text.
The divorced and re-married Catholics are a big demographic. Clever move to add members that should never have been thrown away.
All the Roman Catholics lose is the bureaucracy work and "payments" made on applications for special dispensations that never were anything but cheap racketeer work.
Yeah, I loved JP2 and B16 writings.
This document largely reiterates what they wrote and taught.
The only newsmaker I think is the whole divorced and remarried situation. That is a good development. I am hoping the whole tribunal process is abandoned. Let's see what the US bishops conference does with the new freedom to enculturate our way of handling these things.
Prayer, reflection, discussion, healing. Yes. With a pastor or pastor's delegate (if he is not sensitive or suitable). Getting the baptismal certificate of your first spouse...no. Going before a tribunal of strangers and attesting that you never had uncontracepted sex and therefore never consummated the sacrament...Lord no. Going before a tribunal of strangers and admitting that you never had the intent of fidelity even as you were taking the vows...no. Let's quit the hoopla of tribunals and move on to healing hearts and having them recommit to a renewed vision of the permanency of *this* marriage. Gentle, respectful, private guidance with a competent, caring person--yes.
You can have this while the Church continues to fiercely defend marriage in general. You don't need to feed individual hurting persons through the industrial shredder that is the tribunal to fiercely defend marriage.
"Industrial shredder" = why I'm not on the Vatican's writing and editing team.
Frequently, sex education deals primarily with 'protection' through the practice of 'safe sex.' Such expressions convey a negative attitude towards the natural procreative finality of sexuality, as if an eventual child were an enemy to be protected against. This way of thinking promotes narcissism and aggressivity in place of acceptance.
When I talk with millennials, what I hear over and over is that they don't want children. They are deeply pessimistic about their future, about the economy. And they don't want children. It's not just that children are expensive. Today I heard, "I don't want to bring a child into this world."
This negativity amazes me. A society that is not reproducing is a society that is dying. This is our culture now. Having a baby is unsafe. Protect yourself! Be afraid of the future! Be afraid of a baby, who will steal your dreams and your money!
And the other bizarre aspect of our culture is how we sexualize younger and younger people, and simultaneously we push the age of adulthood older and older. So you are old enough to have sex, you hot little girl (or boy), but not old enough to have a baby.
It's bizarre, truly.
I wonder what's the Pope's position on public bathrooms for the transgendered That's the true signifier of a person's morality and tolerance. We would all benefit from the Pope's guidance on this issue.
And I wish the Catholic church would re-think its position on celibacy. I wish the Pope would talk about the miracle of sex and the miracle of creation. I think of celibacy as similar to fasting--it's a deeply spiritual thing to do. And yet the last thing that God wants is for us to die of starvation, or a lack of breeding. To say, as the Catholic Church says, that priests cannot marry, is wrong. Of course a Christian can marry! The very first miracle of Christ was to bless a wedding with an abundance of wine.
Liberals listen to this Pope. I wish he would talk about the joy of sex, the joy of reproduction, and how the creation of a baby is a miracle of God. Our young heathen socialists need a pep talk!
I can sum up the Church's teaching on sex very simply: Only orgasms that could, if both parties were fertile, cause a wife to become pregnant by her husband, are OK. Everything else is right out.
When I talk with millennials, what I hear over and over is that they don't want children. They are deeply pessimistic about their future, about the economy. And they don't want children. It's not just that children are expensive. Today I heard, "I don't want to bring a child into this world."
This negativity amazes me.
It's a natural consequence of a political system dominated by Republicans who have told them, "Unless you're a billionaire or a revolutionarily impactful entrepreneur, you have no value to society."
Let's quit the hoopla of tribunals and move on to healing hearts and having them recommit to a renewed vision of the permanency of *this* marriage. Gentle, respectful, private guidance with a competent, caring person--yes.
Totally agree. My ex-husband has become interested in the Catholic church. His and my marriage was never sacramental, literally or figuratively. I would very much like to see him find a good Catholic woman with whom he could be happy and live out God's will for their lives. Why isn't that good enough? Why should he have to explain the 15 years of marriage he shared with me that was not really marriage, as he and I understand it now? He didn't know then what he knows now. Why can't he just be free to have a *real* sacramental marriage going forward?
We've been saying this for at least 30 years. Pope Francis is quoting Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict xvi) in a 1986 document.
Post a Comment