PopeWatch: Ignore or Oppose it

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

 

Well if this is a sample of the glop being served up at the Synod, God help us all:

 

One of the six couples chosen to participate in the Vatican’s Synod on the Family had some rather controversial advice for the gathered leaders of the Catholic Church. Ron and Mavis Pirola, co-directors of the Australian Catholic Marriage and Family Council, spoke this afternoon to the 191 synod fathers. The text of their address was released today by the Vatican press office.

The Pirolas suggested as an example of “upholding the truth while expressing compassion and mercy” the Church should follow the example of their friends.  “Take homosexuality as an example. Friends of ours were planning their Christmas family gathering when their gay son said he wanted to bring his partner home too,” they said.

“They fully believed in the Church’s teachings and they knew their grandchildren would see them welcome the son and his partner into the family,” added the Pirolas. “Their response could be summed up in three words, ‘He is our son’.”

The Pirolas concluded their instruction to the bishops regarding homosexuality, saying, “What a model of evangelization for parishes as they respond to similar situations in their neighbourhood! It is a practical example of what the Instrumentum laboris says concerning the Church’s teaching role and its main mission to let the world know of God’s love.” 

The example of the ready acceptance of a son and his homosexual lover to a gathering where the grandchildren would welcome them into the family is not an example of love or mercy at all. It is in fact a capitulation to sentiment at the expense of both the child and the grandchildren.

Go here to read the rest.  PopeWatch recalls similiar sentiments in one of the most misbegotten documents ever released by the USCCB, and that is saying something considering the competition, Always Our Children.  Go here to read about the controversy.  Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz said it all about this fiasco back in 1997:

On Always Our Children

by Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz

Last October 1st, a document entitled Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children was published by the Committee on Marriage and the Family of the US bishops’ conference.

 

Although this document was evidently “approved” by the Administrative Committee of that conference, and it would seem the correct procedures outlined in conference rules were followed, it should be made clear that the document was composed without any input from the majority of the American Catholic bishops, who were given no opportunity whatever to comment on its pastoral usefulness or on its contents.

 

As almost always happens when such procedures are used by committees of the conference, the illusion is given, perhaps deliberately, and carried forth by the media, to the effect that this is something the US bishops have published, rather than the correct information being conveyed to the public; namely, that most bishops had nothing to do with this undertaking. I believe one would be justified in asserting that in this case, flawed and defective procedures, badly in need of correction and reform, resulted in a very flawed and defective document.

 

The majority of America’s Catholic bishops were allowed nothing to say about this document. Still less were they permitted any suggestions or comments about the “advisers” and consultants used by the committee, who, by their own boasting and the ordinary “rumor mill”, have been detected to be people whose qualifications in this area of moral conduct are highly questionable. The document, in a view which is shared by many, is founded on bad advice, mistaken theology, erroneous science and skewed sociology. It is pastorally helpful in no perceptible way. Does this committee intend to issue documents to parents of drug addicts, promiscuous teenagers, adult children involved in canonically invalid marriages, and the like? These are far more numerous than parents of homosexuals. The occasion and the motivation for this document’s birth remain hidden in the murky arrangements which brought it forth.

 

Not only does this document fail to take into account the latest revision in the authentic Latin version of The Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, but it juxtaposes several quotes from the Catechism in order to pretend falsely and preposterously that the Catechism says homosexuality is a gift from God and should be accepted as a fixed and permanent identity. Of course, the document, in order to support the incorrect views it contains, totally neglects to cite the Catholic doctrine set forth by the Holy See which teaches that the homosexual orientation is “objectively disordered”. Also, the document’s definition of the virtue and practice of chastity is inadequate and distorted.

 

The character of this document is such that it would require a book of many pages to point out all its bad features, which sometimes cross the border from poor advice to evil advice. For instance, I believe it is wicked to counsel parents not to intervene, but rather to adopt a “wait and see” attitude when they find their adolescent children “experimenting” with homosexual acts. Parents have a grave moral duty to prevent their children from committing mortal sins when they can. It is certainly and seriously wrong to counsel parents to “accept” their children’s homosexual friends. In my view, parents should be vigilant about the friends and companions of their children. Of course, the document deliberately avoids distinguishing minor children from adult children in its advice to parents and seems to delight in this ambiguity, just as it confuses the acceptance of a person who does immoral acts with the acceptance of such a person’s immoral behavior.

 

Sinners are always the object of Christ’s love and so they must also be the object of ours. Loving sinners while hating their sins must mark the followers of Christ even when dealing with homosexual people. However, true love is never served by obfuscating the truth as this document appears to do. Homosexual acts, insofar as they are deliberately and freely done, are mortal sins which place a person who does them in the gravest danger of eternal damnation. The document says to parents, “Do not blame yourselves for a homosexual orientation in your child”. Many scientists and psychologists say that the orientation is likely and often due to certain parental defects, which are usually unconsciously present, and proper therapy requires that these matters be confronted. The document claims that something is “the common opinion of experts” when in fact it is no such thing. One critique of this document says that it is really an exercise in homosexual (“gay and lesbian”) advocacy. It is difficult not to see it as such.

 

“Calamity and frightening disaster” are terms which are not too excessive to describe this document. It is my view that this document carries no weight or authority for Catholics, whom I would advise to ignore or oppose it.

Ignore or oppose it.  Sound advice then and perhaps sound advice now.

 

More to explorer

Leftism

    Leftism is a substitute religion.  The only thing it has in common with Christianity is the command to worship no

They Will Need a Wing Just For Mark Shea

News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   U.S.—The nation’s psychiatric wards are preparing themselves for an influx of deranged

Reverse Watergate

  So two years and forty million dollars later, the Mueller report confirms what any sentient person knew at the beginning of

3 Comments

  1. How would this translate to a situation of divorced and remarried relatives? Instead of being gay, what if he wanted to bring his second wife to Christmas dinner? I am curious because that seems to be a much more common situation.

  2. I often wonder why people feel compelled to create false equivocations. Bringing a second wife to Christmas dinner, assuming the first marriage was annulled or at least civilly divorced, does bring the same level of scandal as bringing homosexual partners. There are different degrees of scandal. Is bringing a murderer on the run to Christmas dinner the same as bringing someone who downloaded a music file illegally?

Comments are closed.