The Synod And Our Approach To Gay People

[Nihil Obstat]

Burke's 'move' is imminent, but has not yet taken effect.

[KnightofChrist]

Actually, I don't think that is a fair comparison. Pope Francis has asked that the bishops discuss this, he has asked for a dialogue. There could be legitimate debate on whether that's being done, but I don't think you can claim Cardinal Burke's completely out of line. On the other hand, different bishops worked really hard to directly fight Pope Benedict. I think there's obviously a difference here. 
 
Also, Burke hasn't been moved yet. There's been nothing official either way, unless something has happened that I didn't notice. 
 
Just to be clear, I don't necessarily agree with the way with Cardinal Burke is going about things, but I do agree with his general point. We shall see how this all plays out.

 

According to various Synod fathers there isn't an open dialogue but rather a censorship of positions that support what the Church has always taught. I think it is pretty epic to see Müller and Burke defending the Faith together.
 

Rorate Caeli: Müller on Censorship: "I say what I must say"

Cardinal Müller makes clear why "homosexual couples" can never be recognized by the Church, and how censorship is contributing to distortions of the Synod message. From La Stampa:
 
"The homosexual couple as such cannot be recognized by the Church,"  Müller underlined, speaking outside of the Synod Hall....

But Müller returned to the issue of censorship: "I find that the fact that outside the Synod Hall the bishops may grant free interviews, while their interventions in the hall are not public, a clear contradiction," - he maintained. "There was the will, additionally, to break this way with a tradition that is proper to the Church... it doesn't matter if some are not in agreement with this opinion of mine," Muller added. "I say what I want, but above all I say what I must say as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Furthermore, I haven't done anything else than to give voice to the protests of many faithful who have written me regarding this from many nations, and who have the right to know the thinking of their bishops. Why - the cardinal asked - was it necessary to change it?"

On the final relatio of the works of the Synod, Müller said: "I think it will be sent directly to the Pope, but I'm not a member of the direction anymore." Details said directly to some journalists with the clear intent to criticize once more the Synodal "censorship".

[Maggyie]

nvm. Had a post but its pointless.

Yall have fun.
Dont know why I bother trying to talk to the sheep.

I hope you dont get ebola.

Dude did you really tell Cherie you'd like to take her kids away because of her thought crimes? I know you were just jesting or just making a point. However the point you were trying to make is exactly why Catholics talk about being persecuted/the coming persecution etc. We do not live in a pluralistic tolerant society. We live in a Puritanical society. The Puritans nowadays aren't just the God-Botherers and this trend will continue.

However kudos for Cherie not going ballistiic.

Leave the sex out of it. How do we deal with people who are publically not living the life. Let's say Uncle Dave is CEO of a weapons concern. Or of RJ Reynolds. Pick your poison. Do you go to their home and eat roast turkey off the solid gold platter purchased with the blood of child soldiers or the lungs of smokers? Think if you could win this guy/gal back to the light it would do a lot of good. Plus he's your dearly beloved uncle. BUT a greedy sinner. WWJD.

[4588686]

Dude did you really tell Cherie you'd like to take her kids away because of her thought crimes? I know you were just jesting or just making a point. However the point you were trying to make is exactly why Catholics talk about being persecuted/the coming persecution etc. We do not live in a pluralistic tolerant society. We live in a Puritanical society. The Puritans nowadays aren't just the God-Botherers and this trend will continue.
 

 

 

Like the God Botherers who want to take away the children of gay couples on the basis of their beliefs.  

 

If you're going to be so eager to use the state to push around less powerful organizations then you better be wary.  Because maybe that less powerful group will have an uptick in their fortunes.  Maybe it would behoove you all to be a little less eager to push around people minding their own business. Because maybe the end result will be that same controlling, censoring impulse being directed back at you guys as your Church's power continues to decline.  

 

Glass houses.  Not throwing stones.  Et cetera.  

[4588686]

How about we strive for a society where people are entitled to be wrong?  How about we recognize that social progress is impossible if people don't have room to experiment and try things out and succeed and fail.  If they aren't having a direct, material impact on your life then just back off. 

[CrossCuT]

Its all hypocritical. 

[Amppax]

Interestingly, the angriest are those accusing others of anger. Pots and pans, and whatnot. 

 

Also, angry arguments aren't very convincing, fwiw. 

[Amppax]

Also, these are very interesting: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/synod_report/synod_report/

[veritasluxmea]

Going back to the gifts thing... What about homosexuals who aren't "gifted"? It sounds like stereotyping. Sure, as Christians we know that every human is a different reflection of the face of God, but that line makes it sound like we're looking to homosexual for special "talents" or something. What if there's a gay guy who's below average and not particularly smart or talented? Is he "less gay" or something? Or should he not be welcomed because he doesn't have any gifts to offer?

 

tl;dr I get what the sentence is trying to say and I agree about their human dignity and everything, but the wording is so bad you could take it a million different ways. Good grief. 

[Credo in Deum]

Labeling something a 'mystery' does not make it any less a wild and unfounded claim.

Somebody claiming that modern number theory is an imperfect and incomplete model of the fullest and truest body of PURE MATHEMATICAL TRUTH and that, while it is not expressible with our imperfect models, 2+2 really can equal 8 in the realm of PURE MATHEMATICAL TRUTH is making no less wild a claim than your assertion that while there is no proof that God or the supernatural exists and no evidence that the bread and wine does transubstantiate that this is still the case and simply above reason.

Society tolerates your wild and unfounded claims. You'd be doing yourself a service by being a little humble with trying to use the force of law to prohibit other people from living lives that do not harm you but just happen to go against your MYSTICAL BAG-O-TRUTHS.

It is labeled as a mystery because natural science will never be able to provide an explanation for the 'how'. This is because natural science deals with physical reality from the point of view of measurement, and not spiritual realities which cannot be measured. Also there is more evidence to back up the belief in the True Presence (Eucharistic Miracles) than there is for the belief that 2+2=8, so your position that it is no less wild a claim is incorrect. Same goes for the belief in God. There is plenty of evidence to suggest a being with intelligence designed the universe since there is order and order is a characteristic of intelligence. I would say it is less believable that the order of the universe happened by chance. If I was on an island and saw rocks which spelled SOS, would it be more believable to suggest the rocks were put there like that by someone or would it be more believable that they just appeared that way by chance?

Also Laws and morality should go hand in hand, so the Church is not outside of her bounds by disagreeing with certain laws (or proposed laws) which support immoral practices. Furthermore oppression in itself is not wrong or even bad. Laws against theft oppress those who wish to be thieves. This oppression is neither wrong nor unjust. In any case I will take my MYSTICAL BAG-O-TRUTHS over your unreasonable beliefs of chance any day. ;)

[Slappo]

Not that simple. It isn't a question of how we should treat them, but of how we would treat them.

 

 

Like humans...like people with dignity. Like people made in Gods image.

 

This is like a super easy question for me...sorry you are all having a hard time.

 

I don't get how you don't see what I'm saying. What I bolded above that you wrote is how we SHOULD treat them.

 

I should love and treat pedophiles, murderers, bank robbers, abortion doctors, and ISIS terrorists with kindness and respect. That doesn't mean that I would if I ran into one of them. I should treat black people, brown people, strippers, prostitutes, and everyone else that I might possibly have a prejudice against with kindness and respect as well (not saying I have a prejudice here, just examples). No one is questioning how someone should be treated. Everyone is made in God's image, from the saint to the suicide bomber. My natural inclination is not to give food to the suicide bomber and cloth him with the shirt off my back though. My natural inclination would probably be to punch him in the face even though I SHOULD be willing to feed and cloth him.

 

 

 

Edit: Please no one even think of trying to say that I'm comparing practicing homosexuals to ISIS terrorists... because that would be the most ridiculous thing you could possibly pull out of my post.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Slappo

[KnightofChrist]

Family synod midterm report stirs controversy among bishops

Posted on October 14, 2014

By Francis X. Rocca
Catholic News Service

 

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The official midterm report from the Synod of Bishops, which uses strikingly conciliatory language toward divorced and remarried Catholics, cohabitating couples and same-sex unions, has proven highly controversial inside and outside the synod hall, with some synod fathers saying it does not accurately reflect the assembly’s views.

 

Following a nearly hourlong speech Oct. 13 by Cardinal Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest, who, as the synod’s relator, has the task of guiding the discussion and synthesizing its results, 41 of the 184 synod fathers present took the floor to comment the same morning, the Vatican said.

Cardinal Wilfrid F. Napier of Durban, South Africa, arrives for the morning session of the extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family at the Vatican Oct. 14. (CNS/Paul Haring)

 

According to the Vatican’s summary of their remarks, which did not quote bishops by name in accordance with synod rules, a number of synod fathers objected that Cardinal Erdo’s text lacked certain necessary references to Catholic moral teaching.

 

“In regard to homosexuality, there was noted the need for welcoming, with the right degree of prudence, so as not to create the impression of a positive valuation of that orientation,” the summary said. “It was hoped that the same care would be taken in regard to cohabitation.”

 

Bishops also remarked on the midterm report’s scarce references to the concept of sin, and encouraged the assembly to emulate the “prophetic tone of Jesus, to avoid the risk of conforming to the mentality of today’s world.”

 

Regarding one of the synod’s most discussed topics, a proposal by German Cardinal Walter Kasper to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion, at least one bishop argued that it would be “difficult to welcome some exceptions without in reality turning it into a general rule.”

 

Some members of the synod made their objections public.

 

U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, told Catholic World Report that the midterm report “advances positions which many synod fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept. Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of synod fathers found it objectionable.”

 

Cardinal Burke accused leaders of the synod of giving the public a distorted image of the proceedings, almost all of which are closed to the press.

“All of the information regarding the synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the synod, which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed” in the midterm report, the cardinal said. “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the church.”

 

Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki of Poznan, Poland, president of the Polish bishops’ conference, told Vatican Radio that Cardinal Erdo’s speech was not acceptable to many synod fathers, because it departed from the theology of St. John Paul II and reflected an ideology hostile to marriage by seeming to approve of same-sex couples raising children, among other ways.

 

The midterm report “should be an incentive to fidelity, family values, but instead seems to accept everything as it is,” the archbishop said.

 

The controversy over the report prompted the synod’s General Secretariat to issue a statement Oct. 14, lamenting that a “value has been attributed to the document that does not correspond to its nature” and emphasizing that it is a “working document, which summarizes the interventions and debate of the first week, and is now being offered for discussion by the members of the synod.”

 

The bishops were to work in small groups of about 20 each, discussing Cardinal Erdo’s speech and presenting their conclusions to the entire assembly Oct. 16.

 

Speaking to reporters Oct. 14, Cardinal Wilfrid F. Napier of Durban, South Africa, said his group had found in the midterm report “quite a lot of things which are expressed in a way which we certainly wouldn’t feel that are very helpful to giving a clear idea of where the church stands on some of the issues that are being raised.”

 

“Individual things that were said by individuals, may have been repeated a couple of times, are put in here as if they really do reflect the feeling of the whole synod. They’ve been picked up by the media then and made to be the message of the synod. I think that’s where the upset is,” he said.

 

The cardinal would not specify the statements or topics in question. When asked about media reports that Cardinal Erdo’s speech represented a new overture to divorced Catholics and homosexuals, he said, “That’s one of the reasons why there’s been such an upset among the synod fathers, because we’re now working from a position that’s virtually irredeemable. The message has gone out, ‘this is what the synod is saying, this is what the Catholic Church is saying,’ and it’s not what we are saying at all.”

 

The cardinal said the midterm report accurately reflected bishops’ calls to drop “very harsh language that alienates people,” such as cohabitating couples, who act in conflict with church teachings, but he said Cardinal Erdo had not suggested the teachings themselves would change.

 

“My worry is that the message has gone out — and it’s not a true message — that this synod has taken up these positions, and whatever we say hereafter is going to be as if we’re doing some damage control, which is certainly not what is in my mind,” Cardinal Napier said.

[Deus te Amat]

Just stopping in to say hi, I'm watching you.

Constructive response to come after work.

[KnightofChrist]

Rorate Caeli: Müller rips the Synod Report: "Undignified, Shameful, Completely Wrong!"

[Not The Philosopher]

Once again my prediction has proven correct.

 

I do not like my role as the Cassandra, the unheeded harbinger of phorum drama, but if it must be...