The following comes from a June 30 article in America magazine.
…. The pope’s call for Christians to offer an apology to gay and lesbian people was also carefully welcomed this week by Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego. “I think it opens up a very helpful pathway
to dialogue and hopefully healing,” he said. Pope Francis, Bishop McElroy said, brings to this dialogue with L.G.B.T. Catholics who feel marginalized by or alienated from the church a “renewed and deepened focus on the questions of accompaniment and the mercy of God for all of us.”
“We all walk together in a life of virtue and discipleship,” Bishop McElroy said, “and all of us fail at times.”
He adds: “We have to begin to incorporate that mercy into the depths of our hearts and souls in ways that are going to be uncomfortable for us…. We all need to be shown mercy; it is something that binds us together, not differentiates us.”
“What we need to project in the life of the church is ‘You are part of us and we are part of you.’ [L.G.B.T. Catholics] are part of our families.”
That is not going to be an easy process, he acknowledged. It is one that will require preparation and “a lot of discussion and accompaniment and reflection in the church.” Bishop McElroy emphasized that he does not mean that reflection and accompaniment should be limited to L.G.B.T. Catholics. He said all members of the Catholic community who will be struggling with the idea of apology and welcoming gay and lesbian Catholics will similarly require accompaniment and reflection.
In the past, he argues, diocesan and parish leaders have struggled with two tendencies regarding L.G.B.T. people: “whether you had to sacrifice fidelity to the teaching of the church or sacrifice effective outreach to the L.G.B.T. community.”
“My own view,” the bishop said, “is that much of the destructive attitude of many Catholics to the gay and lesbian community is motivated by a failure to comprehend the totality of the church’s teaching on homosexuality.”
That teaching includes the conviction that “moral sexual activity only takes place within the context of marriage between a man and a woman.”
But “that’s not a teaching which applies just to gay men,” Bishop McElroy said. “It is teaching across the board and there is massive failure on that.”
Bishop McElroy argues that all Christians are called to a life of virtue, in emulation of Christ. Chastity is among the virtues of that life—others include self-sacrifice, service and piety—and it is an important one, “but it does not have the uniquely preeminent role in determining the character of a disciple of Christ nor one’s relationship with the church” that some may believe, according to Bishop McElroy.
Finally, and most poignantly in light of the recent attack in Orlando on a gay nightclub that claimed 49 lives, the totality of the church’s teaching includes the understanding that all Christians are “called to build a society in which people are not victimized or violence visited upon them or unjustly discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.”
The bishop noted “a human but destructive tendency to exclude and label people as the ‘other,’ but the accompaniment that Pope Francis teaches points away from that” in a manner that can help root out violence and unjust discrimination against L.G.B.T. people. Bishop McElroy adds, “In fairness Pope John Paul II reiterated this many, many times.”
The bishop appreciates the notion of an apology as an opportunity “to try to really create an understanding and a reality in the life of the church that members of the [L.G.B.T.] community are welcome, and genuinely so.”
A practical step toward the apology by the pope, Bishop McElroy thought, might be a re-evaluation of the language the church uses in even talking about L.G.B.T. Catholics. “We are not talking about some group or person who is the ‘other,’ he said. “It has to be language that is inclusive, embracing, it has to be pastoral.”
While The Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and other teaching on pastoral care for L.G.B.T. Catholics deplores violence or unjust discrimination against people who are gay or lesbian, it also describes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered.”
Bishop McElroy thinks that phrasing ought to be carefully reconsidered. “The word ‘disordered’ to most people is a psychological term,” he explains. “In Catholic moral theology it is a philosophical term that is automatically misunderstood in our society as a psychological judgment.” He thought the term evidence of “very destructive language that I think we should not use pastorally.”
Another relatively easy step for most dioceses to take by way of institutional apology would be “to seek to collaborate with those in society who are working to banish discrimination and violence leveled against people because of their sexual orientation.”
He added, “The church has already been doing that, but we have to step it up.”
Some church leaders may worry that the pope in his recent comments on outreach and apology to gay and lesbian Catholics may be moving too quickly, too far ahead of his flock. Bishop McElroy is not so sure, noting the many Catholic families he has met with have been longing to hear something positive about the church and its pastoral relationship with L.G.B.T. Catholics. “When I go out and meet with laypeople,” he said, “so many of them have family members, brother and sisters and sons and daughters, mothers and fathers who are gay or lesbian.
“For them it is a great and painful thing to feel excluded from the life of the church, and for that element…we are not moving fast enough.”
The CCC is a universal text. The prologue states that the CCC doesn’t take into account the adaptations regarding age and culture that are necessary when doing the work of catechesis. No change in the CCC is required because it’s not intended to replace local catechisms.
Let McElroy write a catechism for his diocese, or just use the USCCB’s catechism for adults.
The CCC’s philosophical language, which makes McElroy wince, is appropriate for a universal, authoritative catechism.
Methinks McElroy really has in mind to change language to give more wiggle room to those who would promote the sin of sodomy as being morally acceptable, but that can never be.
If McElroy got his wish and the Magisterium removed “intrinsically disordered” from the CCC without abandoning the position that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, here’s what would happen:
1) Homosexual apologists and the media would hail the move a step toward the Church “acknowledging” that homosexuality is normal and that God made them that way.
2) Homosexual apologists would begin to deny that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and use the argument: “Well, the Church removed that from the CCC, so it doesn’t believe that anymore.”
3) Homosexual apologists would lobby for removing “man and woman” from the CCC’s definition of marriage. After all, homosexuality is normal now, and there should be no…
… discrimination against homosexuals who were made that way by God.
Slippery slope, people.
McElroy is suggesting a change that would slide the Church down toward Sodom and Gomorrah.
The CCC states the truth about homosexuality. The truth on that matter does not change. The CCC should not change.
Let bishops and catechists do the work of approaching the topic in a pastorally effective way without blaming the CCC for their ineffectiveness or difficulties. Maybe some of the blame belongs with the LGBTs who want the Church’s doctrine to change. Why must it be the Church’s fault if people who don’t want to accept the truth about their disorders or their sins don’t feel 100% welcomed by the Church? Is that really the…
If you remove “homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered” from the Catechism does that mean that Popes JP II and Benedict XVI were wrong when they had this version of the CCC written? Were these Popes NOT infallible? Isn’t the CCC mostly about Faith and Morals? If the Bishop wants this removed then can others have parts of the CCC eliminated that they don’t like?
Gee, how about we just change everything we don’t like in Scripture and the Catechism? Then we’ll have a man-made so called church that will be completely divorced from the one Christ founded upon St. Peter. Homosexual acts are indeed disordered and evil. Read this from the Angelic Doctor: “For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistulas Sancti Pauli Ad Romanum I, 26, pp. 27f)
So we see from Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the greatest theologian in the history of the Church, how wicked and contrary to God homosexuality and it’s debased acts are. Bp. McElroy is helping no one by his attempts to dilute Church teaching. We are in a dark time where good is bad and bad is good. Only a remnant will hold the Faith when Our Lord comes again. Let us pray to be strong and prepared in these dismal days. +JMJ+
Isn’t the discussion of the 10 Commandments in the Catechism really about a lot of actions that people do in their lives being “disordered”? Isn’t sin all about, according to Church teaching, not following its norms or in other words maybe being “disordered”?
Why is it that San Diego cannot get a decent bishop?
Was it a Pope Francis appointment?
Not nice to the Vicar of Christ.
Other Rose, Please take note. MANY people here are saying: that the man in the chair of St Peter has NOT provided a ‘decent’ replacement for the San Diego Bishop. It is a legitimate concern & after reading this article I agree. It sounded like a P. Francis type change out. Same thing happened in Chicago when Cardinal George passed. P. Francis appointed a liberal, Cupich. Only God knows why P. Francis would do this to San Diego too. The office was held by a more conservative man before the change. Continued….
Continued……Same thing occurred when the Pope recently appointed a new Papal Nuncio to the US. Does he ‘put on the shelf’ those who are more conservative then himself? YES! He himself has ADMITTED this. (See recent articles @ pewsitter.com or @ canon212.com RE: P. Francis & comments about ‘ultra’ conservatives) So your, “Not nice to the Vicar of Christ” comment should be taken up WITH the Vicar of Christ., not us in the pew trying to asses the damages. Pray for the Pope & all his future appointments. It is going to be a bumpy ride.
Pew, consider if you will the process for choosing a Bishop. First, every Bishop has to have a list of three to five candidates ready at all times. Second, the Priests of the Diocese are often asked whom they would recommend. Third, someone from the Nuncio’s office interviews people about the needs of the Diocese. Fourth, when there is an opening, names are sent to the Congregation of Bishops in Rome who study the candidates and finally, three names are submitted to the Pope. Or, the Pope can just pick whomever he wants. Lots of input generally.
Bob One, you are correct, in your description of the process of the selection of future bishops, by the Church. However– for centuries, our Church has also been plagued by a familiar condition, human weakness and sin! Our Church sadly lacks INTEGRITY!!
Then one must justifiably consider, in light of such diverse input, the demonstrable lack of Catholic Faith and Morals in those entrusted, perhaps foolishly and precipitously or perhaps by design, by those holding office within the Catholic Church.
In a pool rife with the diseased it is not difficult to amass a corroboration of error, Bob One, and/or a doubling down on corrupt policy. Generally speaking.
No. It was a Pope Francis DISAPPOINTMENT.
Thanks for the laugh!
Appointed bishop by Pope Benedict XVI. Appointed ordinary of San Diego by Pope Francis.
Did you like Sal Cordileone? He was San Diego, right? Perhaps he could have stayed and McElroy become Archbishop of SF.
McElroy should not be an Archbishop in any Archdiocese. In fact, he should have never been made a bishop in the first place.
Apparently two popes think otherwise
So, popes are infallible in their appointments?
No the appointments are not infallible, of course not. But humility alone dictates that when two popes, being advised by an entire crew of experienced churchmen, affirm the leadership of a fellow priest, that maybe a person who has never met any of the players, let alone discerned their worthiness to hold office, perhaps it’s best to zip it up and keep your objections private, so as not to cause suffering and scandal in the Church.
Two popes are fully capable of sin. Even a Pope that is now declared a Saint. The “fruits” are what is being judged here and +McElroy is showing himself ill suited to the rigors of the job.
Ann Malley, let’s be quite clear: Two popes are not only fully capable of sin, they are guilty of sin, accorting to Holy Scripture itself.
That does not mean that they are not valid Bishops, that the Holy Spirit did not have at least some hand in guiding them, and that we owe our allegiance to them as our shephards.
Fruits: Thinking about fruits, perhaps you should look up that young sexy collegiate latin mass group The fruits of their latin masses are pornography and financial benefit from what are supposed to be spiritual gains.
If you want clarity, then be clear, YFC.
A bishop may well have been validly raised to the episcopacy, but be inept and demonstrate himself to be a sorry choice. +McElroy is doing as much.
So since you understand that Popes can and do sin, then your instruction that humility demands that others “zip it” is anything but humble. It’s enabling, YFC.
Clearly you understand that which is why you go out of your way to enable those who clearly are unqualified for the positions they hold and attempt to shame those with the God given since to call them out.
Your deflection about sexy latin mass groups is precisely that. But again, just more proof that even those who look good shouldn’t be take at face value. Their “fruits” should…
…be judged as well as a sorry work performance.
That’s what Christ advises us in scripture. Judge by the fruits. And the fruits you promote are rotted to the core, YFC. Clearly.
YFC, Christ had to put up with Judas, as an Apostle, who betrayed Him to death! Judas was of the Devil! He apparently lost his faith, and went to Satan! And Christ also predicted that we would have dangerous, deceitful “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” so we must beware! We should follow Christ, and be very careful, what Churchmen say and do, because what if they are unfaithful, and do something horrible, to harm the poor sheep and their children?? We all must use good, common sense!
YFC– Abp. Cordileone always defends our Catholic Faith, and is dedicated as a Catholic archbishop– even though with Vatican II, his episcopal authority is limited, and he cannot always do as he would like, when leading our Archdiocese. By contrast– Bishop McElroy has always been a renegade Catholic– look at his past history, as a priest, auxiliary bishop, and now, Bishop of San Diego! Big difference, from Abp. Cordileone!
The bishop noted “a human but destructive tendency to exclude and label people as the ‘other,’ but the accompaniment that Pope Francis teaches points away from that” in a manner that can help root out violence and unjust discrimination against L.G.B.T. people.
How about rooting out unjust discrimination against the Truth of the Gospel and the requisite duty of all to separate themselves from their sinful inclination. Sorry, but the erroneous labeling is to describe a person with any sinful inclination by the name of said inclination.
That’s why the Church, to paraphrase His Excellency, has fallen down on “that”. That being the clear teaching that we are all called to a life of chastity in accordance with our state in life. So…
… let’s not double down on the shyness in speaking clearly.
This shepherd is courting Christian persecution and the crucifixion of the Truth just to appease the masses. And to keep a cushy seat.
The Bishop points out, rightly I think, that we should be as upset with heterosexuals that cohabitate, have sex outside of marriage, use contraceptives, etc. as with gays. Any article on this site that has a headline with the word gay in it is automatically on its way to 100 comments. The sin of homosexual acts is no graver that those of the heterosexuals.
Bob, you and the bishop are correct that all are called to chastity and that many Catholics do not adhere to the Church’s sexual morality.
Yet there is a categorical difference between the sins of fornication and homosexual genital acts. Both are grave matter, but homosexual acts ARE more evil than fornication because homosexual acts are “contra naturam” (against nature) whereas fornication is merely against chastity.
It is natural for a male and female to have coitus; it is unnatural for two of the same sex to mimic coitus. Acts contrary to both chastity and nature are worse than acts merely contrary to chastity.
People get so riled up about the gay stuff because it is contra naturam and the world doesn’t seem to understand…
Exactly correct. Male/Female sex is natural, same sex sex ain’t. Full stop.
Bob One! What Bible have you been reading? And what church have you been attending?
Have you heard about venial sins and mortal sins?
And have you heard about the Biblical admonitions about four mortal sins in particular that cry out to Heaven for vengeance?
Bob we are , but the contracepters and co-habitors aren’t promoting their lifestyle like the gays are. The priests should be preaching against all these sins as ways we won’t get to Heaven. But they are more frightened of what man will say and do to them than standing before the judgement seat of Almighty God.
Really Bob One! Wherever did you get that idea?
There are particular mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gn 4:10), sodomy (Gn 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4).
You are right and wrong, “Bob One”: First, homosexual sex is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. It is a corruption of the human person, and violates the true purpose of Man, to be joined with a woman, become one flesh, and produce children. Homosexual sex is a vile crime against God. Second, McElroy (and you) are correct to the extent that all other “sexual sins” must also be addressed and understood as sinful, not just homosexual sex. Cohabitation, for example (“fornication” to St. Paul), is a terrible problem in society, and to the souls of those so engaged. Priests should cry out against it too.
Thank you, Bob One, and people tend to conveniently forget that the paragraph in the CCC is mostly about how people are supposed to treat gay people, and therefore the sins those paragraphs talk about most are the sins straight people sometimes commit against gay people, and then goes on to offer gay people a spiritual tool to deal with the homophobia they encounter – through uniting their suffering to the Cross. “2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These…
Those who have the tendency to commit adultery are similarly faced with the trial of having to remain chaste. Are we then to tone down the admonition against adultery so as to not upset those who identify with being part of the Adultery/Fornication/Masturbation community?
Thank you again, YFC and Bob One, for illuminating the farce in action.
How about we discuss the rabid persecution complex created by Thou Shalt Not Steal? The klepto/embezzlers/burglar brigade of the Greater Western Hemisphere is so put off by the harsh, exclusionary language of the Catholic Catechism. Our hearts must bleed for these brothers who are not men and women with a will but rather Gays, Kleptos, Nymphomaniacs, Serial Killers, etc who have zero self…
… control and no hope of even trying to engage grace because, well, it just doesn’t change WHO they are.
The unreachable ideal will be derided as just that and moving forward, the notion of GRACE will be morphed into nothing more than a pass to sin because everyone knows, silly, that relying on God’s grace to reject the sin is just some fantasy created by mean white guys.
YFC,
I can be civil to homosexuals, but do not attempt to insult my intelligence by telling me that homosexuality is in any way normal. That is what moves most normal people to anger and retaliation against homosexuals. Plus, the Liberal loonies who have facilitated and advocated the outrageous rules, regulations and sanctions passed by Godless secular authorities have brought many Christians to the brink of rebellion. And now even Holy Church and the Pope himself seem to be in league with the destroyers.
YFC, there are three paragraphs in the CCC about homosexuality. They occur in a section concerning offenses against chastity. Your jesuitical attempt to obfuscate by claiming that the CCC is mostly about how people are supposed to treat homosexuals is rubbish.
#2357 states that tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and under no circumstances can they be approved.
#2358 states that the homosexual condition is objectively disordered and proceeds with what you explained.
#2359 states that homosexuals are called to chastity.
Homophobia is a made-up pathology, a term invented by LGBTs as a tactic to make it seem that non-acceptance of homosexuality was the problem rather than homosexuality…
Don’t thank Bob One! He is helping you to use a great big summer slip and slide, right into hell. It was homosexual activists within the Church who spread the lie that homosexuals were mistreated or not welcomed or marginalized. These words then became a very popular tool for the devil, similar to using agenda buzzwords like homophobic. As a cradle Catholic from a very large family, not a one of us has ever witnessed a Catholic priest treating any homosexual person with the lying buzzwords that are being used. We have personally witnessed incredible kindness and compassion when reaching out to all sinners. SIN is the equal opportunity destroyer that marginalizes all souls.
Excellent post! Buzz words are all the rage these days, aren’t they, in the attempt to shut down all tradition in religious and civic society. The devil is so subtle and sly that many don’t see these words as lies. Thanks for pointing out the often overlooked obvious!
What is Truth? Pilate’s, lack of courage, helped facilitate the crucifixion of Jesus.
It is true that all sin wounds and affects the Body of Christ but once again, Bob One, dangerously/cleverly omits the evil reality of the findings of the original Jon Jay report. Heterosexual couples who cohabitate, have sex outside of marriage, or use contraceptives ARE also offending God. Our bishops were not given apostolic authority so they could fall into the trap of becoming modern day Pontius Pilates, who cowardly abandon their primary vows and duties, by the removal of many of the hard to hear TRUTHS. Such betrayals place a crippling chokehold on what is taught from the pulpit, in Catholic elementary, high schools and universities…
There is absolutely nothing clever about Bob One’s assertions or the support provided by the hollow hails of YFC for both lack creativity and are nothing more than a repeat of history.
We only learn what we are taught and gentlemen such as these prefer a dictionary that is blank so the students of today and tomorrow can fill in whatever suits their fancy of the moment.
Making changes to the Catechism shortly after the first edition and coming out with a second edition was a slippery slope. How can something be a “sure norm” when it needs to be changed only a few years after publication? It can’t.
Faithful Catholics should obtain a copy of the first edition of the Catechism, which can often be found at used bookstores.
Many years ago when i could not find a priest to say the Truth about homosexuality, I was so discouraged and finally went and bought a Catechism and read what it said about the matter under blankets with a flashlight because i was afraid even the Catechism would say untruths. When i read the Truth, it finally gave me hope for my daughter. Eventually i found a priest and then a few more who could say the Truth. We are all disordered in one way or another. God please help the bishop and others who cannot seem to say the Truth and the whole Truth of The Church.
If same-sex attraction is not a disorder, then what is it, Bishop McElroy?
In what parishes in N. America are persons with same-sex attraction ‘excluded from the life of the Church’ (note the capital “C” – missing in this article). If they are committing forbidden sexual acts, they are not to present for communion. The heterosexual who is fornicating, committing adultery, etc. is not to present for communion either. But one can participate fully in the rest of Church life. The confessional is there for all sinners. Give me a break, Bishop!!
I apologize for my previous intemperate comment about Bishop McElroy. I had no right to write it, as I have never met the bishop and only know what little I have read in the press. I have no right to suggest that he or any of his predecessors are not or were not decent men. That said, I must strongly disagree with his position with regard to the language in the CCC.
Does anyone know what these popes and bishops have to say about the Biblical passages that condemn sodomy, sodomite “marriage” and the sodomite indoctrination of innocent young children?
And how about an apology to Catholics who are holding firm to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?
First of all – sodomy is a poor word to use to describe people, especially lesbians. It is too narrow to define homosexual people, and it is widely recognized as an epithet. Secondly, there is ZERO reference to marriage among homosexuals in any Bibilical passages, and there is certainly nothing in the Scriptures about “indoctrination of innocent young children”…which doesn’t even happen in real life.
Your post is exactly what BIshop McElroy and the Pope believe need to change among Catholics.
The sad reality that “sodomy” has now been relegated to an epithet is the precise reason why the word needs to be used in its proper context. Softening language gives the appearance of softening and/or changing doctrine.
Since doctrine cannot change, your post is demonstrative of why solidly formed Catholics are increasingly alerted to the shenanigans of Bishop McElroy and the Holy Father.
Especially when we are admonished in scripture to let our yes mean yes and our no mean no.
As to marriage, the bible is clear and does not mention sodomidical unions as having any part therein. And “indoctrination of innocent young children”…absolutely happens in real life. Your admission that sodomy is now considered an epithet is proof…
…Thank you again.
That is why speaking in clear terms instead of using fantasy language to appease fantasies is critical.
Ann Malley – the use of any particular word, whether “sodomy” or “disorder” does not indicate whether or not a doctrine has been changed. The meanings of words change over time and context, and so if a word which has changed with time or context, then the words used to express a teaching must change too. That is McElroy’s entire point. What the common person understands “disorder” to mean is not what is meant when the Church uses the word. Better to use a word that more accurately connotes the teaching than one that actually CONFUSES the teaching. SInce you are always so worried about being confused, you ought to agree with me on this one.
YFC, the meaning of the words change over time often because society views actions differently. In the case of sodomy, it is increasingly being proffered as no big deal. Much like adultery or divorce.
So, when teaching the Catholic Faith which does not change, better to use the words that more accurately connote SIN and do not CONFUSE the effort of cajoling the masses into believing, as you demonstrate regularly, the overthrow of immutable truth with some new theology.
Since you are always so worried about offending against the truth, you should be concerned with the Faith being maintained in its integrity, not changing with the times as words too often do.
Oh “YFC”, you must be corrected yet again. There is no mention of homosexual marriage in the Bible because it was unthinkable! However, plenty about sodomy and how its practice leads souls to damnation. Yes indoctrination is happening “in real life” with all the discussions and workshops concerning transgenders, sexual orientations, same sex so-called marriages, etc in schools. Lastly, refer to Matthew 18:6 or Luke 17:2 about causing children to stumble, serious consequences! Open your eyes!
Kristin, I appreciate the fraternal correction, but I assure my eyes are plenty wide open. The “indoctrination” comment was particularly egregious in Brother Gabe’s post. It might be that you are not familiar with the usage of that term and the underlying accusation, so I take it as a simple matter of perhaps not being old enough when that kind of arrow was hurled at gay people all the time. The context you give about discussions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity is NOT what people used to mean by “indoctrination”, so you can be given a pass on that one. Out of kindness, I’ll let the rest of your comment pass too even though you’ll find very little support for what you say in Scriptures themselves.
“YFC”, though you dislike the use of the term “sodomite”, you will find it is as old as the Bible and not a modern word coined to insult those who engage in homosexual practices. It is a merely term to describe a category of sinners. Now, as for indoctrination, there is an ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of youngsters. Homosexual activists are very involved in this war, and yes, they also fight for the bodies of young people. Scripturally speaking, there is a very heavy price for misleading children. Refer to the passages I referenced for your much needed clarification.
In truth, YFC, many are plenty old enough to recognize the time honored method of evolving definitions being used now within the Church. Especially since the removal of the Oath Against Modernism by Paul VI.
What Kristin has to say is demonstrably scriptural and what you propose is, as usual, nothing more than a willful push to justify that which is not justifiable.
You giving anyone a pass is based solely on your incapacity to defend a reprehensible position that would INDOCTRINATE children into believing that aberrant behavior is a-okay.
It would seem you are operating under a different understanding of the word kindness as well. But then, as always, you demonstrate the sophistry of those who wish to overthrow reality with the…
… absurd.
Thank you!
Kristin, here is what the Bible itself says was the sin of sodomy.
Douay-Rheims Bible:
Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor.
Gabe, the Jewish Law in Christ’s day, forbade homosexual sex acts. The Jewish Law only recognized marriage between a man and a woman. The Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the Old Testament, relates the evils of what happened, as a result of breaking God’s laws– particularly, of committing sinful acts of gay sex perversions. The Orthodox Jews of today, still follow the traditional Jewish Laws, of their ancestors.
A good religious leader catechizes his people correctly! He teaches everyone to love their neighbor as oneself, not to judge, and to practice Christian virtue, and regularly go to Confession, to cleanse of sin! Our Lady of Fatima warned that sexual sins are particularly horrific! Our religious leaders need to promote devotion to Our Lady and her Rosary, teach and preach chastity and cultivation of purity of heart, and promote the group “Courage,” to help those struggling with “LGBT” issues!
San Diego Bishop McElroy wants Catechism language on gays changed
“Intrinsically disordered” words are destructive
The San Diego bishop wants a truth eliminated from the Catechism. What he wants is evil.
God help the Church with appointments like Cupich and McElroy and a Pope like Francis. My only consolation is the promise of Jesus that men cannot destroy the Church. We have only to remember some of the Popes who appointed their illegitimate sons to important posts.
Perhaps Archbishop Cordeleone would like to move back home. He is from San Diego. In most other states, San Diego would be an Archdiocese based on Catholic population.
How does the CCC treat homosexuality in other languages? Do French, German, Spanish, etc. versions of the catechism do it more pastorally than English?
Is the bishop offering a draft version of the changes he would like to see?
Good questions caroline!
“My own view,” the bishop said, “is that much of the destructive attitude of many Catholics to the gay and lesbian community is motivated by a failure to comprehend the totality of the church’s teaching on homosexuality.” What an insulting statement that is. So, we’ll re-evaluate the language; make it more PC! “It has to be language that is inclusive, embracing, it has to be pastoral.” In other words, Church of Nice, not of truth.
To be cont’d
Perhaps our “failure” lies in the fact that homosexuality is never spoken about from the pulpit. That would require moral courage…. Rather just go along to get along. As Ann Malley said: he wants to be loved and have a cushy ride. Conversely I would add, much of the destructive attitude of many homosexuals and lesbians towards Catholics/ Christians (bakers, florists, photographers, B&B owners etc ) is motivated by a failure to comprehend the totality of the Church’s teaching which is a monumental failure of the bishops and priests.
To be cont’d
In the past, he argues, diocesan and parish leaders have struggled with two tendencies regarding L.G.B.T. people: “whether you had to sacrifice fidelity to the teaching of the church or sacrifice effective outreach to the L.G.B.T. community.” Bishop McElroy: in sacrificing fidelity to the Church’s teachings you also sacrifice effective outreach. An educated man like you should know that. And finally, everyone’s welcome in the Church Bishop McElroy – BUT under Christ’s terms, NOT their own. The cafeteria is closed.
Did the Bishop ever call for an apology to the Boys who were Raped by Homosex Ephebophiles infiltrating the Church for that purpose?
If anyone has the link I would appreciate seeing what he said about that Scandal and the Coverup?
Let us not forget that all the chaos and madness started with Catholics accepting the mandates of that abominable Vatican II
“Let us not forget that all the chaos and madness started with Catholics accepting the mandates of that abominable Vatican II”
Yep! You are correct. Sex without marriage, Cohabitation etc. ARE sinful, no doubt. Normal heterosexual relations must be practiced in context ie: Male/Female. Homosexual sex is a CRIME AGAINST NATURE! It is not normal. That is why it has been proscribed since antiquity and hated by Almighty God and condemned by Holy Church. This attempt to water down this ancient teaching by certain elements in the Church does violence to both the spirit and the letter of the law against it.
Barbara, that is just silly.
There was evil in the Church long before Vatican II, and there will be in the future.
Vatican II is a legitimate Church Council; to call it “abominable” is not a stance that any Catholic who professes faith in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church may take in informed conscience.
The problem with VII has been in the implementation and interpretation of the council’s texts. Many things done “in the spirit of VII” have no authentic basis in the council. The problem lies with bishops, priests and catechists who do not interpret VII in continuity with Tradition.
I accept Vatican II entirely, and so should you if you are Catholic.
Sawyer, your admonishment is silly.
Vatican II was a legitimate council but contains demonstrable ambiguity and deviation from that which was handed down. There were problems before the council. That is true. But those problems formerly were denounced in a clear fashion, not allowed an entre to appease modernist factions as is the reality that many Catholics are wont to admit.
And whereas you state that the problems lie with bishops, priests, and catechists who do not interpret VII in continuity with Tradition, the very ambiguity of documents that are viably open to misinterpretation – that is by the very words used they can be easily misinterpreted to mean whatever a liberal minded bishop, priest, etc may choose to make of them -…
… being potentially cancerous warts.
So whereas some things can be said to be the product of an ambiguous Spirit of VII, other things are a direct result of double-speak within the texts of VII. Much like what many may attribute to “demonic possession” is attributable to mental illness and the need for prudent psychiatric treatment. But, as believing Catholics know, the existence of psychiatry and it’s proper usage and understanding does not dismiss the reality that demonic possession is a reality.
So while you’re accepting that entirety of VII, own the reality of what the words actually can mean if not clarified.
Ann Malley, I’ll own the reality of what the words of VII actually mean if not clarified if you’ll do the same for Scripture.
The Devil quotes Scripture to suit his purpose and can do so because Scripture is sometimes ambiguous. Scripture is routinely misinterpreted and misused by enemies of the Church in a similar way that VII documents are.
So if you and Barbara believe that VII was abominable because of ambiguous texts, perhaps you would also like to publicly declare Scripture abominable and consider the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture to be a modernist agent.
That, Sawyer, is not owning the whole truth and reality of Vatican II documents, much like a parent would accept a child while denying that the child has a handicap.
The Devil does quote scripture to suit his purposes. But doctrine is to be clear teaching that explains that which would otherwise be misconstrued. That is the purpose of doctrine, Sawyer.
Doctrine is the tool to lend precision and clarity to that which is outlined in scripture. And that ambiguous nature of VII – a declared pastoral council – that introduced various modes of interpretive wiggle room is problem.
So if you want to be completely honest and owning the reality of what you embrace, you should stop trying to misinterpret Barbara’s comments and look to the…
Ann Malley, do you accept VII as a legitimate ecumenical council? That is to say, do you accept it as an authentic exercise of the Catholic Church’s magisterium?
Hint: you are bound by Catholic faith to accept the council.
All of its documents are legitimate.
You are right that it was a pastoral council, not primarily doctrinal. Perhaps the Church will learn from that first experiment and do a better job the next time it has a pastoral council. The Church learns.
Nevertheless, the documents are valid. How they are interpreted and implemented is the question.
Hint, Sawyer, you are to accept the council that was a pastoral council that sought to define no new doctrine. So, in truth, cleaving to the doctrine that was firmly fixed prior to said council would render one in perfect “doctrinal” adherence to what is required by the Catholic Church.
As for learning, perhaps you will learn that the mandating of kaleidoscope glasses to view what is perfectly clear without them – but is not with the glasses that are merely a pastoral suggestion – is not binding for any Catholic.
By your confused lack of learning you promote the delusion that one must accept AL. This is patently false in the sense that one must accept that AL was written, but one must also REJECT that which is in AL that deviates…
…from clear doctrine. For accepting AL means accepting the reality that not all of it is binding. Just like Vatican II documents.
Hello! The Pope is circumventing the law by mandating those like +Cupich or +Schonborn or +Kasper carry the heretical water for him. (That’s +Kasper who openly commented on the delightful compromise formulas within VII which he was making use of to tend his flock. Time to wake up and go to school, Sawyer. Like UVA where the professor allowing for sabotage is part of the lesson plan.)
Hint: WAKE UP. People do not learn when they are doubling down on unbinding policy as if doing so is a proof of faith. Get off the Elton John glasses and look at doctrine for what it is. The “Truth” will set you free…
….abominable fruits of pastoral language that is even know wreaking havoc within the Church. Much like off-the-cuff statements of Francis – words of the Holy Father – are sowing confusion and abrading the integrity of the gospel message.
As for your false comparison regarding modernist agents and scripture, you may want to look at the problematic nature of making that which was formerly clear – ambiguous. For that is what VII did. Modernist agents are all about, Sawyer, so using an official vehicle, like a Church council, to usher in that which can be misinterpreted is tantamount to giving confusing interviews to known atheists.
Considering the Oath Against Modernism was rescinded by Paul VI, it would kind of indicate that…
“modernists” within the Church were therefore free to interpret at will – not in accordance with Tradition.
Again, own the whole baby, not just those parts that make you feel like everything is someone else’s fault. Otherwise your declaration to Barbara that her views are “silly” are demonstrably faulty.
more general garbage ambiguous accusations against the Ecumenical Council known as Vatican II, and the magisterium that promulgated it.
Wow: YFC and I agree for once.
Yes, Sawyer, you and YFC agree. Perhaps you should understand why that is. Or do you hold that we shouldn’t evangelize the gospels to our Jewish brothers/sisters? This is the fruit of VII.
Do you hold that we should not share the gospel?
Do you agree that Muslims do indeed worship the same God when they follow the tenets of Islam? Or do you think that Muslims seek to worship the same God but are misled by the tenets of Islam to worship something false.
Wow is right. What was clear is now ambiguous. And, yes, you do agree with YFC. And there’s a root as to why. It is the wholesale acceptance of making unclear or ambiguous what was previously clearly defined.
…you may not be aware of the Dogma, “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” And yet you seem completely willing to accept an ambiguous statements that would lead countless souls into – what? – invincible ignorance?
How else to explain the fruits of “Jesuitical” obfuscating that would leave an official council that sought to define no new doctrine that would instead indicate that we should let sleeping dogs lie and not evangelize as is mandated in the gospel? As was mandated prior to V2?
You say – the Church can learn – and yet the double down of obfuscation in AL is a clear sign that the lesson is to keep making things cloudy. And yet you have the temerity to school YFC for his Jesuitical obfuscation about homosexual acts?…
… Really? How can you dare, Sawyer? You do so on shaky ground, choosing to let one obfuscation go as a sign of “obedience” to the magisterium while attempting to castigate YFC who loves and embraces pastoral ambiguity.
Maybe you should go back and ask the tough questions, Sawyer, judging the fruits instead of aiding and abetting what you now are fighting.
Do a google check on, “Cardinal Kasper Admits the Documents of Vatican II are Intentional Ambiguity…” That might give you a WOW.
Ann Malley, you are shrill. Don’t get all in a bunch because you think that since I take on YFC so skillfully and correctly that I have to agree with you about everything.
I am more familiar with “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” than you realize, and I affirm it.
If you don’t accept the validity and authority of VII you do not have Catholic faith. You need to hear that.
I don’t recall a clear answer from you: do you or do you not accept the validity and authority of VII? If you don’t, you don’t have Catholic faith. If you do, all your concerns about the bad fruit and interpretations of the documents can be addressed and worked out satisfactorily, in accord with Tradition.
You may want to view the following, Sawyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFJEUcJ3TOA
Again, the convenient excuse that there was merely an implementation problem is just an excuse. Time to root-cause so you can put that zeal to full use instead of hobbling yourself by wondering where in the world AL and all the modernist nonsense encrusting Mother Church has come from.
Bob One would have tried to silence St. Alphonsus De Liguori, too.
THE HOMOSEXUAL NETWORK’S DEATH—GRIP ON THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
https://www.rcf.org/pdfs/AMDGSpringSummer2000.pdf
“Priests who see insults offered to God and remain silent are called by Isaias “mute dogs.” But to these mute dogs shall be imputed all the sins that they could have–but have not– prevented…. Hence, St. Leo adds: The priest who does not withdraw another from error proves that he is himself involved in it.”
St. Alphonsus De Liguori
Anon, I’m not sure why you made the comment above. I never said or implied that homosexuality was ok, or not a sin, etc. I simply commented on the Bishop’s inclusion of other sins in his comments. What is you point?
“He and the Archbishop of Washington D.C. are now the kingmakers for the United States. This will be fun to watch!”
You, have foolishly just proved that point, by your own statement.
Anon, — Thank you for this link…..still reading. So much here. Like this example:
When a person cannot deal with the truth, they cannot deal with reality and that is a pretty good working definition of insanity.
Viva Cristo Rey! (Hope I spelled this right.)
CONTINUED, ANON, and a WARNING to ALL HERE on the ANON LINK above. The linked material, specifically details of priestly gay & other unholy behavior, are too graphic & too explicit. They TAKE AWAY from any of the helpful information provided. Who needs explicit details about that unholy activity? ANON, before sharing this ever again with anyone ditch the parts with horrid explicit details. Bad Anon. No thanks!
On a happier note; Looking for a good Catholic resource? A excellent site for all things truly Catholic is: https://www.magiscenter.com Just watched ‘Fr. Robert Spitzer’s Universe’ on EWTN. It is on every Wednesday @ 11am PT. You may remember Fr. Spitzer from Gonzoga University where he used to be president. He has been afflicted with blindness but boy that has not stopped him in any way. He is determined to bring souls to God. He explains the miracle of God’s universe in easy to understand terms. He has books re: the secret of happiness. You will not regret visiting this site or watching him on EWTN. He is an inspiration and a very good priest. Praise God for all his work. Let’s all pray for a miracle healing for Fr. Spitzer, should it…
You have your ways, i have mine.
A Catholic prelate speaking the truth. Article dated July 6th, 2016: Archbishop Charles J. Chaput issued a new set of pastoral guidelines on Friday in which he says that Catholics who are divorced and remarried, cohabitating and unmarried, or in a same-sex partnership must “refrain from sexual intimacy” to participate in Holy Communion. @ http://www.pennlive.com/news/ by Lizzy Hardison God bless him for being such a good shepherd & so concerned (to issue a pastoral guideline) and for clarity.
Continued…….correction to above. This link is no longer accurate. Sorry for the inconvenience. However, Cal-catholic has the fuller article dated July 7th, as you may know, titled: ‘ArchBishop Chaput mediates Francis.
Pray for Bishop McElroy!
He has a real big heart and a great brain that God has given him.
I know that personally!!!
BTW, for those of you who get upset with the appointment of Bishops, the Archbishop of Chicago was appointed to the Congregation of Bishops this morning. He and the Archbishop of Washington D.C. are now the kingmakers for the United States. This will be fun to watch!
B1, Fun? If you are a liberal progressive or mostly a CINO. My prediction = bumpy ride for the ‘traditional’ church. This appointment of Pope Francis is another replacement continuing to place church conservatives on the shelf & replacing them, in key posts, with the likes of those more like his way of liberal, socialist thinking. Article: Thu Jul 7, 2016, ‘ It’s not the first time Pope Francis has distanced himself from ‘conservative’ bishops’ Found @ http://www.lifesitenews.com Pope Francis is doing to the church what the POTUS has done in the US. I watch and WEEP and pray that God deliver the church from destroyers within.
Continued…..I don’t wish to think this way but facts keep pointing in that direction. Sometimes you can read between the lines to peek into the future. Cardinal Burke was moved off his important committee & placed in a ‘wood shed’ type post by Francis. I won’t waste space & go into each change but if you are sensitive to this and perceptive about it you do get a sense that progressives are ‘in’ & conservatives are ‘out’ with this Pope. As the article explains. May God bless America and our Church.
B1, NOT FUN TO WATCH. My worst fears confirmed. Here is what the people @ catholic family news are saying about the appointment you mention of Cupich. Found @ http://www.cfn.org/page88/files/ “Pope Taps Pro-Homosexual Cupich for Key Bishop-Making Panel” CFN intro: Leftist Cupich is notoriously pro-homosexual. He is now positioned by Francis to recommend men of his ilk to become bishops in the United States. The Francis disaster continues full throttle & will further poison the Church in America & worldwide. Oremus – jv
May God help & deliver us in His mercy. We are going to need it.
Sorry folks…the link above is not working and takes you to the wrong location. The correct link for the Cupich article is:
https://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/db9b8d6e51f9a3f8d41702fc9d35df9c-610.html
Sorry for any inconvenience.
No, “Bob One” it will be tragic to watch. Already, apostate bishops — like these two — populate the Church. One must pray for the Pope, for he makes consistently poor choices in this regard. Who is advising Francis? Abp. Cupich is probably the worst person to listen to when checking out new bishops. We are waiting in Arlington, VA for the new bishop here, and look with trepidation towards Rome.
Fun to watch, Bob One? This will be a sad decline given steroids to speed up the trip. God help us, but we have asked for a trip to the woodshed by disregarding truth and constantly opting for compromise and appeasement.
Any priest in the United States who actually holds the Faith and fears Our Lord in the proper manner will have a target on his back. Thanks for the warning. Too bad we don’t have bomb shelters that can aid in decreasing casualties.
The Pope just chose Cardinal Cupich, as head of the Congregation for Bishops– you can just imagine our future bishops, archbishops, cardinals– and popes! They will all be just like McElroy, Cupich, and Bergoglio! I think I will sleep through all of this, and hope this era will pass out of history soon– and on to a better era! God help us!
Actually, I think Cupich will just be a MEMBER of the Congregation of Bishops– not the Cardinal-Prefect, or head!
Sorry– but Cupich is still only an Archbishop (unlike Cardinal George, who got his “red hat!”) I also wonder, if Bishop McElroy and Archbishop Cupich, as they are similar in thinking to the Pope– may be someday appointed by Pope Francis, to any involvement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?? And somehow, all together– twist the Catholic Faith, to their own designs– as much as they can get away with??? Oh, what a big mess!
I have to be patient with Pope Francis ever since his election to the See of Peter. I have prayed for him and I have been shocked and horrified by some of the things that he has said and some of the appointments that he has made. I was very sad and angry when he first appointed Cupich to be Archbishop of Chicago, especially after reading about Cupich’s past track record. I have been less than happy about the appointment of McElroy as Bishop of San Diego. I was very angry to hear Francis say we must apologize to the homosexuals. Now with the appointment of Cupich to be a member of the Cong. for Bishops I have to say it: I do not like Pope Francis. I respect the office he holds, but do not like the man.