Confidential meeting seeks to sway-synod to accept same-sex unions

[Lilllabettt]

Frankly there are newspapers/blogs (that shall go unnamed) which have a "chicken little" reputation. The sky is always falling. So when they report that the sky is falling, I take it with a grain of salt.

NCR is fairly mainstream if on the conservative side.  When they report cloak and daggers stuff, I can only assume it is legit.

I'm frankly horrified. Not that I didn't know people at a high level thought this stuff ... but that it seems there is no one reigning them in. At least they felt the need to meet in secret. Is the next step open rebellion ... Idk.

Dark times ahead, my friends.

[CatherineM]

You know, I do hate to be this person, but this comment is bothering me. Catherine, it makes it sound as if you wish that the Church would accept homosexual relationships, but consider that to be wishful thinking. I am sure you would want to clarify if your meaning was not clear.

To clarify my position, I do not think the Church should, or will, change the teachings on homosexual unions. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Thank you for clarifying.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Frankly there are newspapers/blogs (that shall go unnamed) which have a "chicken little" reputation. The sky is always falling. So when they report that the sky is falling, I take it with a grain of salt.

NCR is fairly mainstream if on the conservative side.  When they report cloak and daggers stuff, I can only assume it is legit.

I'm frankly horrified. Not that I didn't know people at a high level thought this stuff ... but that it seems there is no one reigning them in. At least they felt the need to meet in secret. Is the next step open rebellion ... Idk.

Dark times ahead, my friends.

Yea it sounds quite bad:( 

..in the end the Immaculate Heart will triumph!

[MarysLittleFlower]

​I think you are reading too much into it.  Wishful thinking on their part.

I really do wish the church would get out of the legal marriage business alltogehter.  Like you'd have civil marriage  and then a ceremony in your own religion which the religion is 100% in charge of.  That way the catholic chursch could be supportive of a nation's decisions but then also say that "hey, that isn't Catholic marriage"  And allow only those who are catholically married to adopt and whatnot.

The problem with that potentially is that it seems to be related to some ideas about Church and state in the Syllabus of Errors and / or the statements against Modernism as a philosophy. These are Papal documents. Seems that in Catholic teaching the state should get its morality from the Church, since the Holy Spirit guides it. Otherwise we can end up with made up "morality" that contradicts divine law and then if natural law also gets ignored...we have today.

Edited May 28, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Ice_nine]

I think the Church finds herself in an interesting state (pardon the pun). Perhaps the state should take direction from the Church, but it's clear that the state does not and is trending in a direction unfavorable to our dogmas and doctrines. Anyhow the picture of what the state looks like is much much different from the Dark Ages where the church enjoyed much temporal power and influence on society, and it looks much different from the late 1800's when the syllabus of errors was written.

I don't claim to be an expert historian but the situation of living in a post-Christian society is unique and how the church practically carries out her mission in this day and age needs to be reevaluated. The acquiescence to the moral demands of secular society is not the answer, but I think trying to control and influence the wider secular culture is working either, and using documents written in a much different political landscape, they just don't seem helpful. At this point we can rage against the machine if you will and attmpt to assert influence on the power structures of modern society (politics, entertainment etc) but I just don't think that's working.

Again not an expert historian here but another period of time wherein the church was in a very anti-Christian society, the early church, it seemed to me like the church was separate and distinct from wider society. All were invited but they were clearly not dominating the political and economic power structures of their day. I know I'm oversimplifying but I think adopting a model similar to that would be more effective. Yes the church might be smaller that way, but is a watered down church going to save all the souls they manage to rope in every now and then?

Yes, Christ is the King of all, but many do now acknowledge his kingship. What do we do about this? I don't think that legitimizing the modern state as a moral authority is working anymore. It should be treated as an enemy rather than a bedmate in my opinion. It's clear the two are at odds.

Probably most of you here are more well-versed than I in church documents regarding law and society blah blah blah. I'm just thinking out loud here because whatever our leaders are doing ain't workin.

[Socrates]

I really do wish the church would get out of the legal marriage business alltogehter.  Like you'd have civil marriage  and then a ceremony in your own religion which the religion is 100% in charge of.  That way the catholic chursch could be supportive of a nation's decisions but then also say that "hey, that isn't Catholic marriage"  And allow only those who are catholically married to adopt and whatnot.

​Or maybe, just maybe, the government should stay out of the business of defining marriage altogether.  Yeah, a radical notion, I know.  (In the U.S., it's not even a power granted to the federal government by the Constitution.)

And since when is the Church obligated to be supportive of national governments' immoral and stupid decisions?

The Church is obligated to preach and teach the truth, whether or not it happens to be politically correct or popular.

 

Edited May 28, 2015 by Socrates

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think the Church finds herself in an interesting state (pardon the pun). Perhaps the state should take direction from the Church, but it's clear that the state does not and is trending in a direction unfavorable to our dogmas and doctrines. Anyhow the picture of what the state looks like is much much different from the Dark Ages where the church enjoyed much temporal power and influence on society, and it looks much different from the late 1800's when the syllabus of errors was written.

I don't claim to be an expert historian but the situation of living in a post-Christian society is unique and how the church practically carries out her mission in this day and age needs to be reevaluated. The acquiescence to the moral demands of secular society is not the answer, but I think trying to control and influence the wider secular culture is working either, and using documents written in a much different political landscape, they just don't seem helpful. At this point we can rage against the machine if you will and attmpt to assert influence on the power structures of modern society (politics, entertainment etc) but I just don't think that's working.

Again not an expert historian here but another period of time wherein the church was in a very anti-Christian society, the early church, it seemed to me like the church was separate and distinct from wider society. All were invited but they were clearly not dominating the political and economic power structures of their day. I know I'm oversimplifying but I think adopting a model similar to that would be more effective. Yes the church might be smaller that way, but is a watered down church going to save all the souls they manage to rope in every now and then?

Yes, Christ is the King of all, but many do now acknowledge his kingship. What do we do about this? I don't think that legitimizing the modern state as a moral authority is working anymore. It should be treated as an enemy rather than a bedmate in my opinion. It's clear the two are at odds.

Probably most of you here are more well-versed than I in church documents regarding law and society blah blah blah. I'm just thinking out loud here because whatever our leaders are doing ain't workin.

I think what I'm trying to say is that if the society had listened to the Syllabus of Errors and condemnation of Modernism, the state may not have been like it is today. It started down this road though in era of the "enlightenment" (endarkenment...) philosophers. That's when the idea of a secular society that decides its own "truth" became popular and the Popes were trying to fight that. What we have today is the result. So I disagree with those philosophies and I think the state should listen to the Church though I realize it isn't now... I think at this point the way to get to a truly Christian society is through massive conversion and basically...miracles of grace.

[Ice_nine]

but society didn't listen and obviously the popes and clergy have evidently lost the fight. At least in the West. I think the Church is growing in other parts of the world, thanks be to God.

[Ash Wednesday]

Why must it always be my German brothers? Can't the fault lie in those goody-goody Poles just once?

​I legit LOL'd

 

/German American

/Married to a Pole

[KnightofChrist]

This all reminds me of the prophesies from Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the gentile nations forsaking the Faith and reverting back to paganism, turning towards sin, and that there would be bishops against bishops toward the end of the age.

[CrossCuT]

Maybe Im a bit confused but why does the church entertain the idea of unions? Do they use that word to mean the public or state/country/province issued license or contract? In which case I dont think they have any weight on that issue in the public realm other than an opinion. Or are they using that term loosely to describe sacramental marriage within the church?

[KnightofChrist]

List of Participants Who Attended Gregorian 'Shadow Council'

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/list-of-participants-who-attended-gregorian-shadow-synod/#ixzz3bRqBHHNh
 

BISHOPS:

 

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop of Munich and Freising

Archbishop Georges Pontier, president of the French Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop of Marseille

Bishop Markus Büchel, president of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference, Bishop of St. Gallen

Bishop Franz-Josef Bode of Osnabrück, Germany

Bishop Heiner Koch of Dresden-Meißen, Germany

Bishop Felix Gmür of Basel, Switzerland

Bishop Jean-Marie Lovey of Sitten, Switzerland

Bishop Bruno Ann-Marie Feillet of Reims, France

Bishop Jean-Luc Brunin of Le Havre, France

 

PROFESSORS/PRIESTS:

 

Father Hans Langendörfer SJ, secretary general, German Bishops Conference

Father Hans Zollner SJ, professor of psychology, vice-rector, Pontifical Gregorian University

Father Achim Buckenmaier, professor of dogmatic theology in the "Akademie für die Theologie des Volkes Gottes" Institute of the Pontifical Lateran University, Rome; consultor to the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization

Father Andreas R. Batlogg SJ, professor of philosophy and theology, chief editor Stimmen der Zeit

Father Alain Thomasset SJ, professor of moral theology at Centre Sèvres, France 

Father Humberto Miguel Yañez SJ, dean of moral theology, Pontifical Gregorian University

Father Eberhard Schockenhoff, professor of moral theology at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany

Father Philippe Bordeyne, professor of theology, Institut Catholique de Paris

 

Professor Thomas Söding, professor of biblical theology at Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany

Professor Werner G. Jeanrond, theologian, Master of St Benet’s Hall, Oxford, England

Professor François Xavier Amherdt, theologian, University of Fribourg, Switzerland

Professor Erwin Dirscherl, dogmatic theologian, University of Regensburg, Germany

Professor Monique Baujard, director, Service National Famille et Société at the French bishops’ conference

Professor Eva Maria Faber, dogmatic and fundamental theologian and rector of Chur Theological College, Switzerland

Professor Thierry Collaud, theologian, University of Fribourg, Switzerland

Professor Francine Charoy, professor of moral theology, Institut Catholique de Paris

Professor Anne-Marie Pelletier, biblicist at the European Institute of Science of Religions (IESR)

 

OTHER:

 

Msgr. Markus Graulich SDB, prelate auditor of the tribunal of the Roman Rota

Marco Impagliazzo, President of Sant’Egidio lay community

 

MEDIA:

 

Simon Hehli, journalist, Neue Zürcher Zeitung

Tilmann Kleinjung, ARD television correspondent

Michael Bewerunge, ZDF television correspondent

Jörg Bremer, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Vatican and Italy correspondent

Frédéric Mounier, correspondent, La Croix, Catholic daily, France

Marco Ansaldo, journalist, La Repubblica (Italian daily)

Antoine-Marie Izoard, director, I-Media French Catholic news agency, Rome

Father Bernd Hagenkord SJ, director of Vatican Radio (German edition)

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/list-of-participants-who-attended-gregorian-shadow-synod/#ixzz3bRqWkSD0

Edited May 28, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Maybe Im a bit confused but why does the church entertain the idea of unions? Do they use that word to mean the public or state/country/province issued license or contract? In which case I dont think they have any weight on that issue in the public realm other than an opinion. Or are they using that term loosely to describe sacramental marriage within the church?

​It is not the Church that entertains these things. It is an unfaithful group of the hierarchy. This group wants to have unions blessed both by government and the Church. If they try to force the issue at the Synod it will lead to open schism. 

[puellapaschalis]

"Marco Impagliazzo, President of Sant’Egidio lay community"

Well isn't that interesting.