Saturday, October 18, 2014

Did the progressive wing of the Church just shoot down a merciful outreach to gay Christians?

From the Associated Press, with emphasis added:
Rather than considering gays as individuals who had gifts to offer the church, the revised paragraph referred to homosexuality as one of the problems Catholic families have to confront. It said "people with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and delicacy," but repeated church teaching that marriage is only between man and woman. The paragraph failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to pass.
Two other paragraphs concerning the other hot-button issue at the synod of bishops - whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Communion - also failed to pass. 
The outcome showed a deeply divided church on some of the most pressing issues facing Catholic families.
It appeared that the 118-62 vote on the gay section might have been a protest vote by progressive bishops who refused to back the watered-down wording. The original draft had said gays had gifts to offer the church and that their partnerships, while morally problematic, provided gay couples with "precious" support.
If this really was a "protest vote", then I want to repeat something I've said over and over.

Consider this line: "People with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and delicacy, but Church teaching is that marriage is only between man and women."

That is outreach. That is encouragement without surrender. That would be a much-needed conservative attempt to tell LGB people: look, you are human, we respect you, we want you to be part of our Church. Same-sex sexual acts are sinful, but you are still welcome.

And, it would seem, the progressives have decided that is not allowed. There is no room in their worldview for conservatives who reach out to LGB people without approving, in advance, of their sexual acts.

So my advice? My meager, momentary advice?

That is exactly the sort of conservative all of us should be. When progressives are afraid of even acknowledging your existence, you are doing something right.

25 comments:

The Deuce said...

The paragraph failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to pass.

It's not just what the progressives say that gives away who they are, but also what they find unacceptable to say.

Crude said...

What's also interesting is that the Pope seems to be swerving.

BenYachov said...

>What's also interesting is that the Pope seems to be swerving.


I am not so sure about that.

"Asked if the Holy Father has a position on possibly relaxing rules to allow communion to the divorced and “remarried,” Cardinal Oswald Gracias, archbishop of Bombay, told the briefing that it is being studied and the Pope “wants everyone to reflect and walk together.

For the Pope to give a position would be “twisting things in the wrong direction” as he wants to know first what “bishops think” and the “pastoral situation,” he said.

Cardinal Ravasi said it is “fundamental” that Pope Francis remains silent about the issue at this stage to allow others to express their opinions.END QUOTE


Even Cardinal Burke who thinks the Pope should speak and is doing harm by not speaking claims not to know what the Holy Father is thinking.

Cardinal Kasper has said before that he has the “impression” the Pope would like to see an “opening” in the area of allowing Communion for divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics.

So nobody really knows what the Pope is thinking.

Worst case scenario the Pope really believes in changing the rules for communion for the Invalidly married. Well then he is too afraid to make it the open formal policy & this is a manifestation of Divine Providence in regards to Infallibility. Paul VI who Pope Francis will beatify after this Synod had no problem going against the Majority to teach orthodoxy. Pope Vigilius was an enthusiastic supporter of heterodox monophysite Christology till he was elected the legitimate Pope.
Then he told the monophysite empress Theadora what to go do with herself.

What if the Papacy was unprotected by the Holy Spirit & a liberal took it over? Unlike the Presidency of the USA which is in theory restrained by the constitution the Pope has absolute disciplinary power. He doesn't need a Synod to make changes in canon law. I believe it was St Pius X who said "I am Canon Law"(who knew the Pope and Judge Dread had something in common).

My advice if they listened to me would be to lock down the Synod like a Concave.

Somebody is leaking. Either it's a conservative who wants to get the word out or a liberal who wants to bogart the Synod into accepting a heterodox agenda. Which ever it is the person in question is hurting their own agenda.

BenYachov said...

>What if the Papacy was unprotected by the Holy Spirit & a liberal took it over? Unlike the Presidency of the USA which is in theory restrained by the constitution the Pope has absolute disciplinary power. He doesn't need a Synod to make changes in canon law. I believe it was St Pius X who said "I am Canon Law"(who knew the Pope and Judge Dread had something in common).

Sorry I didn't get to finish my thought because I was distracted while posting.

Long story short.

A liberal who controls an office with near unlimited power but no divine protection should likely go nuts with it drunk with power.

A liberal Pope should in theory impose radical doctrinal change and justify it on the Ground "I am the Pope you must submit".

But we see because the Papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit a liberal's natural tendencies is restrained.

Of course I am not convinced the Pope is that liberal. I am going to wait and see what he does.

Crude said...

Pretty sure the Pope, in fact, does have limited power. And he can't contradict previous Popes.

malcolmthecynic said...

This was a very welcome result, and occurred pretty much as you predicted (i.e., they shot themselves in the foot).

I'm disappointed there wasn't much said about the divorce and remarriage issue, which apparently is going to be decided at yet ANOTHER council next year (which, unfortunately, makes me think that the Pope probably is liberal, or else he would have just ended things here). But this is definitely a very good outcome.

Crude said...

What I hope is that what is being looked for here is the best approach to communicate a given ideal position that retains orthodoxy while maximizing outreach.

But I know better to belief what I hop without reservation.

BenYachov said...

The Pope speaks.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-closing-synod-speech-received-with-standing-ovation-92979/

Crude said...

The Pope is also getting rid of Burke, but we knew this for a while.

Kasper's looking like a nasty little creature, so at least he was able to be shown for what he is.

'Who cares what the Africans think, sodomy is still a taboo there for chrissake.'

malcolmthecynic said...

The other thing: This council, essentially, was pointless. And if the next council (really, NEXT???) goes like this one, this will all have been pretty much useless...which, frankly, given the changes proposed is progress.

Crude said...

I admit, I'm not totally sure what the point of this is. Superficially you'd think it would be to come up with and discuss ways to evangelize Church teaching on these topics, but in terms of depth it's... kind of uninteresting. Even the conservatives, at their best, pretty much said "let's keep church teaching but of course welcome people who are striving to uphold it". The liberals said, as near as I can tell, "We should make people feel totally welcome even if they're sinning and don't give a shit!"

But... no meat beyond that. The drama WAS the content.

Go figure.

malcolmthecynic said...

The Pope's final speech is interesting, and confirms something I've thought for awhile: Those who think the Pope is an oblivious fool are kidding themselves, as are those who think the Pope is malicious. Pope Francis knows exactly what is gong on, but my guess is that in his humility (and I really mean this) he does not believe he has the theological expertise to decide things either way, though he is sympathetic to the liberal side.

His speech had strong stuff to say against traditionalists, but also strong stuff to say about progressives. Francis has proven something of an enigma, but he is not oblivious to the turmoil going on in the Church, and his words just confirm that we're not just seeing things.

Crude said...

Yeah, his closing speech was odd. Baffling pope.

I guess we'll see what comes of it.

BenYachov said...

@Crude

>Pretty sure the Pope, in fact, does have limited power. And he can't contradict previous Popes.

You have to qualify that guy. Popes can revoke the pastoral discipline of previous Popes. Blessed Paul VI had the Power to revise the Liturgy and set asside the liturgy of St Pius V. St John Paul II had the power to issue the indult to partially bring it back. Benedict XVI had the power to take it out of the local Bishop’s hands. A future Pius XIII
could set aside the Blessed Paul VI liturgy and mandate the St Pius V & or issue a decree saying the Pastoral Policies the Second Vatican Council are here & now revoked. This of course is the wish fulfillment of your average Trad.

Of course a hypothetical Pius XIII could not declare Vatican II revoked as an Ecumenical Council or abrogate any doctrinal points it has settled since the Council has been affirmed as such by P6, JP2 & b16.

In a like manner no hypothetical John XXIV* could institute women Priest or allow gay marriage or declare gay sex acts moral.

But he could reinstate Paul VI mass and abolish the Pius V rite and allow married Priests, universal communion in the hand, make all Catholics sing Gather us In at the end of Mass etc….Liturgical dancers…..which would be sickening and would potentially turn me Traddie for about an hour till I came to my senses & learned to suck it up.


Long story short. No Pope can change Faith and Morals.

Crude writes:
>What I hope is that what is being looked for here is the best approach to communicate a given ideal position that retains orthodoxy while maximizing outreach.

>But I know better to believe what I hope without reservation.

Read the Pope's speech at the end of the Council.

(see my link in devious post)

He got a 4 minute standing ovation by a Synod that backed Traditional doctrine.

He also ordered the accepted documents and the rejected(the three that did not receive a super majority) both be published.

As for Burke he said himself "in the church as priests, we always have to be ready to accept whatever assignment we’re given. And so I trust that by accepting this assignment, I trust that God will bless me, and that’s what’s in the end most important. And even though I would have liked to have continued to work in the Apostolic Signatura, I’ll give myself to whatever is the new work that I’m assigned to…"

Burke is not going away.

BenYachov said...

Crude and Malcholm

I see you guys are way ahead of me.

BenYachov said...

> Pope Francis knows exactly what is gong on, but my guess is that in his humility (and I really mean this) he does not believe he has the theological expertise to decide things either way, though he is sympathetic to the liberal side.

Even I am sympathetic to the liberal side in a sense.

I don't want to bash gays & if they come to church and behave themselves & the Pastor is orthodox, wise and creative I believe they can find saving Faith.

People in failed marriages I always hope they can get an annulment so they can start again.

It starts on the parish level.

BenYachov said...

Steve Kellmeyer has updated his screed which I love BTW.

http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-rise-of-crisis.html

malcolmthecynic said...

Ben,

I think your annulment comment is unintentionally telling. I absolutely do not hope failed Catholic marriages can be annulled. I hope Catholic NON-marriages can be annulled; I hope failed marriages reconcile or, failing that, practice celibacy.

I certainly don't hope they were material fornicators, though.

BenYachov said...

Malcolm

I'm using "marriage" in an equivocal sense. Even marriages that are found invalid(via the correct process under the correct conditions) & granted a decree of nullity are considered punitive natural marriages . So I don't see how it can be martial fornication or fornication of any type? Unless you had sex with the woman right after the decree was finalized without marrying.

It's like calling Protestant Churches "Churches".

Technically unlike eastern orthodox or other schismatic sects with Apostolic succession Protestants are Ecclesiastical (i.e. Church like) Communities not churches.

BenYachov said...

Michael Voris is happy & I 99.9% agree with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRWH4zh8kzE

Vand83 said...

I agree with Malcom. Many Catholics honestly do believe an "annulment" is a Catholic divorce. I know Ben isn't one of these. I've caught myself using the word in a way that's interchangeable with divorce.

malcolmthecynic said...

Ben,

I don't think you're unorthodox (I've talked with you long enough to know that), but I don't think it's healthy to HOPE that Catholics can get annulments.

If you have been having sex and then it's revealed the entire time you haven't been married, you've been fornicating.

An annulment is actually a BAD thing. We should hope nobody gets one. Instead of hoping Catholics get annulments who have invalid marriages, we should hope that they learn what a real Catholic marriage is supposed to be like and then renew their vows.

(Well, not renew, but I'm not really sure what word to use.)

Mr. Green said...

Malcolmthecynic: An annulment is actually a BAD thing. We should hope nobody gets one.

Well, that’s not right either — it’s just the flip-side of hoping people do get annulments. Let us recall that technically, one does not get an annulment, one gets a declaration of nullity. The annulment process is an investigation into the truth, and we should all hope that these investigations are carried out with diligence and sincerity. The outcome is to reveal the truth, and it is good to know the truth, whether that truth is that the marriage is valid or that no valid marriage took place.

If you have been having sex and then it's revealed the entire time you haven't been married, you've been fornicating.

This is equivocal. Objectively, it is true, but subjectively is it not, because one is morally culpable only for what one knows, so before the truth is revealed, one cannot be guilty of fornication. However, if it is not revealed that you haven’t been married the entire time, then you will keep on (objectively) fornicating. That is why it is good for the truth to be revealed in such cases, so that one’s subjective responsibility is in accord with the objective facts.

Anyway, I appreciate your point, which I take to be that we should not hope that so many people are incompetent to see clearly and obviously whether they are in fact married or not. It is a sad indictment on modern society that such a situation is even possible, let alone so widespread.
(I’ll also note that BenYachov’s usage is quite reasonable: we can speak of putative “marriages” just as we can speak of “fake diamonds”, even though a fake diamond is not, by definition, actually a diamond.)

Mr. Green said...

Crude: What I hope is that what is being looked for here is the best approach to communicate a given ideal position that retains orthodoxy while maximizing outreach.

It seems quite clear to me that that is just what Pope Francis is looking for. It’s possible I’m wrong, I suppose — I don’t have any special insight into Francis’s mind. But I’ve never got the impression that he’s particularly hard to figure out; the obvious explanation generally fits the facts, so I go with that. I think some people have trouble with Francis because they try to interpret everything he says and does in terms of Western (even American) political categories — which, surprise, surprise, are a lousy fit. It’s actually what you’ve been saying: yes, we have to explain what the rules are, but then we also need somehow to encourage people to follow them. Whatever we’ve been doing so far ain’t working too well.

Crude said...

Green,

I agree, and I've previously been supportive of the Pope. But when the Pope seems to line up with Kasper - who is a whole other individual - then I get worried.