| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 32.032
Post: 14.118 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
In a round-up of 'what's the left up to' these days, Fr. Z includes the above tweet from the Vatican's leading LGBT paladin who, I suspect, is being given free rein to indulge his obsession because he is also acting as the surrogate for Bergoglio, who obviously cannot be as openly articulate about his posture of sexual laissez-faire as Martin is self-indulgently so - even if the pope's reported 'God loves you as you are' to Juan Carlos Cruz was, in effect, a message to all sexual deviants, Catholic or not.
A most un-Catholic and anti-Catholic message that ignores everything the Bible (Old and New Testaments) says about sexual deviancy. Not just ignoring Genesis which clearly says God created man and woman whom he then commanded to 'Go forth and multiply', not go forth and proliferate 'gender' permutations and combinations that were never part of the divine plan. Else, why Sodom and Gomorrah and all the numerous condemnations of sexual deviancy and perversion in the Bible?
Yet, as far as I recall, Martin in his public pronouncements does not go beyond what the Catechism says about disordered sexuality to argue about the wrongness of the Catholic position against sexual deviancy. Perhaps, who knows, in his book he goes back to Genesis and all the way to St Paul, and what the Bible says, in more ways than one, about the subject - but there is no way he could possibly turn around what the Bible says to represent his, Martin's, laissez-faire on sexual deviancy. And if that's not possible, then why would he quote the Bible at all? But here we are today, with him touting a psalm to prove his point that the Church is wrong about condemning sexual deviancy.
Anyway, here's Father Z on Fr. Martin's pathetically tawdry and un-magnificent obsession:
Did you get that? God created homosexuals as they are. In other words, God intentionally made them to desire to have sex with members of the same sex. That would put sodomy on par with normal sexual relations, which is patently absurd. [Which is, of course, the same reductio ad absurdum one gets with Bergoglio's unqualified "God loves you as you are" to Juan Carlos Cruz.]
This is scandalous, because the people whom he addresses may take his falsehood to be permission – from an authority figure in the Church – to commit sodomy.
No. This is nothing short of pernicious.
Homosexual inclinations are disordered. God made all of us. Therefore we are all good. He made us to live virtuous lives and to seek the Truth. God foresees that some people will have this flaw or that defect or some problem or other. However, these very problems, while not willed by God, are foreseen by God as possible means by which people can reach the joy of heaven. By striving for holiness and by offering the suffering that results from saying “No!” to a disordered desire, people can receive great graces and set good examples for their neighbors out of charity.
Remember the chronology: Martin writes his LGBT manual, Building Bridges (or whatever), in the guise of showing unconditional love to everyone; Bergoglio appoints him to be a member of the Vatican's new super-dicastery on communications; and Martin seems to consider that his carte blanche to lecture and write every chance he gets to promote LGBT advocacy - seemingly revelling in the protests and condemnations raining down on him from orthodox Catholic voices who have the same access he has to the media.
I choose to begin this post with the implacably concrete evidence of the de facto posture of laissez faire adopted by Bergoglio and his church on the matter of sexual deviancy because it serves to underscore even more the latest turn of the Bergoglian screw on the upcoming synod on 'the youth'. (Who are they kidding? It's yet another synodal assembly prefabricated by Bergoglio, Baldisseri and their cohort at the Synod Secretariat, towards an end pre-determined by Bergoglio and about which, no doubt, a full draft of his post-synodal exhortation is already on hand).
This latest turn of the screw is described by Andrea Gagliarducci, who unbelievably persists - all evidence to the contrary - in making believe that everything untoward happening in the Vatican is done behind Bergoglio's back and without his knowledge or support. This Vaticanista is astute enough to uncover and report on all the machinations attendant to the Bergoglio Vatican yet insists that Bergoglio cannot be blamed for any of it! For once, I shall post his column without any comments - because any and all comments would come down under the general comment I have made above about Gagliarducci and his so-called'analyses'. [P.S. As you can see, I could not entirely refrain from commenting!]
Pope Francis and dialogue at all costs
June 25, 2018
Meeting the World Council of Churches on June 21, Pope Francis said dialogue is not a strategy, but a necessity, and thatin the end dialogue always seems to be “operating with a loss.” He was obviously referring to ecumenical dialogue, but the speech showed Pope Francis’s rationale.
On June 20, excerpts of a long interview Pope Francis granted to Reuters already confirmed this rationale. Speaking about Cardinal Joseph Zen’s concern about a possible agreement with China, Pope Francis underscored that yes, dialogue is a risk, but “I prefer the risk than the certain defeat coming from not dialoguing.” [My comment is not addressed to Gagliarducci but to Bergoglio: Dialogue is not a risk, unless you enter into it prepared to compromise your essential principles! And dialogue is a strategy the way you employ it - when it is dialog for the sake of dialog, i.e., it makes it seem you are doing something when you are simply filling up time indefinitely, and have no intention of resolving anything definitively because it becomes instead a never-ending dialectic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, in which every synthesis generates a new antithesis, etc, etc.]
This is the outward Church approach. This approach has an extraordinary missionary strength, [????? Can someone make sense of this?] but also its limits, if not handled with care.
One of these limits became very clear when the Instrumentum Laboris (working document) of the 2018 Synod on young people was presented June 19. The document is very long, and it is a strong candidate to be the longest working document ever in the history of Synods, with its 214 paragraphs and 52 pages.
The document’s limits come from the “outward Church” approach. [I think Gagliarducci uses this equivocal term to describe Bergoglio's 'church going out to the peripheries' (while abandoning the center!). In which necessarily, such a church gets caught up in matters that are really external to the primary mission of 'the Church', i.e., the one true Church of Christ.]
First of all, the document is overall a sociological document. So was the case with the guiding lines of the Synod, and with the International Seminar that preceded the Synod and the so-called pre-Synod with the participation of young people [who will not be participating in the synodal assembly at all but will be represented by the bishops who will be named synodal participants, none of whom, it is safe to say, will be younger than 40. See www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sage.html
for a list of the youngest bishops today from age 40-48. Among contemporary prelates, Cardinal Arinze holds the age record for having been named bishop at the age of 32.]
Reality is described, but there is no mention of how to shape reality. As if the Catholic Church had nothing to propose to the world, and to young people.
In addition, the “spiritual thirst” of young people (and people who are not young anymore, too) is apparently marginalized. The working document claims that the culture of indifference is not winning, and that there is a return of the sacred. The document, however, does not go in depth to the reasons why the sacred is coming back, while it emphasizes social issues – like poverty and marginalization.
This is fruit of the “pastoral of the ear,” the need to be listening to the people. [So you listen, and then what? Does the person listening not have any input at all, or any criteria by which to deal with what he hears? Or will he rather let his interlocutors have the last and only word on any topic?] The dialogue, however, is not presented as a full proposal. It is rather an assessment of things as they are.
Hence, another important – and probably underestimated – problem: the 2018 Synod’s working document is probably the first Vatican document containing the term LGBT. [And here we come to the crux of the matter, the apparent pretext for which this 'youth synod' was called - which is, to somehow have the church of Bergoglio legitimize the proliferation of sexual variants and deviants that appears to be as infinite as the possibilities every person can think of!]
The Holy See has always refused categorizations like LGBT, as people must be considered as people, and not qualified according to their sexual orientation.
The issue is introduced in paragraph 197. The paragraph reads that “some LGBT young people, through various contributions sent to the Secretariat of the Synod, long for the benefits of a greater proximity and care from the Church.”
The document also reads that “some Bishops’ Conferences are trying to understand what to propose to young people that chose to come together in homosexual couples instead of heterosexual couples and who wish above all to stay close to the Church.”
The theme of the pastoral closeness for homosexual couples is not new. In 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a “letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care for homosexual people.”
However, the use of the term LGBT is problematic, and could reverberate in the international arena. The Holy See has always opposed the use of the term LGBT in United Nations documents, as it did not want to sign a UN document on discrimination against homosexuals for the same reasons.
The Holy See’s basic principle is that all human beings are considered equal, despite their sexual orientation. For this reason, it cannot support the categorization of people according to their sexual behavior, which the term LGBT gives rise to, nor a document that talks about discrimination against homosexuals. The Holy See focuses on the need to defend every human being.
From a wider perspective, the Holy See has always been suspicious of terms like “Islamophobia” and “Christianophobia” (although it has used this term occasionally), always on the principle of not judging people on the basis of categories. Fostering human dignity also means understanding the inner reasons of the hatred, beyond any religious belonging.
Now, it may be possible that, when the Holy See fights for these principles in the international arena and rejects LGBT terminology, some will recall that the Holy See already used LGBT in a document, claiming that it means that the category has been formally accepted. It might seem a remote possibility, or a mere quibble about details. But nothing is a detail in international congresses. The Holy See knows it: everything is handled with extreme care, from the choice of the words to the themes to develop.
Asked why the term LGBT was included in the Synod’s working document, Cardinal Baldisseri, secretary general of the Synod, said that the Instrumentum Laboris merely took it from the final document of the pre-Synod of young people, to which they were very faithful.
In fact the term LGBT is not included in the pre-Synod document, so Cardinal Baldisseri was at least mistaken. [Or, he has taken on the lying that seems to be endemic in the Bergoglio Vatican, starting with the lord and master himself!] But even if it were, the pre-Synod document is not an official Vatican document. [Carefully selected] young people responded to the questions posed by the Secretariat, but they also complained that the whole final text seemed to have been pre-compiled.
The truth is that, even in that case, there was a lack of will from the Church to educate people. The pastoral of the ear is not accompanied by the spreading of the Christian message. [As awkwardly as Gagliarducci says it, he identifies the basic problem with the so-called 'pastoral of the ear' - a stupid term, to begin with, if I may say so!]
Assuming the worst, one might say that this happened in bad faith. That there is an agenda behind Pope Francis’s back that aims at changing doctrine, or to put the Church and consolidated pastoral practices in crisis with marginal adjustments that at first do not generate scandal. [Oh please! That's the Bergoglian principle of graduality: Make seemingly minor changes to words or to actual pastoral practice that gradually, in time - sooner rather than later - have become adopted as to modify traditional practice to the point that presto!, what was merely supposed to be a lexical or 'pastoral' change is then held up as the new doctrine, even while barefacedly claiming that doctrine has not changed at all!]
Thinking negatively, one could conclude that the Pope is misinformed, as could be deduced by the fact that he said in a Reuters interview that he got to know about the Dubia letter from newspapers. [And how was that a case of him being misinformed? He got the letter - perhaps he chose not to read it, or is making believe he never read it! Go ahead, Gagliarducci, say it, speak the truth! The pope was selling a barefaced lie!]
However, such concerns may be exaggerated. Beyond agendas and ideological pushes, it is the way things are handled that have become superficial. This is how potentially good ideas like the pastoral of the ear can become boomerangs. Sometimes willingly, sometimes unwillingly. This is the risk of the dialogue at all costs promoted by Pope Francis. [It simply is beyond my abilities to try and make sense of this paragraph!]
|