Here's A Bomb

[Lilllabettt]

It was a bit more than a management failure. It drew attention to how much power the church has and how its structures don't easily allow a means of addressing injustices. It made the laity aware of the lack of voice they often have to make an impact, a lack of support, training, voice, education, advancement on faith matters. They can't suggest or innovate for evangelization as easily as some other churches do. They are often ignored by the leadership, be they deemed Conservative, Liberal or otherwise.

It has dragged the church into a posiion where its credibility and message is damaged. Every non catholic I know associates the church with sex abuse, its use of politics to advance its views, its views on contraception, homosexuality and women (all in the negative). It cuts conversations dead. This is a major problem.

Current problems:  Churches closing, pews empty, religious declining, priests declining, priests defecting or leaving to marry, priests and religious forming asociations to challenge the church (and threatening to take provinces out of the church or striking), protests, church obstructions and demonstrations, opinion polls showing Catholics who attend church disagree with the church in large numbers, Priests, Bishops and religious publicly (or more privately) not agreeing with the church on many hard line issues. Once the baby boomers (priests and laity ) die the church will hit the wall and struggle to operate in terms of money and man power. Crisis much? Well, yes, but especially in Europe and North America who've got more pain to come.
I'm not sure what crisis you're waiting for exactly?

 

 

 

The above represents a management problem. Power imbalances in workflow decision making is a management failure.

 

The fact that people associate the Church with its views on contraception, homosexuality and women, despite the Church's reluctance to teach much of anything regarding those views, represents a management failure. PR failure. Maybe what is required is that they actually be taught full throttle? Not massaged into easier to digest forms?

 

Current problems:  Churches closing, pews empty, religious declining, priests declining, priests defecting or leaving to marry, priests and religious forming asociations to challenge the church (and threatening to take provinces out of the church or striking), protests, church obstructions and demonstrations, opinion polls showing Catholics who attend church disagree with the church in large numbers, Priests, Bishops and religious publicly (or more privately) not agreeing with the church on many hard line issues. Once the baby boomers (priests and laity ) die the church will hit the wall and struggle to operate in terms of money and man power. Crisis much? Well, yes, but especially in Europe and North America who've got more pain to come.
I'm not sure what crisis you're waiting for exactly?

 

 

I don't see these things as a sign of crisis, but a natural process. Birth pangs. It is becoming harder to be part of proper society and remain a faithful Catholic. It is harder and harder to stay and just "go through the motions." The possibility of being a "cultural Catholic" is dying. Is this really a process we should stop? If we really want to, maybe we could address it by adjusting management processes. How authority flows through decision making hierarchies.  But by changing fundamental teachings re: the meaning of marriage and the Eucharist? I don't think so.

 

 

 

Pope Francis isn't a liberal, he's a Catholic. If you look at his views as a Bishop I think that's clear. But I think he has as much heart and nuance as he does intellect. Is he Ratzinger, no. But he doesn't need to be.

 

I am not holding up Ratzinger as the be-all-end-all. He had many management failures.

 

But:

John Paul II was above partisan Church politics in a way I really miss. Neither side could claim him. 

Ratzinger was known to be in a certain camp but he had a very modest idea of himself as Pope and the changes he made to his way of thinking were never going to be extravagant.

I think Francis is most definitely a partisan in Church politics, and he does in fact intend to make his mark in a big way. 

[HisChildForever]

Here is my take.

 

1. The Catholic Church does not have the authority to change infallible doctrine.

2. The Scriptures explicitly state that the gates of Hell will not prevail.

3. It's okay to express concern over...the media's coverage, poor PR from the Vatican, and possible scandal resulting from a misunderstanding of the Synod. But not everyone is concerned, and you should respect that.

4. It's okay to disagree with the Catholics that fall into #3. It's okay to not be too troubled. Wary and curious is fine too.

5. It is NOT okay to be rude, insulting, and/or disrespectful toward those who disagree with you. Especially since we ALL agree on #1 and 2.

[HisChildForever]

I hold love for the Catholic Church in my heart and I seek to strengthen my relationship to Christ every day. His very words of "I thirst" are what I feel in my soul, which are only quenched when I pick up the Scriptures or dive into spiritual reading. Also satiated when I check out Phatmass and immerse myself in real Catholic culture. Over the past few years I have been introduced to a new world--not a bad world, just a different one--of Protestants, Muslims, agnostics, mentally ill, inmates, addicts...and I've learned how to apply my faith in such a way that I feel only love in my heart for these brothers and sisters of mine. Love, and respect. Love, love, love. It's love and hope that gets me through each day with joy in my heart. I desire to live up to the example Pope Francis has set for us. One of Truth, yes, but also of mercy and compassion. We're all so complex, so individual. Even when I see opinions here I blatantly disagree with, I still love you and cherish those experiences and prayer that has led you to these expressions. Keep your eyes fixated on Jesus!

[Benedictus]

The above represents a management problem. Power imbalances in workflow decision making is a management failure.

 

Well, true, there are governance failures. But there are also leadership failures on reform and a basic call of the Gospel within parishes. Yes, there should be better management. But I want a more creative structure, not micromanagement. But I don't see many ideas for how this could work out, aside from Bishops wanting power grabs.

The problem is I'm critical of some calls for reform, not because I don't think it's needed, but because it's seen as a way to delegate power to Bishops for its own sake, in order to make local decisions (and or on a provincial level). I don't think many of them have shown they have the capacity to do this well. Most of the current failures, management or otherwise, lead back to dicoeses or religious orders, not to the Vatican. Abuse, division, corruption, clergy misconduct, disclipline issues, and a lack of parish innovation all come back to the boots of the Bishops. They stranglehold all parishes to a great extent. What should have been happening, and I guess Vatican ll was hopeful of, was that the laity would be supported, trained, educated, lead and be a collaborating force within the wider collegial system of the church. But this hasn't happened and, in my view, most are ill prepared to take on such a role at the moment without messing it up.

Many Catholics have called for an 'Anglican system' of governance for the Catholic church, without understanding what this means. Bishops in that system have hardly any power within their dioceses. Bishops only have control over curates, diocese governance and vocations. Aside from guiding and sitting on panels the power rests with the clergy and the parishes to a large extent, especially on day to day issues. Anglican Bishops can't even decide on policy without a supporting vote of clergy and the laity.  I doubt Catholic Bishops would want to become this impotent. So it's anyones guess what Catholic Bishops see as adequate for themselves, and then everyone else

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that people associate the Church with its views on contraception, homosexuality and women, despite the Church's reluctance to teach much of anything regarding those views, represents a management failure. PR failure. Maybe what is required is that they actually be taught full throttle? Not massaged into easier to digest forms?

 

 

 

PThe point is evryone knows the general outline of what the church already teaches on thsoe issues. I don't think going on and on about it will help anyone. I think it's already distorting the Gospel message as a whole and taking a more forward role than it should. Jesus and the good news needs to come first. The church is overly negative, or it seems that way. It's damaging and counterproductive, even punitive, to keep doing something that isn't working.
 

 

I don't see these things as a sign of crisis, but a natural process. Birth pangs. It is becoming harder to be part of proper society and remain a faithful Catholic. It is harder and harder to stay and just "go through the motions." The possibility of being a "cultural Catholic" is dying. Is this really a process we should stop? If we really want to, maybe we could address it by adjusting management processes. How authority flows through decision making hierarchies.  But by changing fundamental teachings re: the meaning of marriage and the Eucharist? I don't think so.

 

 

 

 

True, I think those elemets are at play too. Birth pangs or death pangs? There is a group who are reactionary and have a persecution complex, that's for sure.  Maybe elements need to die so it can be be born again anew, especially if it can't be reformed. But it is a current crisis for all those not getting the message, support, and love they should at this moment because of those failures and hurts. Management failure and a large lump of sinful behaviour, but by far not enough penance (not even an interest in admitting culpability for the problems that persist). I'm not sure they plan to change any of those teachings, but a pastoral awareness and gudance would be good. I'm sure they know more than any of us about how to go about things, well you'd think so 

 

 

 

I am not holding up Ratzinger as the be-all-end-all. He had many management failures.

 

But:

John Paul II was above partisan Church politics in a way I really miss. Neither side could claim him. 

Ratzinger was known to be in a certain camp but he had a very modest idea of himself as Pope and the changes he made to his way of thinking were never going to be extravagant.

I think Francis is most definitely a partisan in Church politics, and he does in fact intend to make his mark in a big way. 

 

I'm not sure I'd agree John Paul ll was that much above partisan politics. His action to appointed a more conservative Jesuit papal delegate, against the liberal one they selected, in the early 80's wasn't exactly a neutral decision. There are other examples.
He was definately a conservative, although this was tamed somewhat by his openness in matters of dialogue, devotions and liturgy. This made him popular with charismatics, liberals and conservatives for varying reasons. He was able to hold things together fairly well by tolerating a degree of diversity/flexibility where it could happen. He also appointed Cardinals from a spectrum of views, not always to the benefit of local areas, but there you go. This intensfied, so some say, as he got more sick. Was he really appointing all these people in the later years with full consent and clear judgement? Well, who knows. But I'm sure the staff at the Vatican, and elsewhere, played a big role. But thoughout his whole life, especially under Communist rule, he was able to pursue a political agenda without appearing to pursue a political agenda. It's why he got where he did in the end.

 

[PhuturePriest]

Burke is a verbal abuser?! What are you talking about?!

 

Apparently, being the most capable and respected canon lawyer who defends canon law without blinking an eye makes you a "verbal abuser".

[Aragon]

I think BlazingStar was referring to this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-cardinal-burke-responds-to-australian-couples-synod-presentation

 

I get where Cardinal Burke is coming from, but I think sometimes in his enthusiasm to hate the sin he forgets to express himself in a way that shows love for the sinner.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Aragon

[Lilllabettt]

I think BlazingStar was referring to this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-cardinal-burke-responds-to-australian-couples-synod-presentation

 

I get where Cardinal Burke is coming from, but I think sometimes in his enthusiasm to hate the sin he forgets to express himself in a way that shows love for the sinner.

 

 

Can you quote what part of what he said is verbal abuse?  Or demonstrates a "lack of love." Even if you don't agree with the approach he recommends (I think its a reasonable one that every family in this situation needs to seriously consider)  think a fair-minded person would struggle to say that what he has to say is abusive or expressed without love for sinners. 

Edited October 31, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[PhuturePriest]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/how-cardinal-burke-welcomed-home-a-gay-activist

 

It turns out Burke not only reprimands sin, but welcomes home sinners.

[veritasluxmea]

 

Speaking to LifeSiteNews on a short break from the Synod yesterday, Cardinal Burke, the Prefect of the Vatican's Apostolic Signitura, called the Pirolas’ question a ‘delicate’ question that needs to be addressed in a “calm, serene, reasonable and faith-filled manner.”

“If homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered, which indeed they are — reason teaches us that and also our faith — then, what would it mean to grandchildren to have present at a family gathering a family member who is living [in] a disordered relationship with another person?” asked the cardinal.

Burke added, “we don't want our children” to get the “impression” that sexual relationships outside God’s plan are alright, “by seeming to condone gravely sinful acts on the part of a family member.” 

...

He added, however, that “families have to find a way to stay close to a child in this situation — to a son or grandson, or whatever it may be — in order to try to draw the person away from a relationship which is disordered.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-cardinal-burke-responds-to-australian-couples-synod-presentation

 

 

If the rumors are true and +Burke is about to be dispatched to the Knights of Malta, I hope the appointment comes with a ban on giving him a microphone. This man's inability to speak with even a whiff of human compassion is intrinsically disordered if you ask me.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/card-burke-intrinsically-disordered

 

wait, who's being verbally abusive here? 

 

He's a Catholic Bishop talking to a Catholic reporter. He used language which is contained in everyone's catechism. He talks about not condoning a homosexual relationship while still respecting the people in the relationship. I don't see what's verbally abusive about that. 

 

The only thing I would add to his remarks is that I believe people should remain close to their child/grandchild simply for the sake of who they are, not just in order to draw them closer to the Faith. Even if it was impossible to help them, you should still have as much as a relationship as prudently possible with them. I believe that's what he's saying and I know it's just a brief remark, but I just wanted to be clearer here myself. 

[Basilisa Marie]

 

 

He added, however, that “families have to find a way to stay close to a child in this situation — to a son or grandson, or whatever it may be — in order to try to draw the person away from a relationship which is disordered.”

 

Yeah, this is one part that can easily be interpreted to mean: "Catholic family members have an obligation to lure a child away from his or her parents."  I don't believe that's really what he meant, but the phrasing is poor. 

[truthfinder]

Yeah, this is one part that can easily be interpreted to mean: "Catholic family members have an obligation to lure a child away from his or her parents."  I don't believe that's really what he meant, but the phrasing is poor. 

I agree the wording is poor; I interpreted it differently - I read it as staying close to the homosexual person that they can be brought out of homosexual relationships if they're in one. 

[Lilllabettt]

Yeah, this is one part that can easily be interpreted to mean: "Catholic family members have an obligation to lure a child away from his or her parents."  I don't believe that's really what he meant, but the phrasing is poor. 

 

 

I think its fairly clear from the context that the Cardinal is referring to a (presumably adult) child who is themselves engaged in a homosexual relationship and the obligation to stay close to that child so as to draw them away from it. 

 

I guess he could have said "son or daughter" instead of child.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Aragon]

You know I'm pretty surprised that people can't see for themselves the many problems with Cardinal Burke's interview with lifesitenews. It's all about his tone and striking a right balance between condemning the sin while loving the sinner. 

Let's list a few of the issues:

1. The repeated use of the word 'disordered' to describe homosexuality pathologises gay people. 99.99% of people are familiar with the psychiatric meaning of 'disorder', they are not familiar with the teleological meaning of the term (which is how the catechism uses it). Given this your average Catholic or non-Catholic reading Burke's words is going to take away from it that homosexuals are mentally ill. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if +Burke believed this. Certainly, many of the writers at lifesitenews.com think this is the case. 

 

2. The use of the term 'suffers from same sex attraction' rather than the appropriate 'experiences' or 'has' same sex attraction further pathologises gay people and paints their homosexuality as an illness.

 

3. I thought +Burke was going to redeem himself when he began talking about families needing to stay close to their gay relatives, however by adding "in order to try to draw the person away from a relationship which is disordered" he ignores the primary reason for staying close to gay relatives: because they're worthy of our love and are made in the image of God. 

 

4. On that note, while talking extensively about how disordered homosexuality is and the dangers it poses to children, Cardinal Burke completely neglects to affirm the human dignity of homosexual persons. He could have at least given some balance by presenting the Church's teaching on how homosexual people are to be accepted with "compassion, respect, and sensitivity".

 

 

One of my gay friends was really, really upset after reading this interview (in the secular media, not on lifesite) and it took a lot of effort to re-assure her that I didn't think about her like this. That she'd always be welcome at my dinner table. Cardinal Burke's words do more to alienate people than invite them to the Church. They go on and on about the sinfulness of homosexuality without once affirming the dignity of the homosexual person.

 

Do you have close gay friends or family members? Is this how you'd talk about them?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Aragon

[Lilllabettt]

 

 

Do you have close gay friends or family members? Is this how you'd talk about them?

 

 

This is how I would talk to family members ABOUT how to deal with the adult gay people in our lives who have freely chosen to engage in gay sexual relationships.

We are talking about adults. Adults who make choices about who they sleep with.

Guess what?  

A gay family member who chooses to have homosexual sex makes a choice.

Then their family and the people who love them have to make choices about how to deal with that.

The primary obligation a parent has is to the well being of their children NOT their gay friend or family member. 

Every family is different but this is a side of the decision that every family in this situation should weigh carefully and consider. 

Parents do not have to endanger their children to assuage the feelings of gay people who have freely chosen to engage in gay sex. 

Edited October 31, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Aragon]

This is how I would talk to family members ABOUT how to deal with the adult gay people in our lives who have freely chosen to engage in gay sexual relationships.

We are talking about adults. Adults who make choices about who they sleep with.

Guess what?  

A gay family member who chooses to have homosexual sex makes a choice.

Then their family and the people who love them have to make choices about how to deal with that.

The primary obligation a parent has is to the well being of their children NOT their gay friend or family member. 

Every family is different but this is a side of the decision that every family in this situation should weigh carefully and consider. 

Parents do not have to endanger their children to assuage the feelings of gay people who have freely chosen to engage in gay sex. 

 

So the answer to my question then is no, you don't have any close gay friends and so you clearly don't see a problem with talking about people in this way. I am not talking about the particular situation which the Pirola's brought up at the Synod. Only parents themselves know the best course of action to take for their particular situation. I am talking about Cardinal Burke's response; a response which was made publicly read by thousands and thousands of people - homosexual and heterosexual, Catholic and non-Catholic.

 

Anyone who actually cares for the people who this issue affects knows that discourse which pathologises homosexual people is alienating and hurtful. There are far better ways to express the Church's teaching on this issue, and the inability of certain Catholics and members of the hierarchy to realise just how horrible they sound when talking about this issue is a grave concern. 

Edited November 1, 2014 by Aragon

[Aragon]

Here's a good post written by a faithful SSA Catholic on this issue: http://spiritualfriendship.org/2013/08/04/intrinsically-disordered-how-not-to-talk-about-homosexuality/

[Lilllabettt]

So the answer to my question then is no, you don't have any close gay friends and so you clearly don't see a problem with talking about people in this way. 

 

Lets try some reading comprehension shall we.

 

 

This is how I would talk to family members ABOUT how to deal with the adult gay people in our lives who have freely chosen to engage in gay sexual relationships.

 

 

I don't have a family and so I don't talk to my non existent family about how to handle people in our lives who choose to have gay sex.

That doesn't mean I don't know and love gay people.

But way to get out your jump to conclusions mat.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Aragon]

Lets try some reading comprehension shall we.

 

 

 

 

I don't have a family and so I don't talk to my non existent family about how to handle people in our lives who choose to have gay sex.

That doesn't mean I don't know and love gay people.

But way to get out your jump to conclusions mat.

 

I actually asked if you had any gay friends because surely anyone with close relationships with gay people can realise what's problematic with Cardinal Burke's interview. I didn't ask anything about your family situation. I'm sorry if anything I have said made you think I was jumping to conclusions about family issues, but I'm not actually the one who brought the issue of family into it, you are. 

 

If you will go back and re-read the posts I think perhaps we could actually engage with the topic, which is the discourse around this issue and how it does more to alienate people than show them Christ's love and draw them to the Church.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Aragon

[veritasluxmea]

1. The repeated use of the word 'disordered' to describe homosexuality pathologises gay people. 99.99% of people are familiar with the psychiatric meaning of 'disorder', they are not familiar with the teleological meaning of the term (which is how the catechism uses it). Given this your average Catholic or non-Catholic reading Burke's words is going to take away from it that homosexuals are mentally ill. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if +Burke believed this. Certainly, many of the writers at lifesitenews.com think this is the case. 

 

2. The use of the term 'suffers from same sex attraction' rather than the appropriate 'experiences' or 'has' same sex attraction further pathologises gay people and paints their homosexuality as an illness.

I think you're painting all homosexual people with the same brush here. It's complicated, and can very very different for each person. Some people do genuinely feel they suffer from it. Some people simply feel they experience it. Some people do live a gay life and then seek treatment, feel they are "cured" and live in heterosexual relationships. Other people will experience it their whole lives and will never live in hereto relationships. Some people see it as a mental disorder or illness and seek treatment, others view it more as a part of who they are and do not seek treatment.

 

I respect both the people who feel their SSA is a mental disorder or illness and those who feel it is a more complex part of who they are. It's complicated, and I think it can be different for each person and I'm ok with people handling it differently (in line with Church Teaching, of course. Having a gay relationship is not properly handling it). I don't know enough about science and psychology to make a call, and with the current pc wars we probably won't know for a long, long time. I think what's important here is simply following Church Teaching on sex and marriage, however you choose to view or deal with the attraction in your life. 

 

 

3. I thought +Burke was going to redeem himself when he began talking about families needing to stay close to their gay relatives, however by adding "in order to try to draw the person away from a relationship which is disordered" he ignores the primary reason for staying close to gay relatives: because they're worthy of our love and are made in the image of God. 

 

I agree, but I already addressed that above.

 

 

4. On that note, while talking extensively about how disordered homosexuality is and the dangers it poses to children, Cardinal Burke completely neglects to affirm the human dignity of homosexual persons. He could have at least given some balance by presenting the Church's teaching on how homosexual people are to be accepted with "compassion, respect, and sensitivity".

 

 

I suspect Burke does respect homosexuals as worthy of our love and made in the image of God, but did not phrase it properly in this interview. (I could be wrong if someone pulls up an article with Burke saying something like "I hate gays" or talking really harshly about them personally but I haven't seen it yet.) 

 

 

Cardinal Burke's words do more to alienate people than invite them to the Church. They go on and on about the sinfulness of homosexuality without once affirming the dignity of the homosexual person.

 

Fair enough, and I would like to see that too. Still, this is just a short interview to a Catholic reporter addressing Catholics issues- in all fairness he doesn't need to bring up every Church Teaching about the issue. I guess if in every interview any Catholic gave about homosexuality they affirmed the dignity of homosexual people it'd be helpful to people who happen to come across it, but still. 

 

 

Do you have close gay friends or family members? Is this how you'd talk about them?

 

Is that how I would talk about them? No, but it is how I'd talk about homosexual activity. If you think that's wrong, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think there are disordered people, just people with disorders, so I wouldn't go around saying "Uncle Johnny is disordered, huh." 

 

If you think homosexual activity is disordered, will some people take that personally? Probably. Frankly, if you disagree with gay sex people will disagree with you. In real life, I'd try my best to discuss it in a way that helps people where they are, understanding their need, addressing underlying issues as I sense them, while still being honest and open about what Catholics believe, my relationship with God, and life as a Catholic. 

[Benedictus]

This is my thoughts so far:
1. SSA isn't a mental disorder - it doesn't matter that some people think it is. The church doesn't, and isn't qualified, to say that it's a psychological disorder.
2. I think the language often used by the church around 'disorder' is misleading, in terms of everyday speech.
3. Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Religious have a public responsibility to put across the best face of the church and watch what they say to the media. Some, who get lots of attention, don't do this in a rounded and informed way. Cardinals, above all else, should know better than those lower down the chain on what's taught and how to conduct themselves.
3.Opinion and belief isn't necessarily fact. People who experience SSA have more insight into the issues than most Catholics, so humility is a good start, but often lacking.
4. It doesn't matter what anyone 'thinks' someone else else 'should' do. Unless they have that problem themselves they don't really know what they'd do. People make the choices they do based on their condition and experience. Contrary views and judgements don't necessarily trump that.
5. People can disagree on some points around morality/theology. It doesn't mean they are any 'less' than others. They may be people of great faith, love and charity. God is in there doing his stuff regardless of what people think about, like, on anything.
6 I think the church, and often this board, goes on and on about homosexuality in term of 'sex'. It's like an obsession with anything and everything sexual- sex outside marriage, contraception, SSA, cohabitation, second marriage etc. All implied around doing something they shouldn't in the bedroom. Geeze. Does anyone think relationally or about other stuff? Maybe some of those annoying folks breaking all your codes are doing more struggling, more work and have more faith?
7. I think there's some sort of grace of God in the fact that so many groups have been treated like trash over the years and yet they still care enough to bother with the church and other people who must drive them nuts. I don't think I could stand it if it was me, like no way. Props to them for bothering, esp when they get nothing back alot of the time.
8. The church, and many of its followers, should treat people like they do other religions and denominations. They don't run around calling other religions sinners for having a diferent view/teaching or behaviour code. The church doesn't condemn them. But a person, or sub group, is an easy target for disdain?