Pope Francis approved family synod’s controversial mid-term report before publication: synod chief

ROME, January 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com)

The lead organizer of the Vatican’s Synod on the Family has revealed that Pope Francis approved the controversial mid-term report from the meeting before it was published. Until now, Pope Francis’ role in the document’s publication has been left to conjecture.

The Relatio post disceptationem, as it is called, was intended as a provisional summary of the debate from the Synod’s first week. But after it was released it was strongly criticized by numerous Synod fathers, including Cardinals Raymond Burke, Gerhard Muller, George Pell, and Wilfrid Napier, some publicly and some behind meeting doors. Some critics have even described it as the worst official document in the history of the Church.

Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, spoke about the pope’s role regarding the Synod documents in an interview with Aleteia at a Pontifical Council for the Family conference last week.

“The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence,” Baldisseri said. “Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report] were seen by him before they were published.”

“This point is important not only because of his authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease,” the cardinal added – “wryly,” according to Aleteia.

In its most controversial sections, the Relatio post disceptationem, or “report after the debate,” asked whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposed allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; and said pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.

Its most controversial provisions were left out of the Synod’s final report, the Relatio synodi, but many critics have called on the Vatican nevertheless to rescind the interim document.

Cardinal Baldisseri also confirmed that the pope ordered that several controversial sections in the proposed Relatio synodi, or final report, be included in the published version even though they failed to get the necessary two-thirds vote from the Synod fathers.

“It was the Pope’s decision to include the points that did not receive the two-thirds majority,” he said.

“The Pope said: ‘These three points received an absolute majority. They were therefore not rejected with a ‘no,’ as they received more than 50 percent approval. They are therefore issues that still need to be developed. We as a Church want a consensus. These texts can be modified, that’s clear. Once there has been further reflection, they can be modified.”

These sections were re-published as part of the Lineamenta, without a note that they were rejected, that was sent out to the world’s bishops for discussion in preparation for the next Synod in October 2015.

Aleteia’s Diane Montagna writes that these latter comments from Baldisseri came in response to a question from a representative of a Venezuelan-based family organization, who asked for anonymity. This man expressed the “shock” and “concern” that has been the response of many Catholics around the world, particularly those involved in the struggle to defend life and family.

Baldisseri said, however, that the “shock” was misplaced. “We shouldn’t be shocked that there is a different position from the ‘common doctrine,’” he said.

Image
Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, speaks to reporters October 3, 2014. John-Henry Westen / LifeSiteNews

He assured the 300 conference attendees that “there’s no reason to be scandalized that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different than the so-called ‘common doctrine.’ This doesn’t imply a going against. It means reflecting. Because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change.”

Montagna told LifeSiteNews.com that she had wanted to “be fair” to the cardinal, so she made a recording of all his comments to ensure that she could reproduce the quotes correctly.

She writes, “The Cardinal also informed us that the 46 questions published in the Lineamenta were the work of both the General Secretariat and the 15 members of the Council of the Secretariat. Responses are due April 15th.”

Baldisseri’s comments confirm the claim by another of the Church’s highest ranking prelates, Cardinal Reinhardt Marx, a member of the pope’s private council of nine cardinals, and the head of the German bishops’ conference. Marx said that it was Pope Francis who had “pushed the door open” on these topics.

“Up to now, these two issues have been absolutely non-negotiable. Although they had failed to get the two-thirds majority, the majority of the synod fathers had nevertheless voted in their favor,” he told Die Zeit.

“They are still part of the text,” Marx said. “I especially asked the pope about that, and the pope said he wanted all the points published together with all the voting results. He wanted everyone in the church to see where we stood.”

What some have argued is the Synod’s apparent program of easing the Church’s opposition to adultery, homosexuality, and other sexual sins has prompted some prelates to identify it as one of the great crisis points of Church history. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who did not attend the Synod but said he had reflected deeply on the proceedings, said that it is a sign that the Church is entering a period comparable to that of its tumultuous early centuries.

“We are living in an un-Christian society, in a new paganism,” Schneider told an interviewer after the Synod closed.

“The temptation today for the clergy is to adapt to the new world to the new paganism, to be collaborationists. We are in a similar situation to the first centuries, when the majority of the society was pagan, and Christianity was discriminated against.”

He continued, “Unfortunately there were in the first century members of the clergy and even bishops who put grains of incense in front of the statue of the Emperor or of a pagan idol or who delivered the books of the Holy Scripture to be burned.”

In our times, he said, clergy and bishops are not being asked to pinch incense to the emperor, but “to collaborate with the pagan world today in this dissolution of the Sixth Commandment and in the revision of the way God created man and woman.” These clergy, he said, would be “traitors of the Faith; they are participating ultimately in pagan sacrifice.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Pope Francis approved family synod’s controversial mid-term report before publication: synod chief

  1. Magdalene says:

    We knew that the pope was orchestrating things and passing notes and all that jazz. He handpicked heterodox ones to manage things as well. He surrounds himself with heterodox prelates and persecutes faithful ones. He cancels meetings with bishops and meets with pagans. He has time to call a transvestite and her ‘fiancee’ who want to ‘start a family’ (how would they do that?) and calls not once but twice and meets them. He appoints a known homosexual to oversee the hotel where he lives. He has a long list of name calling mostly against faithful Catholics. That is the sort of pope we have now.

  2. toadspittle says:

    “We knew that the pope was orchestrating things and passing notes and all that jazz.”
    Course he was. That’s his job.
    Benedict, the one who jumped ship, and to whom we owe Francis – orchestrated things.
    For a little while, anyway. They all do.

    “He appoints a known homosexual to oversee the hotel where he lives. “
    This is truly fascinating. More details please, Magdalene.

  3. Tom Fisher says:

    If he cancels a meeting with a bishop and meets with a transvestite, then he is following a clear gospel precedent. Pope Francis is a brave man, and unlikely to be bullied into silence.

  4. Tom Fisher says:

    Actually, it is worth pointing out that there is nothing admirable about cancelling a meeting with a Bishop, and nothing admirable about meeting with a transvestite. But when you see the kind of people who became furious at his decision, then you see why it was worthwhile.

  5. Tom: “Pope Francis………is unlikely to be bullied into silence”
    And Nor is the Pope the bulling type, I suppose. Hang on, what about the Franciscans of the Immaculate? The Holy Father gives all the signs of being a modernist bully of mammoth size.
    Tom I ask you, what of the above report.? Do you have any fears that perhaps the Holy Father may be trying to manipulate the Synod in some way?
    By the way Tom that thumbs up earlier is mine. I pushed the wrong button
    Toad, as obscure as ever before. Lift your game raise your ………You Know the rest.

  6. Adrian Meades (in town) says:

    “Our understanding is correlative to our perception.” Robert Delaunay

  7. Giovanni A. Cattaneo says:

    And so the reign of Francis the Mad contunious.

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    I don’t know why some people have suddenly decided to treat this “development” as “news” — given that the Pope and (can’t remember which it was) either the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the spokesman for the Council of Cardinals made it very clear, almost immediately after the publication of the document in question, that some contents of the document that are inadmissible as doctrine were approved, by the Pope, for inclusion therein for the dual purpose of 1) discussion — which is part of the work of every Synod, including discussion of notions that do not belong to the Doctrine, and 2) a means to the end of discovering exactly how widespread among the College of Bishops these beliefs either contrary or foreign to the Deposit of Faith actually are.

    The only “reason” as far as I can see to treat as “news” something that has been public knowledge for nearly four months is to stir up yet another tediously pointless frenzy of Papefiguery.

    As for those suggesting that it might somehow be unacceptable for the Pope to have met a transexual, and that such a meeting might be “evidence” that Pope Francis is unsuitable as an occupant of the Holy See — well, if simply meeting and having a discussion with someone living a life contrary to the teachings of the Lord is enough to disqualify you from being a Pope, then we should extend the period of Sedevacantist denial of the Papal Authority as far back in time as the First Century — did Pope Peter himself not “disgrace the Papal Office” in his frequent meetings with numerous public sinners, including a certain Judas Iscariot who went so far as to directly betray the Lord into the hands of his killers ?

    Those who imagine that the Pope shouldn’t “meet with pagans” (as Magdalene put it) seem to be confused by the very nature and purpose of the Catholicity — did not the Lord our Christ Himself meet with many pagans ? Did not every single one of His Apostles also have many meetings with pagans ?

    The Catholic Church is NOT a snobby little exclusive bourgeois club of holier-than-thous peering down their noses with a sour expression on their faces.

    How on Earth do such people suppose that a Church that were to isolate itself into some ivory tower or some whitened sepulchre of beautiful ritual and exclusive membership could EVER succeed in the Mission of Conversion of all of the unfaithful that has been given to her by our High Priest Himself — the Lord Jesus ?

  9. mmvc says:

    Cardinal Baldisseri clearly deemed his revelation not only newsworthy but “important” and having made it he admits to feeling “put at ease”:

    “This point is important not only because of his [the Pope’s] authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease…”

    It might be worth re-reading what Patrick Buckley, Voice of the Family’s Irish representative, had to say about the report:

    “The Synod’s mid-way report represents an attack on marriage and the family. For example, the report in effect gives a tacit approval of adulterous relationships, thereby contradicting the Sixth Commandment and the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the indissolubility of marriage.

    “The report undermines the Church’s definitive teaching against contraception, by using the coded language of ‘underlin[ing] the need to respect the dignity of the person in the moral evaluation of the methods of birth control’. This language is the code of those who wish to reduce the Church’s doctrines to a mere guide, thus leaving couples free to choose contraception in so-called ‘conscience’.

    “The report accepts wrongly that there is a value in the homosexual orientation. This contradicts the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1986 Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

    “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.””

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    the report in effect gives a tacit approval of adulterous relationships

    No, it doesn’t.

    The report accepts wrongly that there is a value in the homosexual orientation

    No it doesn’t — the report states that some participants at the Synod suggested such an idea.

    As for the birth control, it is one of the most difficult questions facing the Synod, and it is simply incorrect to read this document as if it were a declaration of the position of the Holy See and the Pope.

  11. Tom Fisher says:

    The report accepts wrongly that there is a value in the homosexual orientation

    Jabba says that it does no such thing, and Jabba is probably right. I am close friends with two academics at our nearby university, they’ve been together as a monogamous couple for 41 years. There is a great deal of value in their homosexual relationship, and I am reminded of this every time I go over for dinner, and enjoy their company, thoughtful conversation, and shared memories over many years. If there is no value in homosexual relationships, can someone explain why there isn’t?

  12. kathleen says:

    “If there is no value in homosexual relationships, can someone explain why there isn’t?”

    Because they are unnatural Tom, and “intrinsically disordered”; sodomy is a serious mortal sin.
    “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth…” (Genesis 1:27, 28a). Homosexual “relationships” go against God’s Design of the complimentary attraction of the two sexes at the Creation of Mankind. The Bible (both Old and New Testament) are replete with verses condemning homosexual acts.

    However: “People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.” (Catholic Answers)

    IOW, all types of people can enjoy the “company, thoughtful conversation, and shared memories” etc. of others, male and female – no harm at all in that of course – but there is absolutely no “value” in active homosexuality; this is always evil. In the same way as men and women who are not married to each other must steer well away from fornication and adultery at the first sign of sinful desires, so too must those with homosexual tendencies do the same to remain chaste.

    The Catholic Church teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. 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” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

  13. JabbaPapa says:

    There is no “value” in Sin, notwithstanding the facts that we are all of us sinners, and that every human person is endowed of both intrinsic and extrinsic value.

  14. toadspittle says:

    “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin… “
    It would appear from Patrick Buckley, Voice of the Family’s Irish representative, (whatever the heck that means) that it’s all right to feel gay, as long as you don’t go around feeling gays.
    Which is fair enough – as gays are clearly God-made, like everything else, at least their “inclination” is.
    And if God didn’t want “gay-inclined”people around, He wouldn’t have made any in the first place, would She?
    This is all so boring.

    Moderator writes: “One sentence deleted. Watch your language please Toad.”

    I, too, have several friends similar to those of Tom.
    One of them is a priest. Very fond of opera.
    …Always welcome in my house.

    Nothing from Magdalene on the Pope’s gay landlord. I wonder why not?

  15. JabbaPapa says:

    gays are clearly God-made, like everything else

    hmmmmmmmm, I wonder …

    Does this mean that your days of using parasites, earthquakes, and other such realities as a means to question God have come to an end ?

  16. kathleen says:

    “as gays are clearly God-made, like everything else, at least their “inclination” is.”

    No they’re not! Where do you get that from? ‘Catholic Answers‘ explains that question too:

    “Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

    But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

    Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

    Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

    For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable “lifestyle” any more than homosexuality is.”

  17. toadspittle says:

    “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him…”
    And as God also created Chimpanzees and Gorillas, which, as any dolt can see, bear a disconcerting resemblance to man – naturally enough, as the species share 98% of DNA – we can only presume Chimps and Gorillas also look disconcertingly like God.
    (But that surely can’t be right, can it? Can someone, who’s as clever as a monkey, explain to Toad?)

  18. toadspittle says:

    “Alcoholism is not an acceptable “lifestyle” any more than homosexuality is.</i.
    Whereas celibacy, which might strike some reasonable people as being "unnatural" – is?
    How about tap-dancing, or scuba-diving – how "natural and acceptable" are they?

  19. toadspittle says:

    …there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating, “
    Oh, really?
    …I’ll bet there is.

  20. toadspittle says:

    “Does this mean that (Toad’s) days of using parasites, earthquakes, and other such realities as a means to question God have come to an end?”
    To reassure you, Jabba: No.
    Nor do I believe these “unfortunate” things are the result of Original Sin.
    As I believe I’m right in assuming you do.

  21. JabbaPapa says:

    As I believe I’m right in assuming you do

    bzzzzzzztt !!!

    No, my point to you was that our notions that this or that part of Creation might be evil are a result of our Original Sin — which is “our knowledge of good and evil”, not whatever protestant, protestantised, or atheistically mythified versions of it that seem to have become so widespread in our Western cultures.

    I made another point, though — which is that trying to second-guess God is a non-starter.

    Or are you like Stephen Fry ? With enough shameless hubris that you could see your own self as being capable of passing judgment upon God Himself ???

  22. toadspittle says:

    Wouldn’t dream of passing judgement on God Himself, Jabba…
    Don’t know enough about it.
    However, regarding the idea of God… well anyone’s entitled to give their opinion on that – as surely you agree?
    No I’m not like Stephen Fry. No so clever, for one thing – and not so big and fat.
    And his marriage will end up like so many others.
    In divorce and tears – or so I fear.

  23. GC says:

    Tom Fisher says:February 1, 2015 at 11:46
    I am reminded of this every time I go over for dinner, and enjoy their company, thoughtful conversation, and shared memories over many years.

    Thank you, Tom, for pointing out that a long homosexual liaison is a prerequisite for such fine, commendable things.

    Live and learn on CP&S!

  24. toadspittle says:

    I would be more inclined to suppose that reasonableness, tolerance, mutual regard, decency and friendship – rather than long homosexual liaisons, are the prerequisites for such fine commendable things.
    But who knows?
    God, I suppose.

  25. GC says:

    I should think any self-reflective human more than capable of such things, never mind your PC list, Toad. Or Tom Fisher. Such men and women have always existed.

    Did you know that homosexual “marriages” are much better, Toad? And much better for bringing up children? The media have told us so. It will, therefore, be all the go in Ireland shortly, just you wait.

  26. toadspittle says:

    http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/01/stephen-fry-god-evil-maniac-irish-tv

    Naughty old Fry totally stuns a Mick.

    GC, I expect better from you, of all people. When have I ever said homosexual “marriages” are better than “straight” ones? How can they be? But the fact that regular marriages are the best, doesn’t necessarily mean other kinds are worthless. They may be better than nothing, that’s all.
    Consider your (and my) mutual friends the Muslims.
    Is having two wives worse at the same time than having one?
    Yes – twice as bad, in my opinion. What do you think?

  27. GC says:

    Toad, what are you on about? Tricky toads.

    Homosexuals may persevere or not in any liaisons they choose. Nobody is stopping them. Couldn’t be bothered.

  28. toadspittle says:

    Neither can I be bothered to stop gays doing gay stuff, GC. Glad we are in harmony on that. And I suspect you know very well what I’m on about.
    Let “Gays” do what they like in private.
    Not in public, because it might excite my dogs.
    And let’s us all stop whining about the “lncalculable” consequences” of all this silliness.
    If they are indeed “incalculable,” they might even be beneficial for all we know.

    And how can Toad be “tricky? Kathleen will be pleased to confirm he’s “thicky,” not tricky (as if you needed confirmation.).

  29. GC says:

    Interesting dogs you have, Toad.
    .
    I can’t be bothered about anyone lying, calumniating, stealing, corruptioning, fornicating, cheating, adultering, exploiting, narcissising, envying, bottom-burgling etc. etc. etc., 10 commandments, you know.

    Happens all the time. Be nice, possibly, if it didn’t.

  30. toadspittle says:

    Yes, I’m sure you’d love my dogs GC. They, like you, are non-judgemental.

    “Homosexuals may persevere or not in any liaisons they choose. Nobody is stopping them.”
    That’s odd,, but heartening to hear from you – because there are people on here who seem to want to do that very thing.
    In fact, just about everyone else on here, except for you and me.
    Foolish, we agree.

    Neither can I be bothered with all that nastiness that you enumerate.
    Let the “gays,” or whomever, get on with it. It’s their look out. None of our business.
    Just don’t involve us, eh?
    I’ve been saying this for years.
    …Glad you have finally come round.

  31. johnhenrycn says:

    Tom Fisher, one of the best and one of my favourite commenters here, asks at 11:46:
    “If there is no value in homosexual relationships, can someone explain why there isn’t?”

    That is a failure in logic, because isn’t it for us, Tom, to explain why those relationships have no value? Have I made an error in logic in so stating? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.

    Kathleen posts (at 14:18) the wisest reply to Tom on this thread:

    “Because they are unnatural Tom, and ‘intrinsically disordered’; sodomy is a serious mortal sin.”

    There is no conflict between Kathleen and Tom in their two statements.

    Tom mentions the homosexual couple who are his close friends.

    The homosexual act is a serious mortal sin. There is NO value in the homosexual act. BUT, there is something of value in homosexuality. Homosexuals have a special charism. Has anyone else here heard of Gerard Manley Hopkins or Robert Hugh Benson? Two Catholic converts who rival my namesake in their high Catholicism. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think Hopkins/Benson succumbed, and I’m fairly sure they are farther along the road to heaven than me even if they did.

    Let’s not even mention Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Tchaikovsky…

    As for another major vulgar sin – drunkedness (is it worse than homosexual acts or not?) – is the world a better or worse place for having Noah, Muggeridge and most Catholics succumb to liquor? Malcolm Muggeridge tried to rape a woman once when he was drunk, but she broke his finger, and he gave up. Is Malcolm Muggeridge a person you can admire? I do.

    The last shall be first and the first last.

    Homosexuals who love each other, who hug each other, who embrace – who even share the same bed – have not therefore sinned. Does anyone dispute that statement? Here’s a side note: My wife slept in the same bed with my son-in-law once, because his physical survival depended on it. I can assure you that my wife did not thereby become unchaste, not even in the sense our Catholic faith talks about chastity.

    Like Tom Fisher, I have people close to me who are homosexuals – in my case they are lesbians –
    and I’m thankful their relationship is longstanding and monogamous and I love them; but always remember this, Tom Fisher, homosexual acts are of the devil. Do you disagree? I think (hope) not.
    ___
    Can I also mention this to the CP&S team?
    Moderator writes at 14:29: “One sentence deleted. Watch your language please Toad.”
    To moderate the Toad for bad and/or non-Catholic language is okay by me; but I think the same censure should apply to that Italian traditionalist guy,
    Giovanni A. Cattaneo, when he talks about Pope Francis “The Mad”. I found that very funny (and have repeated it once or twice in other places), but this is a Catholic website, and Cattaneo’s insult to our faith, which he has repeated twice, is far worse Toad’s agnostic vulgar crap.

  32. johnhenrycn says:

    Lord have mercy. When I wrote:
    “That is a failure in logic, because isn’t it for us, Tom, to explain why those relationships have no value?”
    …I meant to ask:
    “That is a failure in logic, because isn’t it for you, Tom to explain why those relationships have value?”

    Anyroad, people like me should comment less and listen more😉

  33. johnhenrycn says:

    I don’t know why my last two avatars (and this one) are wearing sunglasses. Gone away for a month and I become a possible pariah. No worries. This blog is a great blog.

  34. JabbaPapa says:

    Homosexuals have a special charism.

    It’s pretty heretical, and verging on the blasphemous, to positively describe a vice as a virtue — you should read the Church documents on homosexuality and homosexuals, as well as the declarations of this Synod, with far more prudence and care.

    1) Homosexual acts are intrinsically ordered towards objective moral evils ; and before anyone gets hissy, these objective evils include venereal diseases, gay-bashing, hatred of gays, and etc.

    2) Homosexuality itself, which is to say a tendency of sexual attraction towards members of your own sex, is not defined as being sinful — but it is most certainly not possible to move on from this fact to declare as virtuous any desire that might lead towards the above-mentioned acts that are intrinsically ordered towards objective moral evils

    3) Homosexuals themselves, as creatures of God, are neither intrinsically nor extrinsically evil, whereas their created souls and their lives are as intrinsically good as they are for all human creatures. They are sinners, in the same way as we all are, and they are burdened with a particular tendency towards some particular sins, as most of us are.

    But it would clearly be just as wrongful to claim that homosexuals had “a special charism” as it would to make the same claim for alcoholics, or kleptomaniacs, or nymphomaniacs, or any other such person living with the burden of a powerful urge towards any acts of objective moral evil …

  35. Tom of the 1st Feb… Do you really have to have it explained ? ????

  36. Toad of the 1st Feb. So its ok If they like Opera… Never thought of it that way. I kinda like country and western music myself , does that count?

  37. toadspittle says:

    …Of course it counts, Geoff. I expect this is one of your fave numbers…
    “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy,”
    Brought tears to old Toads eyes the first time he heard it.
    And yes, an enormous hit with gay cowboys.

  38. johnhenrycn says:

    “It’s pretty heretical, and verging on the blasphemous, to positively describe a vice as a virtue…”, sayeth Jabba, in response to my statement that homosexuals have a special charism.

    Did I say homosexuality is a virtue? I did not. Neither is it a vice. The predilection, genetic or learned (I’m not sure if it’s one or the other or a bit of both) to homosexual desires is a cross that many excellent people have borne. Homosexuality is nothing to celebrate, but when God gives us our crosses, He also gives us special charisms, as is shown in the lives of many (certainly not all) well known homosexuals. I can think of quite a few homosexuals, celibate or not, who have contributed far more to the world than I ever have or will, and I dare think (please excuse this thought crime of mine, Jabba) that their homosexuality – their cross – has something to do with it. The same goes for alcoholics. What’s that old saying? God writes straight with crooked lines.

  39. kathleen says:

    @ JH

    I would say that even to suggest that there could be “something of value in homosexuality” is to tread into very dangerous ground (morally speaking). What can be “of value” if it is “unnatural” and “intrinsically disordered”? Jabba, at 8:33, gives some very logical reasons why this cannot be so, and manages to explain it without any ‘holier than thou’ undertones. (As he says, we are all sinners with our own weaknesses and faults that we have to battle with.)

    These days, so many offenses and sins are raised onto pedestals as though they were praiseworthy, things to be admired – although they are anything but – that homosexual tendencies become just one more in the long line of “foul” that is now seen as “fair” (pace “Macbeth”).

    The trouble with “homosexuality” though, is that those with these unnatural tendencies have now formed a powerful lobby in the West, threatening all sorts of punishments for what they call “hate speech”, leading sometimes even to legal lawsuits against those who dare to criticise or confront them, scaring far too many ordinary people into getting sucked up into pandering to them and their evil designs in one way or another. (I’m not saying you are😉 but, well, just saying…) This so-called “gay lobby”, that wants to impose their disgusting lifestyle onto an equal footing as God’s beautiful gift of the natural attraction between men and women aimed towards Holy Matrimony, and thus creating new life, is an enemy we must fight against with all our might.

    Anyway – it’s good to have you back JH… and with your old avatar now too I see.🙂 We’ve missed you!

  40. johnhenrycn says:

    Nothing you say, Kathleen, causes me discomfort, especially your penultimate paragraph. But still, there are many homosexuals who have made our world a better place than it would have been without them. Do you deny that obvious fact? Have they done so (at least partly) because of, or in spite of, their same sex attractions? Do any of us here possess the competency and knowledge to answer that last question? I think not.

  41. Kathleen: Thank heavens we have someone of your calibre to put these kooks to the sword.
    What ever qualities our Homosexual brothers and sisters may have are not because of their homosexuality but in spite of their homosexuality.

    By the way I still don’t receive your new posts. Nor am I advised of new comments. Taking earlier advice, I checked and found new posts were being treated as spam mail. I corrected that problem (I thought) but now I receive nothing from you either in my ‘In Box’ or my ‘spam box’….. Very frustrating as I find your site to be one of the better ‘Catholic’ sites.
    Hoping some one can help…

  42. Further to JH of the 2nd Feb….. “Nor is it (homosexuality) a vice” Did your really say that”?

    Tom at 1146 on Feb 1st…. Your Close friendship with two academics from a nearby university does suggest ( I may be wrong) that you are also possessed of some ‘intelligence’…. Then you infer that their conversational skills and other qualities are born of their homosexuality. That assumption is incompatible with intelligent reasoning and is just plain dumb.
    My 15 year old Grand son, made the comment….’gee grandad that doesn’t make much sense.’
    Their friendship, their conversation and shared memories and other abilities are not because of their homosexuality…

  43. JabbaPapa says:

    But still, there are many homosexuals who have made our world a better place than it would have been without them. Do you deny that obvious fact?

    It’s a fact that’s simultaneously so broad and so cherry-picking as to have no specific meaning.

    There are many heterosexuals who have made our world a better place than it would have been without them.

    Just as there are many sexually abstinent who have made our world a better place than it would have been without them ; many Belgians who have made our world a better place ; many dentists ; many bus drivers ; many red-haired children ; many left-handed women who have read A la recherche du temps perdu by Marcel Proust have made our world a better place than it would have been without them ; etc etc

    Simply selecting one particular category of mankind and then declaring of this category something that is true for the whole of mankind in general teaches us exactly nothing about that group of people.

  44. toadspittle says:

    Good grief, I’m with JH on this.
    The number of homosexuals that have made my life culturally richer is very long indeed.
    Of course it’s not because , say, Cole Porter, John Gielgud, Norman Douglas, Ronald Firbank, Wystan Auden, Lytton Strachey, Christopher Isherwood, Alan Turing, Wittgenstein, or Noel Coward were “gay” that made them exceptional. I don’t know what did, and I don’t care – except I’d like to have had a bit of whatever it was that did so, myself. (terrible sentence.)
    One practical reason for their “success,” opposed to mine, might be what Cyril Connolly (not gay) called “the pram in the hall.” Gays don’t have one.
    But perhaps we are not all so far apart on this topic as it may appear.
    I have gay friends whose company I enjoy. So do many people. What my friends do at home does not concern me. It may be “unnatural,” but so is celibacy, or roller skating.
    This is all really about tolerance. It’s easy to tolerate, say, fellow Catholics (well, not too difficult, mostly) but hard to tolerate other kinds of people, or behaviour, that are inimical to us. But that is what we must do.
    And Jabba is correct, too – this must also include tolerating Belgians, bus drivers, and red-headed women – near impossible though that may prove to be.
    (Pompous old twit, Toad.)

  45. Tom Fisher says:

    I’ve been misunderstood before, as we all have. But this really is very strange.

    Geoff said:

    you infer that their conversational skills and other qualities are born of their homosexuality. That assumption is incompatible with intelligent reasoning and is just plain dumb.

    You can’t seriously think that I believe that those qualities are born of their homosexuality. My point, as I’m sure you know, was that their relationship though homosexual, is clearly not valueless.– They have had many rewarding years together, and I value their company.

    I presume Geoff is kidding, but just in case there was any genuine confusion I hope that clears it up.

  46. TOM: Using ‘doublespeak’ is akin to speaking with a forked tongue and it is only an attempt to soften the ‘blow’ in respect to their ( your friends) aberrant behaviour and reeks of a false charity on your part.
    Truth in its essence demands clarity. The Church has spoken with great clarity on this subject and Scriptures validate her stance.
    “There is a great deal of value in their homosexual relationship”…. If you had said , there is a great deal of value in their relationship, you may have conveyed as entirely difference inference.
    There is no doubt that you tried to suggest that their ‘value’ stems from their homosexuality.

    Their ‘homosexuality’ does a great deal of damage both to themselves, and to their credibility as moral individuals. Their sinful behaviour cannot be mitigated simply by being friendly and good conversationalists, in fact it negates any attempt to add ‘value’ to their lives and others and greatly distorts or destroys any prospect of reaching their ultimate destination.
    ‘Double speak’ and lies are the favoured weapon of the diabolical and any deliberate use does no body any good.

  47. kathleen says:

    @ JH

    I would say that Geoff has given you the perfect answer to your above questions as to whether there could be any possible “benefits” coming from those with homosexual tendencies. In a nutshell – no, there are not! How could there be anything good coming out of something that is “intrinsically disordered”? And leads many to sin gravely?

    That there have been some great men who have had the handicap of suffering from this disorder, no one would deny… but as already stated by Geoff and Jabba, this is just in spite of their homosexuality, and not because of it. Artistic talents, creativity, intelligence, etc. are not talents confined to only those men of homosexual tendencies, for if this were really so, and these “talents” were a consequence of their feminine side (lack of testosterone ?), the obvious question that follows would be to ask why there are so few women throughout history – and very much so now in our day and age when women have just as much freedom to express their gifts – who have likewise excelled in these fields as men! You see, it just doesn’t add up, and the above-mentioned talents cannot be due to what are unnatural homosexual urges.

    (@ Geoff … so sorry you are still having these problems in receiving our posts. I’ll get in touch with Brother Burrito – our techno-savvy member of CP&S – to find out if anything can be done about it.🙂 )

  48. Adrian Meades (in town) says:

    Inspired creativity usually comes from looking at things from a different angle – often from people who see themselves as different, or are outcast from society in some way. I don’t think a lack of testosterone has anything to do with it.

  49. toadspittle says:

    ” ….the obvious question that follows would be to ask why there are so few women throughout history – and very much so now in our day and age when women have just as much freedom to express their gifts – who have likewise excelled in these fields as men! “
    …And I’d have thought the obvious answer was, that until recently, women were not allowed as much freedom as men “to express their gifts.” They have a great deal more freedom (though still not “just as much”) to do so now and, as a result, are using their gifts a great deal more, to the benefit of all. And not only in the arts – How many women lawyers, MP’s and Judges were there 50 years ago?
    Of course this does not apply in every field, and in every country. Mostly in the Godless, secular, West, at present.
    Of certain religions we cannot speak, and thereof will remain silent.
    (To paraphrase Ludwig.)

  50. kathleen says:

    @ Toad

    In ancient Greece and Rome women were well educated and had plenty of “freedom” to express any philosophical, artistic, musical or literal gifts they might have had – but we hear little of them. Throughout history there have been some formidable and very successful women (many of them canonised saints of the Church) who have fought against any barriers keeping them from their missions, but few (surprisingly) in comparison to men who have excelled in the arts. But this is all beside the point.

    The purpose of those words of mine was to emphasise that there is no “charism”, nor “virtue”, as has IMO been mistakenly stated by some commenters here, in those men (we are talking of men here, not women) who are effeminate, owing to their same-sex attraction disorder. You mentioned some of the well known ones, but the vast majority of outstanding figures in the history of Mankind have not been homosexuals.

    Another thing you wrongly mentioned Toad is calling celibacy “unnatural”!! There is absolutely nothing “unnatural” about celibacy! (Are you inferring that Our Lord Jesus Christ was unnatural then?!!)
    It is a lofty ideal, freely chosen for the good of others, and it is truly offensive and totally mistaken to say that celibacy is “unnatural”. In fact celibacy is the state anyone unmarried should aspire to who wants to follow God’s Divine Law. Most men do choose to marry and have a family and celibacy is then of course no longer an issue, though even within marriage there will be times when restraint and self-control will be needed.
    If you are referring to the celibacy of the priesthood, of those men called to this beautiful and exceptional vocation to act “in persona Christi” to lead souls to God, then yes… celibacy is the required discipline for them in the Latin rite Catholic Church. It is a generous self-giving of their entire selves to their vocation, a wonderful gift to the Church, with a tradition going back to the times of the Apostles, and Our Lord Himself.

  51. JabbaPapa says:

    How could there be anything good coming out of something that is “intrinsically disordered”?

    erm, kathleen that’s not actually how the moral doctrines of the Catechism and of the Congrgeation for the Doctrine of the Faith describe homosexuality — indeed, it’s the most frequent mis-quote of that teaching that one hears, both approvingly from some Catholics, and disapprovingly from some gay activists and homosexuals.

    The teaching is that homosexuality is “intrinsically ordered towards objective moral evils” — this does not mean “intrinsically disordered” ; indeed the adjective that is the direct opposite of “disordered” is found in that teaching.

    One needs to consider this difficult teaching with a certain degree of care — the evils are not found in the homosexuality itself, which is after all just another tendency or desire for actions that are contrary to the spiritual, religious, and moral contents of the Catholicity, which all of we created mortals with the exception of the Virgin Saint Mary have suffered from. The evils are consequences of actions that are undertaken in the furtherance of those desires.

    So that whatever disorder there is in the homosexual tendency can only become a particular disorder, and particular sin, as the result of actions of willful furtherance of that tendency, whereas the tendency itself can only be viewed as disordered in its nature as part of our Original Sin, that is, one must always remember, forgiven through Baptism into the Holy Church of Christ.

    Another more subtle point of the doctrine : NOT every action that may be motivated by a homosexual tendency or desire will be immoral by nature, but only those actions that are ordered towards the evils in question can be considered as such.

    Of course, notwithstanding these subtleties, it is still very clear in the teaching that the homosexual tendency is ordered towards particular, personal sins and evils, that homosexuals can variously be either source or subject of ; so that a direct logical consequence of this teaching is that it is not consistent with Catholic doctrine to encourage or to otherwise positively approve of the homosexual tendency itself.

    This certainly does not prevent speaking positively of this or that individual who may be subjected to the homosexual tendency ; but the existence of homosexuals of whom one can speak positively can in no way justify speaking positively of the tendency itself.

  52. JabbaPapa says:

    In ancient Greece and Rome women were well educated and had plenty of “freedom” to express any philosophical, artistic, musical or literal gifts they might have had

    kathleen, I’m sorry, but that’s not really true — and one of the seminal examinations of this question of the artistic freedom of women in History is found in Virginia Woolf’s A Room with a View — though it should be read with the pinch of salt of the fact that much (but not all) of what she states about the lack of the necessary free time for women before contemporary times was equally true for most men.

    Prior to the Industrial Revolution, and the mechanisation of so much of the household work that followed from it, those with enough spare time to devote to the expression of their artistic and/or intellectual lives were mostly a small number of privileged individuals of independent means.

    I’m not sure enough about the status of women in the various City-States of Ancient Greece, though I do know it varied from city to city ; in the Roman Law though, the ordering of the household (which included the ordering of any farmland attached to the property), the direction of any household servants or slaves, direction of the education of the children (but not the male adolescents of course) and so on all belonged to the wife and mother of the family, and the husband was subjected to her decisions in all of these matters — except that ownership of those properties and slaves was his and not hers. The husband provided the wife with his property ; the wife governed this property for his benefit and hers, and that of their children and other dependants. BUT this was a LOT of WORK ; certainly not just the cooking and cleaning and other such drudgery that mechanisation has turned household management into. Where would such hard-working, business-like women of the ancient world find the time for any artistic or intellectual endeavours ? Do the hard-working, business-like women of today have such time at their disposal ?

    The only real difference in our modern world is that because of this mechanisation, it has become generally more feasible to simply turn one’s back upon these affairs as an individual, and pursue such avenues of life as previously were the sole province of the independently wealthy, or of such persons as lived in certain situations of the religious life.

    One should avoid making any overly anachronistic claims regarding life in ancient times, even if there are many surprising similarities between life in those times and in ours.

  53. kathleen says:

    OK, thank you dear Jabba.

    Actually I agree with everything you say here, and I thought it’s what I was saying too (albeit far less eruditely😉 ) in my above comments.

    Don’t get cross with me, but are you not perhaps just playing with words?
    IOW: Intrinsic = inherent; Disorder = confused. Hence homosexual tendencies (towards homosexual acts) are, according to the CCC, “intrinsically disordered”. as no. 2357 states: “… tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
    Not the condition itself, but the acts.

    P.S. (^) That was in response to your comment at 14:51. I accept everything you say in the second one – thank you.🙂

  54. toadspittle says:

    “(Are you inferring that Our Lord Jesus Christ was unnatural then?!!)”
    Well, Kathleen, if walking on water, changing it into wine, and coming back from the dead can be considered “unnatural,” I suppose he was.
    ….In the nicest possible way, of course.

    …the vast majority of outstanding figures in the history of Mankind have not been homosexuals.
    Yes, you have a very shrewd point there.
    …Lucky for me I never said they had been.

  55. johnhenrycn says:

    Geoff asks: “Further to JH of the 2nd Feb….. “Nor is it (homosexuality) a vice” Did you really say that?”

    Yes, I did. But there’s a difference between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour. Likewise, a heterosexual who engages in adultery has not fallen into vice merely by reason of his sexual preference, but by reason of his behaviour.

    When all is said and done, however, I’m willing to concede that homosexuality is not a good thing.

  56. johnhenrycn says:

    Thank you, Mr/Mrs Moderator. I was too shy to ask😉

  57. JabbaPapa says:

    Don’t get cross with me, but are you not perhaps just playing with words?

    I most certainly will not dearest kathleen ; and no, I’m not.

    And I thank you for your quote — I can see that the CCC makes a comment about the homosexual acts whereas Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made the more theologically precise comment about the homosexuality itself.

    Thanks to your information, I can now see that there are some people who wrongfully ascribe the CCC quote as if applicable to the homosexual tendency, so I thank you for the correction.

  58. JabbaPapa says:

    The supernatural, dear toad, is not un-natural.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s