In a newly released book, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI defended traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and the family, describing the widespread institution of homosexual “marriage” in Europe as fomenting “a cultural revolution that is opposed to the entire tradition of humanity.”
The former pontiff made the remarks as part of an introduction to the Italian book “The real Europe: Identity and Mission,” some introductory pages of which were published by Italian newspaper Il Foglio on September 16.
Benedict argued that “the legalization in 16 European states of ‘homosexual marriage’” has led to a “deformation of conscience” that extends beyond the secular realm, having “penetrated deeply into the world of marriage in sectors of the Catholic people.”
As such, “the issue of marriage and the family has taken on a new dimension that certainly cannot be ignored.”
“This cannot be responded to with some petty moralism and not even with some exegetical references,” the Pope Emeritus said, adding that “[t]he problem goes deep and therefore must be addressed in fundamental terms.”
In line with historic Church teaching, Benedict affirmed that mankind, “in the mode of male and female, is ordered to procreation, as well as the fact that the community of male and female and the openness to the transmission of life determine the essence of what is called marriage.”
Benedict noted that despite some variance throughout history regarding monogamy and polygamy, the true nature of marriage being the union of man and woman for the purpose of creating offspring is “an orthodox certainty that until now has been obvious to humanity.”
Accordingly, the former Pope stated that “the concept of ‘homosexual marriage’ is in contradiction with all the cultures of humanity that have succeeded each other until today,” and that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” is part of “a cultural revolution that is opposed to the entire tradition of humanity.”
This “cultural revolution,” Benedict said, “was introduced when, with the [contraceptive] pill, the separation of fertility and sexuality became possible in principle,” and that this “new message, contained in the invention of the pill, has profoundly transformed the consciousness of men.”
Benedict said that “[t]his separation means, in fact, that in this way all of the forms of sexuality are equivalent,” giving rise to the modern concept of homosexual unions.
“A fundamental criterion no longer exists,” emphasized Benedict.
Full story at LifeSiteNews.
Thanks be to God for the clarity and charity of Pope-emeritus Benedict. May we heed his wise words.
The separation of sexuality and fertility via contraception, leads directly to acceptance of sterile homosexual acts. It’s the same mindset that approves of both these mortal sins.
Pope Benedict has provided the kind of clarity the Church needs because souls are at stake. As was revealed at Fatima, more souls are in hell due to sins of the flesh than anything else.
Deus Vult– Great post!
Scroll down and look at all the protestations of YFC, trying to defend homosexual so called marriage. Be forewarned, dissent of this kind and voracity is a huge spiritual danger to him and those he is trying to influence.
Homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with the pill or with abortion. Besides which, he is a former Pope, sworn to a life of silence. Peace be with the Pontiff Emeritus.
Homosexual activity surely does. Both are sex without openness to life. Of course, they’re related.
And, where did you get the idea that he is somehow “sworn to a life of silence?”
(He is not pontificating. He is allowed to speak and write.)
YFC, are you making this stuff up or do you read it somewhere?
Oh that’s right. It is immoral for a sterile couple to marry. I forgot.
Pure ignorance that is easy to refute. Sterile couples are not taking positive actions to render coitus infertile unless they have consented to a medically unnecessary vasectomy, tubal ligation or hysterectomy, which would be morally problematic. Through no fault of their own, their coitus is naturally unable to produce life yet they can be open to the possibility of life.
This contrasts with contraceptive sex, which takes a positive action to render coitus infertile. It also contrasts with homosexual acts, which are infertile by the nature of the act and which mimics and caricatures coitus by means of an unnatural union.
So Let Me Get This Right: Natural Family Planning is also immoral because it, too, is a positive step to render coitus sterile. Have I Got That Right?
And a gay couple who doesn’t take a positive step to avoid pregnancy is more immoral than an elderly couple who marries after the age of childbirth, because they, like the gay couple who live next door, inactively avoid childbirth resulting from coitus.
No, you don’t have it right. NFP abstains from coitus when a woman is deemed to be fertile. That’s not taking a positive action to render coitus infertile; it’s not engaging in coitus at all when conception would probably result.
A homosexual couple cannot become pregnant as a result of their immoral sexual acts that caricature coitus. It’s impossible by biological nature. First of all, no male has a uterus. Second of all, a female needs a male sexual partner in order to conceive.
An elderly sterile couple validly married commits no sin when they engage in coitus.
A homosexual couple cannot validly marry, and every homosexual act is de facto immoral.
YFC @ 2:40pm, homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, period. You want to slip them as acceptable kinds of sin, but they are not. Stop feigning misunderstanding, just admit you wish it were not true (but it is).
I’m just tryin to understand this chaotic thing you all call Catholic moral teaching. Seems to me y’all are confused. Either the connection between the pill and homosexuality lies in its infertility, which is what many of you have said, or there is no connection between homosexuality and the pill. Homosexuality has been around and practiced long before there was such a thing as the pill. It was around and practiced long before there was even a concept of Catholic marriage. Your rantings don’t make any sense. Either Jesus and the apostles taught it —-and they didn’t—-or it is not in the deposit of faith. There is nothing in the deposit of faith that equates homosexuality with the pill. Or with intrinsic evil for that matter.
NFP doesn’t abstain from anything. It is a technique for avoiding pregnancy. It is quite active when she pushes him away and says “not tonight honey”
Hey vault, do close. Your misunderstanding of NFP needs remedy.
YFC, I think you are confused. The subject was not homosexuality. It was same sex marriage. The subject is not the Pill, it is contraception.
God does not want you to do either one.
They are both grave sins that offend God greatly.
If you have already done them, repent and go to Confession.
You really don’t need any more than that.
Immoral for a same sex couple to “marry”. Don’t forget.
That you resort to sarcasm shows your lack of understanding and or acceptance of Catholic sexual morality. Time to open your heart to truth.
Question to Your Fellow Catholic, Do you support “same sex marriage”?
Almost 2/3 of your fellow American Catholics approve of civil marriage for same sex couples.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/
What about you YFC?
Tyler, I support a lifetime of love and commitment. It has gone by many names. You can call that marriage if you like.
YFC, please be clear, do you agree that marriage is only between one man and one woman?
Benedict argued that “the legalization in 16 European states of ‘homosexual marriage’” has led to a “deformation of conscience” that extends beyond the secular realm, having “penetrated deeply into the world of marriage in sectors of the Catholic people.”
I believe that the Church only confuses people when it equates civil marriage with the sacrament of matrimony. In fact, our own laws permitting civil marriages to be conducted by priests adds to the confusion. Tyler, tell me, do you think there is a difference between civil marriage between two non-Christians and sacramental marriage between two catholics? Do you think priests ought to be doing the bidding of the state by being agents of the state when it comes to civil marriage? What say you Tyler?
Let me refresh (and improve) your memory.
What makes you think an infertile couple doesn’t have a valid marriage?
I encourage you to seek a better understanding of your Catholic faith.
The issue is openness to life, with Catholic couples, even those suffering with infertility, they are open to (even desiring) life.
That is different than intentionally engaging in sterile sexual acts.
And, again, where did you get the idea that Pope-emeritus Benedict is somehow “sworn to a life of silence?”
And by silence, I ought to have been more clear, I apologize for that.. I meant public silence, not silence in the monastic sense.
And as for my ongoing formation as a Catholic Christian, you might be surprised to learn that my audible account is full of the lives and writings of the saints, histories of the Church and her Councils, and so on. So, I agree with you, that I – like all of My Fellow Catholics – ought to deepen my understanding of the Catholic and Christian faith.
YFC, you could live in a monastery or a Catholic gift shop but if you do not take it to heart, it doesn’t matter.
Canon Law teaches :”Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (can.1084, no3). Being snarky and sarcastic won’t clear a troubled conscience YFC.
No, a infertile couple could marry but an impotent man or a woman incapable of consummating cannot.
Curious, here is contemporaneous coverage of his promise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-resignation/benedict-says-to-be-hidden-from-world-after-papacy-idUSBRE91D0KX20130214
Doesn’t say he wouldn’t ever come out of hiding, but that’s not what you object to. His reiteration of Church teaching regarding homosexual “marriage” is distasteful to you, that’s your beef. Be honest, tell the truth.
YFC, what makes you think the Pope-emeritus is “sworn to a life of (public) silence?”
You’ve never answered that question. Is it because you know that he is not?
And, the issue is openness to life during sexual intercourse. Do you really think that a couple beyond the usual child-bearing years or a couple struggling with infertility shouldn’t have sexual intimacy? It’s procreative and unitive. If God wants to make an elderly couple like Abraham and Sarah, so be it. They’re still open to life, not intentionally engaging in sterile sex. Do you really not understand the difference?
Curious, Father Benedict, as apparently he likes to be called now-a-days, who many on the right laud for his clarity, was rather ambiguous in his phraseology. I’m totally willing to grant you that he was mealy-mouthed about whether he was going to remain silent in the public sphere. I suspect that he thought he would die soon after his resignation, and didn’t really think he would live as long as he has. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but we all know people who get a piece of bad medical news and think it’s all downhill, then they sometimes respond to treatments and get on with life for another several years. In any case, I wish him health and happiness, and I’m not going to go out on a limb trying to figure out what he meant by his statements that he would live a rather monastic life. I also suspect that as Saint John Paul’s right-hand-man for all the years in which the Pontiff was ailing and essentially unable to function, he did not want his own right-hand-man to carry that burden. Obviously, that is complete speculation on my part, but I do sometimes wonder what it must have been like to carry on the functions of the papacy in the shadow of an obviously sainted person. Santo Subito was something Cardinal Ratzinger maybe said to himself every night in his prayers.
YFC (and others), Read and compare papal documents by Benedict XVI and Francis. Benedict’s clarity is apparent, in contrast to much of the ambiguous, questionably sourced stuff from our current Pope. Francis often quotes non-Christian sources and quotes his own previous statements often. Just look at the references. Benedict almost always quotes the Scriptures, the documents of the Second Vatican Council, previous Popes, Saints and Church Councils. And, he is the one who warned us about “studied ambiguity” and the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture. Read them for yourself.
And, “(Reuters) – Pope Benedict will see out his life in prayer, ‘hidden from the world’, he said.” He also spoke of “a life dedicated to prayer.”
Maybe learning of things happening in the world, and even in the Church, and prompted by the Holy Spirit during prayer, he speaks out at times.
Again, he is not speaking as Pope. What has he said that is untrue?
YFC– Here is the connection. Both contraceptive sex acts between a man and a woman– and gay sex acts– have the same wrongful intent– illicit pleasure seeking. And refusing to obey God’s plan of the true intent for sexuality– a man and a woman are to be joined together in Holy Matrimony, before God, and bring forth children. Just as the Holy Bible states.
Yes, all sexual activity must be open to life. That is why all sex acts outside of a sacramental marriage are grave sins and must be confessed. Some things not open to life like contraception are grave sins even within a sacramental marriage.
Also, pervert acts of “gay” sex are mortal sins– as told in the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. But there are also chaste homosexuals, faithful to God, leading good lives. In Heaven, there will be no more illnesses, nor disabilities, nor abnormalities, handicaps, or defects of any kind. Nor will there be racial, religious or ethnic persecutions, nor economic inequalities, disasters, or any kind of persecution or suffering. Those blessed to attain Heaven will simply be souls adoring God, together with Christ, Our Lady, and all the Angels and Saints. We all should persevere, put up with our sufferings patiently and courageously, and work hard, towards the goal of Heaven, which Christ promised to all.
You refusal to accept Catholic moral teachings is shameful and I bet if Benedict agreed with you, you’d be happy to have him speak.
Contraception, abortion and homosexuality are bad fruit from the same tree, do some Catholic research
So many better ways to answer YFC
So give a better answer.
Homosexuality is a condition of fallen human nature, but what the Pope Emeritus is speaking of is acceptance of same sex marriage. One does not need to be a homosexual to enter into a same sex marriage. I know of three where straight women married lesbians. The acceptance of same sex marriage led to this. Marriage is no longer seen as the way of having children and a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman..
I just saw a social media post where a woman said “If I had it to do over, I would wait to get married until after I had my child because I think it would be cool if they could have been at the wedding.”
There is no consensus anymore but Catholics need to support those who do things in the proper order.
Proper Order, yours was not a better answer but a confused ramble that perhaps you’d best let die on the vine.
The temptation is to treat you the way you treat others but that is not the Golden Rule and I will obey Jesus.
God bless you.
Your Fellow Chaos—- You are correct. I don’t dispute that YFC was baptized a Catholic. But baptism alone is insufficient to REMAIN a “Fellow Catholic” if he insistently refuses to accept his Church’s teaching on the intrinsic immorality of homogenital acts—always and everywhere, irrespective of motive or circumstances.
This is why we had the anonymous default.
Maybe what YFC was said tongue in cheek because homosexuals do not need abortions or contraception.
Agreed, one must not rest on their baptismal laurels as proof of their Catholicity and I do not know the baptismal status of “Your Fellow Catholic”. Many can claim the name, far fewer are actually followers, and open dissent to the Church’s moral teachings is a dubious sign.
There is certainly no canon law that lets any lay person declare a baptized Catholic as not Catholic.
Your pastor and your bishop cannot declare you not to be Catholic so how can somebody you don’t even know do that?
cd, The point is that many who claim to know Christ but will be turned away because He does not know them. Those who call themselves Catholic have a duty to believe, teach and live in communion with the Church. When they do not, their allegiance is questionable.
It’s ok chaos. No need to worry about me. I obtained a religious exemption.
YFC2, we are not called to allegiance. We are called to faithfulness.
God will judge. You do not need to.
Matthew 7, which the Scripture you refer to is in, begins with Do not Judge.
Those Jesus turns away argue with him saying that they drove out demons, prophesied and did mighty deeds in His Name.
Yes we need to accept the Church’s teachings with docility until we are given the grace to understand them.
But I think Jesus would like you to believe, teach and live in Communion with Him (which does not include the mockery of YFC’s name) and to learn the Church’s true teachings. There are more than just the teachings on sexuality.
Layman or cleric, you are wrong to declare someone not Catholic. It does not work that way. I know it is your way of expressing disapproval but it is not how you do that.
I was not baptized a Catholic. I was baptized a Christian. The Catholic part came later.
YFC— Thank you for your clarification, though it does nothing to dilute the point of my previous post.
Anyone in a same sex relationship cannot truly accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. The sacrament of confession is helpful but there must be an ongoing act of the will to renounce habitual mortal sin. That’s the beauty of the Church, one can seek and receive forgiveness when properly disposed to it.
YFC: “Either Jesus and the apostles taught it —-and they didn’t—-or it is not in the deposit of faith.”
You misunderstand the term “deposit of faith.” There are things in “the deposit of faith” that neither Christ nor the apostles explicitly taught.
Where did Christ teach that He had two wills? Where did He teach that Iconoclasm is a heresy? Where did He teach the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption? Where did He teach papal infallibility? Where did He teach that general councils of the Church can teach with infallibility?
If you deny that those things are contained in “the deposit of faith,” then you clearly don’t understand what you’re saying when you use that term.
Christ established a Church, governed by bishops, and to which He promised to send the Holy Spirit
YFC: “Almost 2/3 of your fellow American Catholics approve of civil marriage for same sex couples.”
But the Catholic Church does not exist only in the U.S. Only 7% of the Catholic Church, nominally speaking, is in the U.S., and the statistic you’re using cannot possibly include young children, who comprise at least 30% of the U.S. Catholic population.
Thus, your 2/3 figure actually equates to 1.5% of the Church as a whole, and the statistics tell us that 70 percent of the 1.5% don’t practice the Faith to begin with.
YFC: “Besides which, he is a former Pope, sworn to a life of silence. Peace be with the Pontiff Emeritus.”
“Curious, here is contemporaneous coverage of his promise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-resignation/benedict-says-to-be-hidden-from-world-after-papacy-idUSBRE91D0KX20130214
Can you point to something at the link that says anything about being “sworn to a life of silence”?
Jesus had two wills? News to me.
Did he deposit them into his safe deposit box?
Where do you come up with these things YFC? where is the oath or bow that Popd B16 is ‘sworn to a life is silence’. If he took an oath of silence, prove it.
When one considers all of the pain the Catholic Church has caused with regards to human sexuality…it is tragic and disgusting. The extent of the sexual abuse scandals involving priests, nuns, deacons, Bishops and a Cardinal is truly horrific. Other than abortion, I no longer listen or look to the Church for teaching about human sexuality. The people forming the Church’s teachings on sex are supposedly celibate and have no idea what it takes to sustain a marital relationship. Because of its shameful and sinful past record, the Church has no credibility when teaching about human sexuality.
The convoluted and intrinsically contradictory teachings and practices of the hierarchy on marriage and sexuality, which you see demonstrated here in this comment section, are why the vast vast majority of Catholics don’t agree with or support the official teachings. Saint Paul VI’s disasterous Humanae Vitae has been utterly rejected by the faithful, and is part of why so very many have left the Church since 1968. It is also why, for example, people are so confused by catholic moral teaching on sexuality that we have people rejecting Bishops’ guidance on the moral duty to vaccinate, and then some of them even go on public media falsely claiming that vaccines are “tainted” and immoral even when the connection to a pregnancy – which might have actually been a miscarriage and not even an abortion – is so remote as to completely overcome, in their eyes, the good that comes from them, and causes these faithful to justify lie after lie about them.
Humane Vitae is accepted by those Catholics who do not dissent from Church teachings. Obviously you do and need to get over your personal stumbling blocks to be in full communion with the Church. Lots of so called Catholics don’t know their faith and think it’s a free for all, it is not. You must accept it all, even the parts that upset you.
To equate Humane Vitae to vaccine recommendations is completely ludicrous. Stop trying to change the subject. Same sex marriage is an abomination, and the Pope Emeritus did you a favor by saying so.
Teachings of the hierarchy that are utterly rejected by the faithful do not carry any weight. That is good Catholic teaching, and the sense of the faithful is now quite clear. Humanae vitae is one such utterly rejected teaching. Follow it if your conscience leads you there. But it is can no longer be considered binding on the faithful.
You are shockingly wrong YFC. Rejection of Church teaching does not invalidate it.
A properly formed conscience accepts the Church in her entirety.
YFC, you are too influenced by James Martin SJ and it’s leading you astray.
“But it is can no longer be considered binding on the faithful.” Ba ha ha ha.. like all liberals YFC wants to be his own arbiter of what Church teachings should be accepted.
YFC, that is not true. I accept all Church teaching because of faith.
O my God, I firmly believe
that you are one God in three divine Persons,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I believe that your divine Son became man
and died for our sins and that he will come
to judge the living and the dead.
I believe these and all the truths
which the Holy Catholic Church teaches
because you have revealed them
who are eternal truth and wisdom,
who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
In this faith I intend to live and die.
Amen.
Deb, Fr. James Martin has NEVER taught that.
The errors in this post are several.
First, what happens to your point when it’s only “some” of “the faithful” who reject a teaching? Does the Church go by numbers? If so, what would the implications have been for the Iconoclasm heresy or the Arian heresy?
The fact that a majority of baptized Catholics may reject a particular teaching of the Church is irrelevant as to whether that teaching is true. The majority of English bishops rejected the teaching of the Church in 1534 when they swore allegiance to the Act of Supremacy. It’s a meaningless statistic.
Second, your view is a self-centered western view. There is no evidence that the majority of “the faithful” reject the Church’s teaching contained in Humanae Vitae.
The Catholic Church exists outside the United States. In fact, the overwhelming majority of it does. How many Catholics in India, Africa, Ukraine, Lebanon, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, et cetera, reject HV?
How many Catholics in those places accept “gay marriage”?
The rejection of the Church’s teaching regarding contraception and gay marriage is, for the major part, a product of wealthy Catholics of western nations.
Third, the Catholic Church transcends time and space. It matters not one whit that many modern day Catholics reject the Church’s teaching on contraception (the majority of them in “western” or “westernized” countries).
The majority of “the faithful” in the past accepted the Church’s teaching on contraception, and whether they are in Heaven or in purgatory, they still accept that teaching.
The majority of “the faithful,” whether in the Church suffering, Church militant, or Church triumphant, accept the Church’s teaching on contraception. In fact, the figure is 100% for the Church suffering and the Church triumphant. Only in the Church militant is there dissent, but they are a small minority and are usually in the wealthy nations.
The Church’s teaching on contraception is binding on the faithful. Those who reject it are rejecting God and demonstrating their hatred of Him by rejecting His law. “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
Those who die rejecting God will have made their choice, which will be binding on them for all eternity.
YFC, I think you are misunderstand sensus fidelium
Please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium
Deus Vult perfectly said, leftists think they are the arbiters of Truth; if it does not fit their “lifestyle” then its invalid.
love you, petty good article. it leaves some things out, and it does quite a severe edit job on vatican ii, but its a good place to start
Thank you for taking the time to read it.
YFC– We must ignore the world, ignore the rebellious and “unfaithful,” and just go with Christ and forget them all. Then, we will be on the road to success, and Christ will fulfill all of His promises to us!
CF: I wouldn’t say “ignore the world’. We must be in the world but not “of it”. I think of driving in Manhattan.
So if I am reading between the lines correctly, when a couple (man and woman) cannot conceive, then their purpose in life is now one of shame of not procreating per God’s command. Further, once a couple, whatever age, have completed having their desired number of children, they should stop having sex because unless sex is for procreative purposes, it is therefore sinful. How literally Old Testament in thought and application! No wonder so many have left the church: catechism for a long time bemoaned sex, threw in guilt and shame, and to my mind provided the starting point whereby couples were unhappy, with the likely outcome of divorce, cheating or even masturbation as a way to curtail our more basic needs. Pope Emeritus Benedict does have the right to speak, but a GOOD leader knows that by speaking at all, they undermine the current leader’s authority (unless that is your intent). It’s easy to sing someone’s praise when they agree or confirm your world view, but harder when they don’t. So again I ask: is the church advocating that once a couple are not having more children they should refrain from having sex, even if given to each other in love and respect, even to the point of sleeping in separate beds? How does that jive with Catholic moral teachings and human sexuality?
Instead of trolling again Michael, get yourself The Catechism of the Catholic Church, ask for the grace to believe it, and start educating yourself.
Michael Joseph Dremel, no this is not correct at all. A married couple can continue to enjoy the pleasures of the marriage bed for the entire length of their marriage.
“Pope Emeritus Benedict does have the right to speak, but a GOOD leader knows that by speaking at all, they undermine the current leader’s authority (unless that is your intent).”
So, are you suggesting that the only person in the world who should speak about such issues is the pope? What about the rest of the thousands of bishops? Or tens of thousands of priests?
When they “speak at all,” are they, too, undermining the pope’s authority? Are they not being “a good leader” by “speaking at all”?
Pope Benedict is still a Catholic bishop. Why should he be the only bishop that should not speak about Catholic teaching on issues of morality?
Implicit in your comment is the idea that Pope Benedict’s statements contradict what Pope Francis teaches. Is that what you are implying? If so, isn’t that quite problematic?
We know that Pope Benedict is stating what the Catholic Church actually teaches, so if he is contradicting Pope Francis, where does that leave Pope Francis?
And if Benedict is not contradicting Pope Francis, then not only is he NOT undermining Pope Francis, he is actually supporting and buttressing him.
If you are the CEO of a corporation stating “X is the policy,” and I’m a middle manager that sends out a memo stating to those who I manage “X is the policy,” how exactly does that “undermine” you as the CEO?
Isn’t it in fact just the opposite? That I’m supporting you?
In the end, Pope Benedict is doing nothing different from the thousands of other bishops who openly teach, and the tens of thousands of good priests who do so also. If he is “undermining” Pope Francis, then so are they.
And if he is not “a good leader” as a result of doing that, then neither are they.
Father Benedict is a Bishop in name only. He is not an ordinary. He is beyond the age of mandatory retirement. He doesn’t even have a titular see.
Father Benedict is Saint Benedict.
Pope Emeritus Benedict used to be Cardinal Ratzinger used to be Archbishop Ratzinger used to be Reverend Ratzinger.
He is a bishop by ordination, even if he is no longer head of a dicastery or diocese.
Where did Jesus try to convince the Pharisees anything about homosexuality, much less connect it with the pill?
Father Benedict is still alive and therefore not eligible to be sainted.
I think cd was saying that St. Benedict was never a bishop and has always been known as the Father of Europe, thus Fr. Benedict, by Christendom: whereas Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was ordained a bishop and remains one, along with with being Pope Emeritus, until his death. If that is what he meant, he is right as retired bishops keep their title.
Cd can correct me if I have misinterpreted what he wrote.
Yes, Anne TE. The only time until today that I had heard the term Father Benedict it referred to the Father of Monastics, Saint Benedict of Norcia.
However today I discovered there is a book entitled “Father Benedict: The Spiritual and Intellectual Legacy of Pope Benedict XVI” by James Day. In it’s advertising blurb, it says that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wishes now to be called “Father Benedict.”
So I think everything I wrote was correct but I was ignorant of this information.
Got it, cd. It certainly is a “who’s on first, what’s on second and I don’t know is on third” routine.
Now for base four: Who’s the poster posting on here called “Fr. Benedict”? (Laughter.)
Sorry, this is in response to “Your Fellow Catholic’s” 11:09 a.m. post. about couples struggling with infertility and his previous claim that the Pope-emeritus is “sworn to a life of silence.”
Fred, either go find yourself a Protestant site to share your dissent or learn and accept Catholicism.
Rubble: there is room for dissent in Catholicism. Perhaps you might want to avail yourself to a solid biography of St Thomas Aquinas.
Fred, there is no room for dissent from Church teaching on sexual morality. Pray for the gift of faith that you might accept the Church in her entirety.
Private dissent is always permissible in the Catholic Church and no, the church is not infallible on faith and morals. If either of those things were not true, you would have to go to confession for holding a mortgage.
Well jon, wanna take this one?
Crickets…
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
A biography of anyone, even a saint, does not negate Church teaching. The Church is infallible on faith and morals.
Catholic teachings on Marriage and sexuality come straight from Christ, from the Bible– from God Himself! As my mother taught us, long ago, in childhood days, these teachings of Christ are for the greatest good of mankind, and bring forth the highest fulfillment, for those to whom God gives this Vocation, provided you follow it correctly. All Vocations to which God calls people, must be followed correctly, and will then bring forth God’s greatest good to each soul. The Vocation to Marriage is God-given, a “School of Love,” a holy pathway to sanctification, and preparation for Heaven. The Catholic Family home, with Marriage and children, reflects the Blessed Trinity, and the Holy Family– Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. If a married couple cannot conceive, or if an elderly couple marries, they are called by God, regardless, to live out their Vocation in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, in the same way, with Christ at the heart and center of their Marriage. If God wills, the childless couple can lovingly open their hearts and home, to adopt children. God can fulfill you, and make you a Saint, according to whatever Vocation He calls you to– Marriage, the Priesthood, or Religious Life. God has a Divine Plan for each soul that He made.
So Moses, who married outside the Catholic faith, is rejected by Christ as a sinner, because he never heard Jesus’ supposed teachings on marriage even though he was personally responsible for receiving Gods eternal commandments. Sure that makes sense.
Back to the point: the only relationship that can be called marriage is of one man and one woman. Other couplings are Not marriage.
Playing with words and pretending marriage can be redefined is folly. Accept the true Catholic definition.
YFC, God calls each soul to a unique place in life, a unique Vocation, with a Divine Plan to fulfill the needs of our souls, while on earth, and prepare us for Heaven! Even in dark, turbulent, difficult times of war, economic or societal upheavals, plagues, extreme illness, death– or many great evils upon the earth– in all of this, even though we cannot always make any sense of it– God’s Plan includes all of it, mysteriously! When Our Lady was betrothed to St. Joseph, and became pregnant by the Holy Spirit with Jesus, it must have really thrown poor St. Joseph to pieces, as both he and Our Blessed Mother were deeply religious Jews. And the Jews of that era were also living under the cruel yoke of Roman occupation– a difficult era! Then, poor Christ was born in a lowly place, outdoors, where livestock were kept– because “there was no room for Him at the Inn!” Very difficult circumstances! And then, King Herod ordered the Massacre of the Holy Innocents! So, St. Joseph took Mary and Baby Jesus and fled to Egypt, to live there for three years, until King Herod died, and it was safe for them to return home to Nazareth. So many difficult, scary, troubling circumstances, in the life of the Holy Family! In today’s troubled world, filled with so many troubling situations, upheavals and misfortunes– Christ is still here among us, and God’s Divine Plan, though we cannot understand it, is unfolding according to His Will. We all have to listen closely in prayer, as Christ leads us onward each day, listen to Him and follow along. We are on the pathway to Heaven! If we persevere in Faith, though the path can be very hard at times– all shall be well, in the end! We are all in God’s hands! A scary “roller-coaster” ride at times, that makes no sense– one that none of us ever “signed up for”– but God has a Divine purpose of His own, mysteriously hidden in all of it. We have to leave the world behind, and faithfully follow Christ– and all will turn out well, mysteriously, in the end.
YFC, as our Catholic Faith teaches, the secular, “fallen” world is ruled by the Prince of Darkness, Satan, who does not know Christ. Although Christ’s pathway may seem difficult and confusing at times, we have to courageously separate ourselves from the “fallen” dark world, and those on Satan’s dark pathway– and go with Christ, and trust Him. In time, Christ will fulfill all of His promises to us. Including His promise of Eternal Life with Him in Heaven. Nothing else matters.
YFC, there was no Catholic Faith at the time of Moses. There was no Jewish faith at the time he married, either.
“So Moses, who married outside the Catholic faith,….”
Dude – Whyn’t you all take a day or two “off” from this site. Heck, a couple or three days away from all media.
Besides, That’d give Mrs. Christfideliiis some one else to respond to.. Be charirable towards her/him .
Mrs cf can take good care of herself I suspect. Peace be with you.
Definitely “her!”
The xpope, Father Benedict, who you all laud for his clarity, wasn’t so clear. Your interpretation of his words is just as valid as mine given his studied ambiguity on the matter.
I think this edit may be unclear.
This is a book of writings from the Pope Emeritus with an introduction by Pope Francis.
It is the third volume of the collection of “Selected Texts,” chosen and translated by Pierluca Azzaro, Editor of the Pope Emeritus’ Complete Works.
If you click the link to LifesiteNews and then click the link intoduction, it will take you here:
https://www.exaudi.org/francis-pens-intro-for-new-book-of-benedict-xvi/
He was plenty clear, you just don’t like what he said.
People, because many in the commentariat here do not adhere to all of the teachings of the Church (I know because I’ve debated quite a number of you on various issues), you are therefore unable and ill-equipped to provide an authentic, faithful, and convincing answer to a simple erroneous assertion that “homosexuality has nothing to do with the pill nor with abortion.” I first thought that that would have been met with a robust and solid rebuttal from the commentariat here. But instead: just read your answers, people. It’s pathetic. “Sterile homosexual acts” is redundant; and responding by employing an insufferably pedantic explanation just doesn’t “get it right.” Additionally your admonitions of “lack of docility”, or “dissent”, or even quoting Canon Law, ring hollow because those rebukes and admonitions come from those who themselves dissent and who lack docility. In other words people, you’re being outwitted by a fellow Catholic because of your own lack of faithfulness to all of the Church’s teachings.
I adhere to all church teaching.
Appalled by your lack of charity and mockery.
Who are you replying to?
Well, “Appalled”, if you adhere to all the teachings of the Church, and you were one of those above who had given an unsatisfactory response to YFC, then you just didn’t do a good job at it. And if that statement “appalls” you even more, so be it.
John 13:35
jon, respectfully, you criticized comments about docility, dissent and Canon Law because ” they come from someone who dissents” you erroneously believed.
YFC has gone from bad to worse and has now committed scandal saying that private dissent is permissible and that the Church is not infallible on faith and morals.
I would appreciate it if you would respond to that.
I do not want YFC to feel that people are ganging up on him so I will be quiet now and I hope you will give him a response that will convince him.
Christ Himself, who is God, was not able to convince the Pharisees and the majority of the Jewish nation, which were His own people, of His doctrine and His divinity.
Therefore, there is nothing that anyone here can do to provide “an authentic, faithful, and convincing answer” to a person who refuses to be convinced.
That is why, in the end, hell is not a place to which God condemns anyone. Hell is a choice, and those who go there choose to do so because they refuse to be convinced of Christ’s doctrine.
No one is being “outwitted” by a fellow Catholic who, in his/her free will, chooses hell. Rather, that particular person is being outwitted by the prince of this world.
But in the end that is their choice.
To the faithful, no explanation is necessary.
To the doubtful, no explanation is adequate.
Willful doubts are a sin.
Well, I must say that DJR’s attitude right there, essentially comparing someone to the Pharisees, and basically indicating that such a person is already headed to hell, are sufficient enough reasons why many here are just ill-equipped for evangelization: ill-equipped to convince anyone of the beauty of Catholic moral teachings.
Where did Jesus try to convince the Pharisees anything about homosexuality, much less connect it with the pill?
The Pharisees did not need convincing about homosexuality. They understood the Levitical texts. They were the ones who would stone people who broke the law like the woman caught in adultery.
The Pill did not exist. But you know about Onan, of course.
YFC, the decision to live as a sodomite or defend those who do, leads to hell.
Please do not call people that. It is offensive and it is one of those words that makes the user look bigoted and backwards.
All choice of unrepented mortal sin leads to hell. Hardness of heart increases guilt.
We will continue to use the term sodomite as often as possible.
Game set mstch, well done DJR.
I must rebuke you.
I’m not sure who you think the opponent was, jon or YFC.
Care of souls is not a game or a contest. It is not achieving a superior position. It is service.
At least they tried, all you did was criticize them without providing what you believe to a better response.
In Christ we are all one. We only have human characteristics of race, gender, social class, economic status, looks, intelligence, disabilities, abnormalities, deformities, illnesses, etc., while on earth. Right now, we are praying the yearly Novena to St. Therese, the Little Flower, who died tragically of TB. Lots of Saints had many difficult conditions while on earth, and some died tragically of serious illnesses! When St. Therese passed away and entered Heaven, I bet her soul had no trace of TB! St. Therese’s mother, Zelie, died of breast cancer, and her father died of Alzheimer’s Disease– mentally crippled! But both were Saints! We cannot be defined by our earthly circumstances, human characteristics, or illnesses, disabilities, abnormalities, or deformities of mind or body. In Christ, we are just a soul– and Good Character and a life of Virtue are all that matters to Him. God made our souls in His own Divine Image, not disabled, crippled, abnormal, sick, handicapped, deformed, etc. Those problems are just our challenges for our earthly lives. The “LGBT” abnormal condition is likewise just an earthly challenge. In souls who are in Heaven, such a condition does not exist! No matter what our earthly challenges may be, we should direct our energies to working for Christ, and Eternal Life with Him in Heaven.