The Synod And Our Approach To Gay People

[Nihil Obstat]

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

 

Married people too are called upon to progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. They must also be supported by an upright and generous willingness to embody these values in their concrete decisions. They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. "And so what is known as 'the law of gradualness' or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with 'gradualness of the law,' as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God's law for different individuals and situations. In God's plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God's command with serene confidence in God's grace and in his or her own will."(95) On the same lines, it is part of the Church's pedagogy that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm.

 

[Benedictus]

The controversy over the Australian couple's story about inviting a gay son and his partner to Christmas got me thinking about the best approach we should have to SSA people who aren't living in chastity. How do you/would you treat gay colleagues, family members, and friends?

 

I don't know anything about the controversy but, from what you've written, it seems like a lot of fuss over very little. I personally treat people as people. I don't personally treat anyone differently and I wouldn't exclude anyone, especially my friends and family. It's largely a non issue for me really. To me it's a bit like asking, or seeking to debate theology, about how to treat a couple from different races.
 

[Nihil Obstat]

From Anglicus A:

We had serious questions about the presentation of the principle of GRADUALITY. We wished to show in our amendments that we are not speaking of the GRADUALITY of DOCTRINE of faith and morals, but rather the gradual moral growth of the individual in his or her actions.
 

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/16/0763/03042.html#Relatio%20-%20Circulus%20Anglicus%20"A"

[veritasluxmea]

The gradualist approach assumes most people in the pews hold orthodox positions and 'some' people haven't made it there yet. But in what sense is that really true? On contraception, on views towards homosexuality, on the role of women, on communion? These are all the things, by and large, deemed as secondary issues. But, especially in the west, large factions of Catholics refute the gradualist idea as it applies to some points.

 

Sure, people hopefully grow in holiness. In that sense I accept that people change and grow over time; you can't necessarily expect a full knowledge and maturity at the start.  But it doesn't mean they necessarily change views on certain issues as they go.  I personally reject the idea that a person is more liberal minded on doctrine issues because they don't yet fully understand the Catholic position. I welcome a more 'open church' engagement but I don't think anyone should deceive themselves that masses of people will grow more in tune with Vatican teaching as a result of time and effort.

 

In terms of post Christian society - yes we need to be more willing to engage. But we also have to recognise that most people see the church through the prism of the major contentious issues, and we need to be able to handle these or people won't be interested.

 

At the minute I know Catholics who either dodge the issues, tell people they reject those teachings fully (and tell others to ignore them also) or they give the person a dogmatics lecture. None of these is necessarily a good way to go with non Catholics. But what do most parishes do to train, lead and enable the laity to have the skills necessary to evangelise in a post Christian world? In my experience not very much.

Are you saying we can't effectively evangelize because Catholics are uncatechized and don't have a personal relationship with God? I agree. However, that simply shows "Catholic" Catholics that there are more people to evangelize, right next to them in the pews. 

 

I don't agree that gradualism needs most Catholics to be orthodox to work. My understanding of gradualism is it's a tool for personal use where you meet people where they are and give them what they need at that moment, with the goal being to lead them into a closer relationship with God through the Church. It doesn't matter how many people are using it. It can be used by one person. 

 

For example, let's say there's a guy who's agnostic-atheist. He doesn't believe in God and thinks that it's pointless to have a conversation about it because we are unable to ever really know if there's a God or not. He starts bringing up life after death and how it's pointless to have a conversation about it. Instead of simply stating my beliefs, "Yeah, I believe in Heaven" or staying quiet, I just talk about it with him: you're saying it's pointless to have a conversation because we can never know for sure, but in order to decided that we have to have a conversation? Therefore it must be worth discussing. That's meeting people in the moment, just kind of leading them into conversation. From there it would go gradually... Maybe after knowing him and talking with him for a while I'd invite him to meet some of my other Catholic friends. Go on a hiking trip with the young adult's group. Or just recommend looking further. Whatever I sense needs to be done in the situation. That, to me, is gradualism. It's just a method of evangelization. 

[4588686]

It should also be mentioned that cutting the family member off is not an uncharitable action.  

Yes it is.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Cardinal Burke in an interview with Alessandro Gnocchi (full text at link):

 

Q:  Some prelates who support the traditional doctrine say that if the Pope should makes changes (in that doctrine) they would support those changes.  Is this not a contradiction?

 

A:  Yes, it is a contradiction, because the Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ on earth and therefore the chief servant of the truth of the faith.  Knowing the teaching of Christ, I do not see how it is possible to deviate from that teaching with a doctrinal declaration or with a pastoral practice that ignores truth.

 

 

[Aragon]

 

Cardinal Burke in an interview with Alessandro Gnocchi (full text at link):

 

Q:  Some prelates who support the traditional doctrine say that if the Pope should makes changes (in that doctrine) they would support those changes.  Is this not a contradiction?

 

A:  Yes, it is a contradiction, because the Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ on earth and therefore the chief servant of the truth of the faith.  Knowing the teaching of Christ, I do not see how it is possible to deviate from that teaching with a doctrinal declaration or with a pastoral practice that ignores truth.

 

 

 

I think now that Cardinal Burke knows his career is over (the Malta thing) he's feeling comfortable being very critical of some of his fellow bishops and even the Holy Father.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think now that Cardinal Burke knows his career is over (the Malta thing) he's feeling comfortable being very critical of some of his fellow bishops and even the Holy Father.

His career appears to be over under our current pontiff. Personally, I fully believe Francis intends to resign in a few more years. Burke is young. Things may change.

Cardinal Burke's pastoral guidance is very important right now.

[truthfinder]

Could you imagine a conclave after the likes of this happening?

[CountrySteve21]

Could you imagine if Kasper was Pope :I

[truthfinder]

Could you imagine if Kasper was Pope :I

He was consider papabile in the conclave that elected Benedict.  Interesting note: apparently John Allen Jr.  thought Bergoglio (Francis) papabile then too, yet Ratzinger was not.

 

Here's a rather telling excerpt on Kasper from two conclaves ago:

[quote]Born in Germany in 1933, Kasper studied at Tübingen, the "big leagues" of the European theological universe. In 1983 he taught as a visiting professor at the Catholic University of America in Washington. He is a gifted theologian, with a moderate outlook. In 1993, as a diocesan bishop in Rottenburg-Stuttgart, he joined then-Bishop Karl Lehmann of Mainz and another German prelate in issuing a pastoral letter encouraging divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to return to the sacraments. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger rejected the letter. Kasper served on the official Catholic-Lutheran dialogue since 1994, and in 1999 he came to Rome to take over as secretary of the ecumenical affairs office. There he continued to joust with Ratzinger, publicly criticizing a document in which Ratzinger reasserted the superiority of Catholicism over other religions and Christian churches. He has also repeatedly voiced a desire for decentralization and reform of the curia.[\quote]

 

The writings on the wall.  See:http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/conclave/top_candidates.htm

[truthfinder]

This was the write up on Francis then: "Bergoglio, a Jesuit, was a trained chemist before deciding to become a priest. He is seen as an accomplished intellectual, having studied theology in Germany. His leading role during the Argentinean economic crisis in 2002 has burnished his reputation as a voice of conscience, and has also made him a potent symbol of the costs globalization can impose on the Third World. Within the Jesuits, Bergoglio's reputation is mixed. He was appointed provincial in Buenos Aires in 1973, and at a time when many Latin American Jesuits were moving into the social apostolate, he insisted on a more traditional, spiritual approach. Bergoglio is today close to the Comunione e Liberazione movement. He comes across as traditional theologically, but open and compassionate."

[veritasluxmea]

Personally, I fully believe Francis intends to resign in a few more years. 

For reals? Any solid reason? As much as I dislike the confusion, I'd miss him. 

 

In the future I expect more popes to resign instead of dying in the papacy, but if the current Pope did it I wouldn't expect it to happen for, idk, ten, fifteen years. 

[Benedictus]

For reals? Any solid reason? As much as I dislike the confusion, I'd miss him. 

 

In the future I expect more popes to resign instead of dying in the papacy, but if the current Pope did it I wouldn't expect it to happen for, idk, ten, fifteen years. 

I doubt he'll stay that long, he is already 77 years old. I think it's going to become usual for Popes to stand down on their 85th birthday, unless their health becomes really bad before that time. I think Benedict stood down at this age and it's five years after most Cardinals lose the right to vote in new conclaves. It's also ten years after Bishops need to supply their resignations.
If we look at the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who resigned the same year as Benedict, they tend to serve around ten years before retiring or taking on other tasks. I believe they used to die in post but this trend has changed. Although, of course, the roles aren't the same. The Archbishop of Canterbury has very little power.

But I think with changing demands on the Popes role and the reality that people have health issues for longer periods (dementia being a big reality for anyone over 80) it's not going to always be practical for Popes to serve until they die. However, my personal view is it's important to see a person of strong faith suffer the same realities everyone else does. I think John Paul ll led very well on this point, despite some thinking it would have been better if he was hidden away. I don't agree with that.

[veritasluxmea]

I doubt he'll stay that long, he is already 77 years old. 

Oh I thought he was in his sixties ha ha. Wow I really know nothing about catholic stuff.