Dear Cardinal Dew here, not speaking about the family but the favourite of many senior clergy: homosexuality. No wonder Cardinal Dolan says the traditional family is today an excluded minority, even in the Church. Anyhow Dew is uncomfortable with the phrase 'intrinsically disordered', he wants us to find a new way of expressing something which 'even if there is something which is against Church teaching we put it in such a way that is friendly to them...'.
The problem is the Cardinal is confused, the Church is not speaking about homosexual persons but genital acts, which is Church politely, trying not to mention anal intercourse for example, it is these acts that are intrinsically disordered.
'Intrinsic' meaning 'by its very nature', 'disordered' meaning, 'disrupt the normal functioning of' something'. The normative function of the sexual act is, its purpose, is to ensure the human race continues, there is no other way for it to do so. Thus describing homosexual sexual activity as 'intrinsically disordered' is the Church trying to do what the Venerable Cardinal is asking for, finding a language in which the Church is trying to respect those with a 'deep seated' same sex attraction, without getting into highly descriptive language to describe same sex genital acts, if you have the stomach for it you could visit the Terrence Higgins Trust, and view the material they recommend for schools. Affection, love, admiration are not 'intrinsically disordered' but sexual acts are.
What the catechism actually says is
The problem is that this two word phrase says precisely what the Church means, it is also what homosexual people object to most strongly, either because they assume the Church is is speaking about them as being 'intrinsically disordered', which it is not or because they find any discussion of the proper ordering of human sexuality offensive, as some might find even the definition of family .2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
What the Cardinal is asking seems to be that we do not speak about 'sin' at all, which seems to be one of the great problems of the Church today. The obvious example is to speak about 'second marriages', when what we are actually talking about is something which is directly against Jesus' teaching on marriage, we dare not to use Jesus' language, Jesus is not afraid to say to the woman at the well: For you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband. I tend to be a bit afraid of saying that, even when it is more than obvious.
For Cardinal Dew whose thinking, even in this short clip, is decidedly fuzzy, the problem is that for many homosexuals and certainly for the Gay Movement any criticism of homosexual acts will be deeply offensive, even if it is expressed in the mildest terms possible.
Perhaps His Eminence should read this article in Pink News, in which the Pope despite his welcoming of homosexual activists, even kissing and embracing Gay couples or having tea with transsexuals, is still a hate figure. He will be until the Church backs the Gay agenda 100%, and of course rejects anything Divine Revelation might ever had said.
I read the Bible every day. It takes me at least 2 or 3 days, one hour per day, to finish around 10 verses because I read the notes, I follow the references to other verses in other parts of the bible and I think and meditate on what I am reading and for me, that is the most important part of reading the Bible.
The reason I mentioned it, is because the more I think about what I'm reading, the more things in this world become clear to me. I get the answers to people's and society's behaviors. And most importantly, The Bible takes me away from this world dominated by Satan, although under the rule of Jesus, and transports me to the Realm of Purity, of Honesty, of Genuine Love, of God.
And I think most Catholic Clerics, although they read the Bible during Mass or in private, they are actually not reading it. They are repeating words printed on a piece of paper.
I think the Vatican Hierarchy, for decades, did not read the Bible.
For example, I learned from the Bible, that sin doesn't come only from the act, but from thinking. And that is its origin. You think, then you act. Yet, the Catechism of the Catholic Church never said that thinking about doing homosexual behavior is a sin.
We pray, "I confess...in my thoughts...etc."
Looking at a woman with lust is a sin, Jesus says. So, it's not even thinking, but looking, and that concerning the opposite sex, so imagine if it's the same sex! And what is easier? To think or to look? What is more relaxing to the function of the human body, to the brain? Of course to look!
Yet, again, the Catholic Church, Her Catechism never said that homosexual thoughts are sin.
Here is my point:
If you open the door, just a little bit, if you nudge it, eventually, with time, you are opening the Flood Gate. And that is what is happening now in the Church.
Of course, not to mention that you are not obeying the Commandments of the God you claim that you believe in.
Do you see the point of my comment?
The confusion, the chaos, the disorder, all that evil that is going on the Church today is the result of many years of disbelieving in God, of Atheism, of Fake Catholicism on the part of many of clergy.
There are other ways of expressing it....call homosexuals "developmentally defective"..or call it a "non-normative behavioral aberration"...either will suffice
I think the problem is trying to separate the act from the desire in one's mind to do the act as a sin. Deviant sexual behavior, be it by homosexuals or heterosexuals, is just that, deviant. Because of the wording in the CCC, one can argue it's okay to have these deviant sexual behavior thoughts as long as you don't act on them. That is and always has been wrong. Sinful thoughts do not become sins until you carry out your thought. Lusting thoughts come to my mind as pointed out by our Lord that a thought of a sinful act is equal to the act itself. The Church will have this problem until it goes back to the position, rightfully, that sin can and does occur within the mind, without acting upon the thought. It seems there is no problem with condemning pornography as a grave sin which is full of lustful desires. However, the hierarchy in the Church has a problem recognizing this problem with those who suffer from homosexuality. Psychologists and psychiatrists were wrong when they proclaimed that homosexuality was normal. Deviant sexual behavior is not normal.
Would it make any difference to our homosexual friends if it were pointed out that "disordered" is precisely the predicament that afflicts every one of us who suffers from the consequences of original sin? While happily I know of none contrary to nature, I have desires beyond counting that are disordered.
"Intrinsically disordered" has a Ratzingerian theological precision, but when it gets out into the big, bad world, if a cardinal can misunderstand it, what chance does the ordinary semi-catechised Catholic in the pew stand, let alone unbelievers?
In the Twitter age the challenge must be to condense all 3 of those paragraphs into as few syllables as possible. Not as a magic bullet but simply to try to start a conversation.
Suggestion to set the ball rolling: "be gay - don't sin - be one of us". I'm sure others can improve.
I'm not sure I understand your distinction. The "inclination" is "objectively" (the word used in the Catechism on the Vatican website) disordered and remains so even if they remain chaste.
"Scripture was written for a particular time" Cardinal Drew.
That his starting point. What hope is there for Truth?
Gabby is correct. The inclination is disordered, and it follows that the acts are disordered. Can`t separate the cause from the act.
I read the blog of a former homosexual porn movie actor who came to his senses on what was supposed to be his death bed. He says that when he read the Catechism, he actually regarded the phrase as overly kind. He evangelises among the SSA community in Los Angeles and says that he has never met a homosexual Catholic, or not who has ever heard the phrase 'intrinsically disordered' because they don't read the catechism and don't usually care anyway what the Church says. So, it's not hurting anyone apparently except the Churchmen who want to 'celebrate diversity'.
"When we have documents which talk about 'intrinsically disordered' or being evil, that's not going to help people."
Well, this sort of theological precision helps me, and it helped a lot of people who came into the Church under the previous Pontificate, attracted by its luminous intellectual clarity and comprehension of the challenges of modernity.
It may not help unrepentant gay rights activists, but I see no reason to believe the Church owes the entirety of its evangelical efforts uniquely to that population.
The Catholic Church has always taught that we can sin in our thoughts, eg. I might be sinning by thinking "that man needs hitting" when his criticism was mild and just, and then think "I need to confess that".
This New Zealand Archbishop is another disaster and should never, ever, have been elevated to the Cardinalate.
One distinction is that in the present-day homosoexual culture - a branch of modernist solipsistic self-entitlement - everything is geared towards the act, and anything less than the act, such as a determination to maintain one's chastity, is just 'harmful self-repression'.
The possibility of chastity (one that single, unmarried Catholic heterosexuals have as a lifetime condition, and an opportunity for growth in holiness) doesn't seem to cross the minds of these gay activist apologists. Where is the 'equality' in that?
Some are more equal than others, it seems. To quote G&S's 'Iolanthe':-
FAIRIES: We couldn't help ourselves.
FAIRY QUEEN: It seems you *have* helped yourselves - and pretty freely too!
If the Church adopted this policy, it would no longer be telling the truth. It would be reinforcing a lie.
Pure unadulterated heresy: “Scripture was written for a particular time”
In other words, at best, it means something different today. If we believe the written Word of God is culturally and historically bound it is, in reality, worthless. Unless we do what the protestant sects have done and tailor it to our needs?
“Paul was writing about particular issues so for people to pick up something, and even for Church authorities to quote something, without putting it into context is not helpful for people”
First, there’s the subtle disconnect, “even for Church authorities” - Suggesting that there’s something more that the Church to turn to. And let’s note the blatant deception in this well-worn liberal claim, where does the Church take an issue from St Paul and not put it into context?
This man is a screaming heretic and we should not be afraid to say so. In fact we have a duty to do so!
P.S. If nothing else, the Cardinal’s use of ‘Paul’ without the prefix ‘Saint’ puts him solidly in the Protestant camp
Something is wrong in the Seminaries I fear. Some young men, over a few years, have told me of the experiences of their peers who tried to enter the priesthood. They had to undergo very strange psychology tests in which, to cut to the chase, they had to tell if they had any S.S dreams or thoughts, any S.S actual encounters etc. Those who were chaste were given short shrift and shown the door. Not grown up, experienced and so forth. One young man told me of a group of his friends, not all could fit into the same Seminary and were separated, two were raped while in 'isolation' from their friends.
Years ago,father had phone calls from young men who tried to become priests but found scandalous goings on. One wrote the book 'Nice Men do not become Priests. (or some sentence similar)
A priest told me that "until the Vatican shuts it's doors to Homosexuals the church will never improve" -Sigh!
John Vasc's point that the lifelong chastity of a gay Catholic is no different to that of a single 'hetero' Catholic is a point that both are treated the same - something not often thought about.
This bishop holds an office in the Church that not only leads Catholics in virtue, but demands that the holder be exemplary in the practice of it. As such, he is the principal evangeliser, and a father who leads souls in holiness of life. How does he go in claiming and naming his own sin when he goes to Confession? What does he say when sitting in the judgement seat when hearing confessions?
"When we have documents which talk about 'intrinsically disordered' or being evil, that's not going to help people."
It is interesting how he conflates two different things. Yes the Catechism speaks of homosexual desires as being 'intrinsically disordered' but it does not say that such people who have these desires are 'evil'. Yet the Archbishop's words suggest to the outsider that that is what the Church teaches i.e. that those with homosexual desires are evil. Maybe the Archbishop was just being careless in what he said and did not really mean to put it that way but we can be sure that Satan will be rubbing his hands in glee at this misleading statement.
Post a Comment