The "papal Honeymoon" Is Over

[Amppax]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/07/04/health-myth-do-men-really-hit-their-sexual-peak-at-18/  Testosterone output is highest but males need time to "build it up" in their system so they have the largest amount of testosterone in their system about 10 years later.  But yes, men at 18 are more at risk for things like accidental arousal because the output is so high...however, they do not have enough overall to be considered at their sexual peak.

 

 

 

From my understanding the problem stems from Latin and finds itself in other Indo-European languages, so Italian and Spanish would be affected.  Languages like Polish, Taglong and Russian not so much.  A Polish priest I knew loved Jackie Chan...the idea that someone foreign became America's hero...  He had this saying "English cuts like a bullet when you only need a nice light karate chop"  Now that doesn't make the world's most sense, but I've heard it from other priests raised in other languages that English (and Spanish, but that less so) have a horrible way of being demoralizing and degrading.

 

If you look at the 3 Popes, and subtract out the environmental factor of their upbringing and their personalities, much of their doctrine is affected by the language they spoke.  It's no surprise to me that a German pope used harsher language than a Polish one, and that a Spanish speaking Pope has different ideals than his predecessor.

 

Except your linguistics lessons isn't consistent. If Latin is the problem, then what influence (apart from a smattering of vocabulary) would it have on a German speaker? 

[blazeingstar]

Except your linguistics lessons isn't consistent. If Latin is the problem, then what influence (apart from a smattering of vocabulary) would it have on a German speaker? 

 

German has a few Latin  words, but its more of the Indo-European problem rather than simply Latin.  Latin is the biggest offender, but not the only one.

 

[Amppax]

German has a few Latin  words, but its more of the Indo-European problem rather than simply Latin.  Latin is the biggest offender, but not the only one.

 

Make up your mind! 

 

Also just realizing this was probably in response to Aragon's post? Well, the CCC (official Latin) states that "Haec propensio, obiective inordinata" which in English is rendered "This inclination, which is objectively disordered." The offending word, I would presume is inordinata. Which, if you look at in any Latin/English Dictionary, could only translate (in the context) as disordered.  

 

Actually, considering this discussion is already so far afield, this could actually be resurrected into a fruitful conversation! I think the linguistic difference does hold some weight, but not for the reasons you think. Ecclesiastical and Medieval Latin evolved such that they became increasingly juridical. Indeed, the Romanisation of the Western Church, going back to the 4th century, can largely be seen in the importation of the Roman legal system by the Church. Following this development from this time, through the Middle Ages and into Modernity could actually show some of what you're trying to say, and indeed, in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, most scholars note a shift in language; from a legal genre to a more literary genre. 

 

But that doesn't have much to do with the language of the Bible. Or the difference between using formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence to translate the liturgy. 

[Basilisa Marie]

 

What would you say is the main difference between the apostates of that time and the active homosexuals and divorced and remarried of today?

 

The apostates were expected to repent and sin no more.

 

Do you think the 2 modern day groups of Speshul Sinners should be required to repent and sin no more like ordinary thieves, liars, racists, murderers, wife beaters are? Why or why not?

 

 

 

:rolleyes: 

 

As I've already told you, the whole issue with allowing certain divorced and remarried people to communion is for those who are trying to make a good effort to repent, but our annulment process is long, laborious, and imperfect, and sometimes there are other goods to be achieved by, say, allowing the couple to still live together (though not engaging in the marital act). It may be an occasion of sin for the couple, but maybe there are other goods to be achieved - this is what I understand to be one of the questions at the synod. So how much repentance is enough repentance? How much suffering is enough suffering? 

 

And as far as others, the Church HAS decided to recognize the good in other religions insofar as they participate in the truth of Catholicism.  See the Vatican documents. So it's not that far of a logical jump to recognize the good in irregular relationships as part of a greater effort to reach out to them to bring them closer to Christ through conversion.  Do we really, truly believe that there is absolutely nothing good in a long-term, stable, loving same-sex relationship? Yes, we can't tell people that it's a-okay to engage in homosexual (or premarital) sexual activities. But do we also want to say that those activities have destroyed any good that the couple may experience from their relationship? 

People who are in habits of mortal sin of an addictive nature (say, a sexual sin) should go to confession after they commit the sin before they receive communion.  But the Church also mercifully recognizes that sometimes, the addiction can sometimes render those acts venial instead of mortal, because the person wasn't truly free to choose that act. It's not realistic to expect a person with a sinful addiction to quit cold turkey after they go to confession once, we do expect them to make their best effort to fight it, and we encourage frequent confession and reception of communion to help strengthen that person against sin so they can overcome it with grace. This isn't a totally new idea. People lead messy lives, and conversion and holiness is a process. This whole thing is about trying to figure out the best way to help people in that process.  Maybe no changes will be made. That'd be fine, I trust that the bishops are going to try to figure out what's best. 

[PhuturePriest]

Yeah, sorry. Reminder for next time: read thread first, then post. Don't do it the other way round :P

 

It's nothing I haven't done myself time and again. :P

[blazeingstar]

:rolleyes:

 

As I've already told you, the whole issue with allowing certain divorced and remarried people to communion is for those who are trying to make a good effort to repent, but our annulment process is long, laborious, and imperfect, and sometimes there are other goods to be achieved by, say, allowing the couple to still live together (though not engaging in the marital act). It may be an occasion of sin for the couple, but maybe there are other goods to be achieved - this is what I understand to be one of the questions at the synod. So how much repentance is enough repentance? How much suffering is enough suffering? 

 

And as far as others, the Church HAS decided to recognize the good in other religions insofar as they participate in the truth of Catholicism.  See the Vatican documents. So it's not that far of a logical jump to recognize the good in irregular relationships as part of a greater effort to reach out to them to bring them closer to Christ through conversion.  Do we really, truly believe that there is absolutely nothing good in a long-term, stable, loving same-sex relationship? Yes, we can't tell people that it's a-okay to engage in homosexual (or premarital) sexual activities. But do we also want to say that those activities have destroyed any good that the couple may experience from their relationship? 

People who are in habits of mortal sin of an addictive nature (say, a sexual sin) should go to confession after they commit the sin before they receive communion.  But the Church also mercifully recognizes that sometimes, the addiction can sometimes render those acts venial instead of mortal, because the person wasn't truly free to choose that act. It's not realistic to expect a person with a sinful addiction to quit cold turkey after they go to confession once, we do expect them to make their best effort to fight it, and we encourage frequent confession and reception of communion to help strengthen that person against sin so they can overcome it with grace. This isn't a totally new idea. People lead messy lives, and conversion and holiness is a process. This whole thing is about trying to figure out the best way to help people in that process.  Maybe no changes will be made. That'd be fine, I trust that the bishops are going to try to figure out what's best. 

 

We've now entered the twilight zone.

 

I agree with you.

 

I think much of the harshness comes from this crazy idea we must be militantly against all sins.  This idea that we are called to be soldiers, (a very European idea) when we're actually called to be priest, prophet and king.

[veritasluxmea]

 

I think much of the harshness comes from this crazy idea we must be militantly against all sins.  This idea that we are called to be soldiers, (a very European idea) when we're actually called to be priest, prophet and king.

In all fairness, we are called the Church Militant...

 

No, that doesn't mean we should burn down mosques, yes, it means we're still fighting against the devil and world for our salvation. We should be fighting against all sin in our lives and helping others as much as prudently possible. So in a sense, we are soldiers. 

[Maggyie]

 

If you look at the 3 Popes, and subtract out the environmental factor of their upbringing and their personalities, much of their doctrine is affected by the language they spoke.  It's no surprise to me that a German pope used harsher language than a Polish one, and that a Spanish speaking Pope has different ideals than his predecessor.

 

Until you suddenly realize that Cardinal K is a German and German theology in general is the most liberal "national brand" of theology there is. Suddenly the elaborate vaguely prejudiced faux intellectual/pseudoscientific language based argument falls apart. Behold the power of education.

 

:rolleyes: 
 
As I've already told you, the whole issue with allowing certain divorced and remarried people to communion is for those who are trying to make a good effort to repent, but our annulment process is long, laborious, and imperfect, and sometimes there are other goods to be achieved by, say, allowing the couple to still live together (though not engaging in the marital act). It may be an occasion of sin for the couple, but maybe there are other goods to be achieved - this is what I understand to be one of the questions at the synod. So how much repentance is enough repentance? How much suffering is enough suffering? 

"Though not engaging in the marital act"

That's exactly the status quo. Although some pastors may ask partners to live apart the rule is simply they must live as brother and sister. Do you think divorced and remarried people need to live as brother and sister? Is that what is being discussed at the synod? This would result in no change to current practice.

[Basilisa Marie]

  "Though not engaging in the marital act"

That's exactly the status quo. Although some pastors may ask partners to live apart the rule is simply they must live as brother and sister. Do you think divorced and remarried people need to live as brother and sister? Is that what is being discussed at the synod? This would result in no change to current practice.

 

Is it? I dunno, others, like Credo, have made it clear that many pastors ask the couple to live apart. I don't know what the status quo is for most places. I live in the Archdiocese of Seattle, a relatively liberal diocese, but in a rather conservative deanery. There's a lot of variety in how these situations are addressed, and that's just in my own tiny corner of the world. The fact is that people who aren't validly married shouldn't be engaging in sexual activities. This is pretty clear and irrefutable, and I haven't seen anything from the synod that addresses this specific point. What I have seen is the question of whether divorced and remarried couples can be allowed to communion. Part of the issue I imagine is the fact that it can be a sin to get married (civilly, whatever) to someone else when you're sacramentally married to another person, and it would seem that persisting in that relationship even without sexual relations can be sinful. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that point. 

[Ash Wednesday]

Peeps in this thread should have a glass of wine and maybe take a bubble bath and then resume the discussion. (FP can have grape juice or some such thing)

 

Who needs a thread for that? We should be doing that anyway. ;)

[Gabriela]

I agree with everything in this article except that the HF's unveiling of a bust of PE Benedict is a significant gesture. I think it's just another event. But otherwise, yeah, I think the dude is right. Especially about our penchant for taking quotes of context and then demonizing the person behind the sound byte.

[Socrates]

Should the Church make peace with people putting their immortal souls in danger by living sinful lives? No, and it's a silly question to ask.

 

Next, please.

 

I'll have to agree with the fetus here.

 

 

The Church can never "make peace" with sin, of any kind, regardless of how un-pc such a stance may be.

The Church already clearly teaches that persons suffering from homosexual inclinations are to be treated with respect and compassion. 

 

Compassion involves dealing with persons in real life in a charitable manner, not in changing or watering down moral teaching to make it more palatable to modern sensibilities.  Nor does it mean the Church should praise "positive" aspects of "relationships" that are intrinsically immoral.  There will always be people who are upset by being told that what they are doing is sinful, but calling evil good is not in anyone's true best interest, and is not true compassion or charity.

 

Jesus Christ displayed superb compassion and mercy in His dealings with the woman caught in adultery.  However, He told her to "sin no more," and felt no need to find nice things to say about her adulterous relationship.

[Socrates]

Conservatives-  Stop being verbally abusive bung-holes who thing that the world must work your way or else.  You are not in charge, never have been, never will be.  God is. Stop trying to control things you cannot, like civil law that's been passed when its not life or death.  

 

Exactly what are you referring to here?

 

Is the business of civil law to be left solely to liberals and leftists?

 

(And in reality it's the political left that is hell-bent on changing civil law and its meaning in this country, and in disregarding the Constitution.  This includes changing the legal definition of marriage, and in activist federal judges ruling against--on no sound constitutional authority--state laws already decided by the people of those states.)

 

Former Pope Benedict very firmly opposed homosexual "civil unions."  Was he just another abusive conservative bung-hole?

[Aragon]

 

From my understanding the problem stems from Latin and finds itself in other Indo-European languages, so Italian and Spanish would be affected.  Languages like Polish, Taglong and Russian not so much.  A Polish priest I knew loved Jackie Chan...the idea that someone foreign became America's hero...  He had this saying "English cuts like a bullet when you only need a nice light karate chop"  Now that doesn't make the world's most sense, but I've heard it from other priests raised in other languages that English (and Spanish, but that less so) have a horrible way of being demoralizing and degrading.

 

If you look at the 3 Popes, and subtract out the environmental factor of their upbringing and their personalities, much of their doctrine is affected by the language they spoke.  It's no surprise to me that a German pope used harsher language than a Polish one, and that a Spanish speaking Pope has different ideals than his predecessor.

 

Hmmmm, I'm pretty sure Italian isn't affected. The word inordinata is most accurately translated as 'disordered' and is done so in Italian, French, Spanish, etc, but in Italian I'm pretty sure (from only a few years of high school LOTE and a 2 month vacation, mind you...) that the word "disorder" (disordine) in Italian isn't ever used in a psychiatric sense like it is in English. They speak of "disturbo mentale" rather than "mental disorders" so there's no risk of it being understood as a clinical diagnosis saying homosexuals are mentally ill like there is in the Anglo-sphere.

Can anyone who is fluent in any of these Romance languages confirm this?

[An Historian]

The difference is, Future Packer, that you're a devout Catholic actively pursuing holiness. Telling you that x or y behaviour is sinful is effective for you because you believe in sin and don't want to offend God. Telling you it leads to Hell is effective because you believe in Hell.

However none of that harsh language will work for someone in an irregular situation who isn't a strong Catholic. If I go around telling the gay people or cohabitating people I know that their sexual behaviour is "disordered" and that for that reason they need to repent or go to Hell they're not going to listen. What they will do is write me off as judgmental and want nothing more to do with me. That's why it's important that Catholics, including our leaders, use a language that is both intelligible and attractive to the mass of people who aren't devout Catholics, because the "harsh language" you're advocating simply won't be effective for them. 

 

How do you propose we convert sinners without addressing the realities of sin?