I recently came across the blog Half Hermit by the Lake where a Catholic priest praised the re-election of President Obama, a few democrats in Maryland, and expressed his support for homosexual “marriage”. He also said that he was pleased that Maryland had upheld the law granting homosexuals the right to marry and called homosexual “marriage” a civil rights issue.
Here is what the Catholic half hermit wrote:
Does this picture look triumphant enough? This is a happy day for the U.S.A. and for yours truly. I can keep for four more years my Obama-Biden bumper sticker which has already weathered the last four years. Cardin continues in the Senate. I am glad that Bartlett will no longer be our non-representative in the House. I pray that his opponent Delaney and all those who were elected last night will work for what’s best for the people. I am also pleased that Marylanders voted to uphold our law allowing marriage between homosexuals. For many years my position was that, as long as we made sure that same sex couples had all the rights of married couples, that was sufficient. But about two years ago I began to see this as a civil rights issue. Everyone in Maryland, the Free State, now has an equal right to marry. What pleases me about the election outcomes is that I see them supporting the common good, as opposed to the extreme individualism that has become evident in the last two or three years. I find them very much in keeping with Catholic teaching on Social Justice.
Here is how I responded on his blog:
Why as a Catholic priest do you believe that homosexual “marriage” should be considered a civil right? I can understand if you believe that we should treat homosexuals with human dignity. We should treat all individuals with human dignity. I can understand if you believe that homosexuals should have the right to each others health insurance, visitation at hospitals, and other life decisions but I am wondering why you believe homosexual relations to be just as legitimate as heterosexual relations? What in scripture justifies your position?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this on homosexuality:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
As Catholics we are called to assent to Church teaching. We are called to believe and defend the teachings of the Catholic Church. Deacons, priests, and bishops are called to Shepherd the flock - the laity – and not side with what society deems as appropriate, fair, or moral when it conflicts with Church teaching.
Every Sunday Z has a Sunday Faith Post on her blog GeeeeeZ!. This Sunday she asked the question, do you believe in ghosts? Or Spirits?
There is at least one reason that I do believe in ghosts. The first is because I grew up near a haunted forest, the Pocomoke Forest in Md, and some eerily creepy experiences when visiting there. After thinking a bit I wondered what the Church has to say on ghosts. Secondly, after reading on what the Church teaches on ghosts or Spirits it totally makes sense that spirits exist.
“Ghost” is simply the German-derived equivalent of the Latin-derived word “Spirit.” That’s why the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to as the Holy Ghost. Originally in English “ghost” and “spirit” referred to the same thing. Indeed, in German the word for “spirit” is still “geist.” Rather than get hung up on semantics, we may wish to analyze claims about ghosts in terms of what we know about spirits.
First, spirits exist. This is a truth of the faith.
Second, spirits can sometimes manifest themselves to those in this life, as in the apparitions of the saints.
Third, there are even reports in Catholic history that spirits in purgatory have–by God’s will–occasionally manifested themselves to those on earth. In these cases, those on earth may see the spirits experiencing their purgation in some way.
Therefore, if these reports are true, God may at times allow spirits to manifest to those on earth in a way that might lead folks to describe them as “ghosts.”
On Catholic Answers someone asked, What’s the Catholic Theory Behind Such Phenomena as Ghosts? Peggy Frye gave an answer quoting Peter Kreeft in his book Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Heaven.
First, the Church forbids us to conjure up the dead (Catechism 2116-2117). Peter Kreeft in his book Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Heaven (pgs 34-35) says the reason for “this stricture is probably protection against the danger of deception by evil spirits. We are out of our depth, our knowledge, and our control once we open the doors to the supernatural. The only openings that are safe for us are the ones God has approved: revelation, prayer, His own miracles, sacraments, and primarily Christ Himself…The danger is not physical but spiritual, and spiritual danger always centers on deception.”
“Nevertheless, without our action or invitation, the dead often do appear to the living. There is enormous evidence of “ghosts” in all cultures. What are we to make of them?” He goes on to say “We can distinguish three kinds of ghosts, I believe. First, the most familiar kind: the sad ones, the wispy ones. They seem to be working out some unfinished earthly business, or suffering some purgatorial purification until released from their earthly business. These ghosts would seem to be the ones who just barely made it to Purgatory, who feel little or no joy yet and who need to learn many painful lessons about their past lives on earth.
Second, there are malicious and deceptive spirits—and since they are deceptive, they hardly ever appear malicious. These are probably the ones who respond to conjurings at seances. They probably come from Hell. Even the chance of that happening should be sufficient to terrify away all temptations to necromancy.”
“Third, there are bright, happy spirits of dead friends and family, especially spouses, who appear unbidden, at God’s will, not ours, with messages of hope and love. They seem to come from Heaven. Unlike the purgatorial ghosts who come back primarily for their own sakes, these bright spirits come back for the sake of us the living, to tell us all is well. They are aped by evil spirits who say the same, who speak ‘peace, peace, when there is no peace’. But the deception works only one way: the fake can deceive by appearing genuine, but the genuine never deceives by appearing fake. Heavenly spirits always convince us that they are genuinely good. Even the bright spirits appear ghost like to us because a ghost of any type is one whose substance does not belong in or come from this world. In Heaven these spirits are not ghosts but real, solid and substantial because they are at home there: One can’t be a ghost in one’s own country.”
“That there are all three kinds of ghosts is enormously likely. Even taking into account our penchant to deceive and be deceived, our credulity and fakery, there remain so many trustworthy accounts of all three types of ghosts – trustworthy by every ordinary empirical and psychological standard – that only a dogmatic prejudice against them could prevent us from believing they exist. As Chesterton says, ‘We believe an old apple woman when she says she ate an apple; but when she says she saw a ghost, we say ‘But she’s only an old apple woman.’ A most undemocratic and unscientific prejudice.”
The blog Imprimatur! quotes from Exorcism and the Church Militant by Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer:
“Most pagan societies believe in the separation of the soul from the body and an afterlife. This includes the idea that souls may “linger” after death due to “unfinished business” such as unbroken attachments to the earth, to unreconciled relationships or to the affairs of men that supposedly last beyond the grave. In this view, the souls can be benign or malicious; often pagan traditions of ancestor worship or appeasement of the dead are the result of these beliefs.
“The Roman Catholic belief is categorically different from these pagan beliefs, however. The theological tradition concerning souls in purgatory is based on the belief that bodily death constitutes a definitive entrance into an afterlife which is either a temporal purification followed by heaven, or an eternal damnation. Thus, for Catholics there is no such thing as a “lingering” or “wandering” soul who has “not cut the bonds of this earthly life.” For Catholics, there is another way to explain these things than the standard pagan reasoning.
“A strong theological tradition recognizes that deceased human souls can and do visit the living after death for various reasons and in various modes. It is clear that this is only done “according to the disposition of Divine providence” and not as a common occurrence. St. Thomas Aquinas says that “separated souls sometimes come forth from their abode and appear to men…”, and this can be both for “intimidation” (i.e., damned souls) or for “instruction” (i.e., redeemed souls). He also claims that souls may appear to others “in order to seek our suffrages” (i.e., souls in purgatory). Such apparitions can also be due to a special intervention into the human sphere by a demon creating a deception or an angel appearing in human form to communicate a message.
“Some people call these various apparitions “ghosts.” In light of the tradition above, these can be either disembodied human souls or evil spirits. In Catholic thought, however, if such appearances happen, they are always limited and marked by truth, simplicity and utter clarity to distinguish a holy apparition from a demonic one, which is always marked by confusion, discord, chaos, fear and anxiety. Thus, there is no strictly theological basis for believing that there are souls “wandering” around in the world communicating with loved ones, or “haunting” places, but Catholics do believe that the deceased can appear after death in a strictly limited fashion and only with God’s permission for some greater reason.
“What has been absolutely forbidden by the Church from the beginning is the attempt to conjure deceased souls from the grave or to communicate with the dead, a dark art known as necromancy. This prohibition is from Scripture. In the Christian tradition, we honor the dead and pray for them- we even consider ourselves in communion with them- but we do not conjure them up or attempt to dialogue with them. All such practices open us up to demonic deception and infestation.”
Much attention was given at the Democratic National Convention held recently in Charlotte, N.C., to the fact that all references to God had been purged from the draft version of the party platform. After outcries of protest from outside as well as within the Democratic Party, the sentence with the same reference to God used in 2008 was restored to read, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”
Before anyone relaxes and concludes that all is well now that the Democratic Party Platform contains a single passing reference to God, the way that this was done should give us pause. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for the voice vote three times because each time the sound level for the “ayes” and the “nays” sounded about even, far short of the two-thirds necessary according to convention rules to amend the platform. That did not stop the convention chairman from declaring, “The ayes have it!”
What is troubling about that is the blatant disregard for the rules and for the apparent wishes of about half the delegates. The reference to God is back in the platform apparently because President Obama wanted it back in. That may be fine for now, but if a future president wants references to God taken out, apparently that can be done regardless of the wishes of the delegates if that is what The Leader wants. That does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.
Even more troubling is that this whole discussion about God in the platform is a distraction from more disturbing matters that have been included in the platform. In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That was the party’s official position until 2008. Apparently “rare” is so last century that it had to be dropped, because now the Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be “safe and legal.” Moreover the Democratic Party Platform supports the right to abortion “regardless of the ability to pay.” Well, there are only three ways for that to happen: either taxpayers will be required to fund abortion, or insurance companies will be required to pay for them (as they are now required to pay for contraception), or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.
Moreover, the Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that “gay rights are human rights,” and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.
Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding “political” and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party’s official “unequivocal” support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.
So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts “should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases.” But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267), “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.
Certainly there are “pro-choice” Republicans who support abortion rights and “Log Cabin Republicans” who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.
Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.
I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.
As American citizens we consider the United States to be our home. Instead of the USCCB calling for the enforcement of our current immigration laws and being for the nation to have a right (moral duty?) to close its borders in order to protect its sovereignty the bishops are swerving to the Left and advocating that immigrants violate the laws of the land so these immigrants are able to better themselves economically.
Should we open the floodgates and allow Cubans, Christians being persecuted in Africa and the Middle East, and those being coerced to comply with China’s One-Child Policy to enter the United States without using the proper due process for immigrating to the U.S.? What gives those persons crossing the border a right to break our laws while others in faraway lands don’t have that right?
The two reasons immigrants from Central America Mexico have been able to cross the border illegally is 1) because of their proximity in location to the United States and 2) our politicians/government refuses to do what is necessary to enforce current laws on the books and secure our borders. Those immigrants who have chosen to risk their lives in order to invade America so that they may be able to improve their life conditions are ignoring the laws of the United States and taking advantage of a huge gap in our enforcement of border laws. The problem is that the USCCB ignores putting the onus of the responsibility on the individuals/families who have defied a sovereign nation’s laws as well as the burden of responsibility on their countries of origin.
The bishops seemed to have forgotten our economic woes – 8.3% unemployment – and many more who are either underemployed, have stopped looking, or those who are still looking for work but are considered out of the workforce because of the extended length of time that they have been searching for employment.
The problem with the USCCB advocating for lawlessness for immigrant law-breakers is that the bishops are disenfranchising law-abiding citizens in the U.S.
From Economic Instability and the Migrant Family: Given the economic inequalities that separate the developed from the developing worlds and the important role that these differences play in migration patterns, the Catholic bishops have repeatedly stressed that an open-door immigration policy is not a solution to the problem of illegal immigration. Repeatedly?!? When? Where? I have rarely, if ever, heard them denounce the open-door policy.
International economic development is a crucial component in the management of migration patterns, illegal or otherwise. The bishops of the United States, in their pastoral letter Strangers No Longer, called on the United States to work in solidarity with the international community to help raise the standard of living, uphold human rights, and implement complementary political institutions in the underdeveloped world so that people can have the chance to prosper in their homelands, rather than having to migrate to find opportunities elsewhere. When has the USCCB advocated for this, recently? All I ever hear is about is that it is the moral duty of the United States to accept these illegal immigrants with open-arms no questions asked. I am all for helping those who are less fortunate but individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions. Shouldn’t immigrants bear some responsibility for their actions? Okay maybe once I’ve heard the USCCB talk about the responsibility of the immigrants homelands. This is something that needs to be said more often, and yes, publicly.
The lack of economic opportunities confronting large segments of Latin America and the Caribbean places significant strain on families, often presenting them with a troubling choice. Some choose to stay together and remain in their home country, even amidst difficult conditions in which economic stresses wear on familial attachments and communal stability. Others choose to leave their family and head northward, with the hope of making it to the United States, finding worthwhile employment, and sending money home. The lure of a better life in the United States and in other developed countries promises opportunities, but it also carries its own dangers. The bishops complain about family members being separated from one another but then justify that separation when immigrants go to a different nation looking for economic opportunities. Don’t they realize that choices have consequences? That these immigrants make the choice to be separated from their families? In addition, that there are consequences for entering a country illegally?
If economic instability is a justification for breaking the law is it okay for Americans who are struggling with economic instability to break the law to better their life situations? If not, why is it justified for the immigrant and not the citizen?
When a country is saddled with immigration policies {Lack of border security} that have resulted in 12 million people living under the radar {The USCCB fails to recognize the main reason for this is people chose to enter the country illegally}, it’s reasonable to say, “Everyone recognizes the system is broken; let’s move forward and replace this broken system with something that works so that everyone can benefit.” Hence the bishops’ calls for comprehensive immigration reform. {The problem with advocating for comprehensive immigration reform is the last time this happened and a deal was made under Reagan to secure the border while at the same time granting amnesty to immigrants the Democrats broke the agreement and this is the reason why we have more illegal immigrants in the country today} Conversely, the approach of digging in further with the same enforcement-only approach that has been used for the last two decades is an example of repeating the same practice and expecting different results. It’s also reasonable to recognize that one simply cannot deport 12 million people, with the costs, economic disruptions and logistical difficulties making it beyond impractical. {I agree with the bishops on this. But I do believe some penalty should be applied to the immigrants who used the back door to enter America instead of the front door}
It’s reasonable to question practices like raiding workplaces, separating families and holding people in prolonged detention as a proportionate response to non-violent offenders whose only offenses were motivated by need and, to be blunt about it, family values. It’s reasonable to recognize that a tension can exist between two important values–in this case, the right of a country to secure and guard its borders and the right of people to emigrate to seek a livelihood for themselves and their families–and realize that a creative accommodation can alleviate that tension, whether that means increasing the number of visas given annually to meet demand or removing roadblocks to naturalization for young people who had no choice in coming. { I agree that the number of visas issued to immigrants needs to be increased. I am not sure whether the children of those who immigrated here illegally should become naturalized citizens automatically but I do think that they should be granted some type of legal status as long as they don’t have a criminal record}
Despite all of these enforcement‐driven efforts,{which are outlined here} the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States today hovers around 11.2 million. And, the number of unauthorized entering the country on an annual basis ranges between 300,000 and 500,000 men, women, and children.
Because of this, certain state and local governments, upset with the federal government’s perceived inability to meaningfully curtail the inflow of unauthorized immigrants to the United States despite exponentially increasing budgetary resources and policy mandates to do so, have decided to take matters into their own hands. Select states have passed restrictive immigration enforcement laws of their own in an effort to reign in unlawful immigration in the United States. By using a phrase like “take matters into their own hands”, the bishops give me the distinct impression that they disagree in principle with states supplementing the federal government in the enforcement of the nation’s laws regarding immigration. I don’t understand the USCCB’s problem with states taking actions to supplement federal laws with their own (states do this already with drug enforcement). In the matter of regulating border access and immigration, since the federal government has shown that they have no intention of enforcing its own laws, this seems entirely within the rights of the states wishing to do it. Doesn’t this conform to the Catholic teaching of subsidiarity? If a state government can enforce immigration laws better than the federal government what is so wrong with this? Finally, is this situation of federal inaction really something that the bishops want to complain about under the label of an “Enforcement only” approach? It looks, despite their rhetoric, like the problem they have with “enforcement only” is really their problem with the enforcement part of it, not with it being “only” enforcement. They seem to have a problem with enforcement per se, in spite of their nominal perfunctory statement of support for border enforcement (weak and unconvincing as it was).
While the majority of people crossing the border are doing so for economic means a former border agent named Zachary Taylor has stated that, “many of the people coming across the border are entering America illegally with the intention of doing real harm. They are coming with drugs, guns and inflicting violence, or are part of elaborate human smuggling networks with direct ties to the vast criminal cartels. The appeals to human compassion and “America is a nation of immigrants” meme ignores this very real and growing threat to the United States.”
Taylor made it clear that there is no level of violent depravity or government corruption outside the ability of the cartels. The Sinaloa, the Zetas, and others narco-insurgents are engaged in beheadings, mutilations, sexual assaults, as well as videotaped torture campaigns similar to what most people associate with Al Qaeda.
Then there is the issue of terrorism – terrorists coming across the border via Mexico.
Taylor said that Hezbollah is allying with the drug and alien smuggling operations at the border to help finance their operations in the Middle East.
Some may claim that the threat of terrorism is hyped or a remote possibility but for evidence to the contrary look to this video of “Muslim cleric Abdullah al-Nafisi talked about bringing 4 lbs of anthrax into the U.S., which he gleefully claimed would kill 330,000 people.”
Helping those who are less fortunate is a noble cause but we need to use prudence in how we aid those who need economic assistance. Having a porous border and allowing immigrants to violate our laws and cross our borders without us having the opportunity to know who they really are is a dangerous and irresponsible prospect for this country.
The bishops have emphasized the teaching of the Church about the obligations of wealthy nations toward those seeking to immigrate to them, but they seem to pass over certain other related aspects of the doctrine of the Church without giving them the emphasis that they are due. Here is the relevant passage of the Catechism:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
Fr. Andrew was invited to lead the opening prayer at the 2012 Colorado Republican State Assembly and Convention in the Magness Arena at the University of Denver. The moral challenges facing our country are not caused by political affiliation, but rather by attacks on religious freedom. He invites all people of conscience to uphold religious freedom.
“The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism.’” – Catechism of the Catholic Church 2425
Nothing new. They’re just following the progressive way in perverting terms such as social justice, open-minded, liberal, fair, truth, judge, discriminate, equal, tolerant, racist, fascist…(the list goes on and on). Isabella Moyer has written an article in defense of all Cafeteria Catholics which is purposefully quite inclusive, inclusive of all Catholics that is, so as to justify their rejection of certain moral truths and doctrine. As LarryD points out, Cafeteria Catholics seem to be unable to grasp the difference between “doctrinal and non-doctrinal issues.” Like accepting Church teaching, ya know? They throw all the issues into one pot and believe they have equal weight when they aren’t equal. Let’s take a look at what the Pope wrote in 2004:
Does it really surprise you that Progressive Catholics don’t agree with the Holy Father? Without further ado I will leave you to LarryD’s excellent rebuttal of the “Everyone is a cafeteria Catholic” meme.
I’ve noticed a trend bubbling around the Catholic blogosphere, particularly in the more progressive, Catholyc publications. I’ve seen it in several places – nuanced and a bit covert. Until now. It’s this notion that we’re all cafeteria Catholics to one degree or another.
I reject that premise, totally and without compromise.
Here’s the most recent example, culled from that paragon of progressive prattle, the National Catholic Distorter, in a piece written by Isabella Moyer, on June 6, titled Catholics Need to Rethink Their Strategy:
First of all, let’s admit that we are all “cafeteria Catholics” to some degree. The groaning buffet table that is our universal church is too much for any of us to take in at once or to fully understand and accept with the same level of commitment and passion. We must stop judging each other by what we can fully accept with an open heart and what we continue to struggle to understand or believe.
I’m going to take this apart sentence by sentence, because there’s quite a bit wrong with nearly every word here, quite possibly including the words “and” and “the”.
First of all, let’s admit that we are all “cafeteria Catholics” to some degree.
Sister Margaret A. Farley R.S.M’s book: “Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics,” stated that homosexual acts, masturbation, and divorce can be morally acceptable. Now the Vatican has corrected this wayward nun, reaffirming the sinfulness of homosexual acts, masturbation, and divorce. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asserts that her book contradicts Catholic doctrine. The Vatican had sent Sr. Farley notification of the doctrinal problems in her book but since she failed to clarify or fix the errors the CDF proceeded to publish the Notification in defense of the faith. The Pope gave his approval of Cardinal Levada’s corrections.
“The Vatican asserts that Sr. Farley’s book contains ‘erroneous propositions, the dissemination of which risks grave harm to the faithful’ and expresses deep regret that Sr. Farley ‘affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality.’”
Cardinal William Joseph Levada corrects Sr. Farley’s opinions:
In her book, Sr. Farley claims that homosexual relationships and activities “can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities.” “This opinion is not acceptable,” declares the Vatican Notification.
In its Notification, the Vatican clarifies that while people with homosexual tendencies must be respected, in no way can homosexual acts or unions be approved. Homosexual acts, the Vatican reiterates, are “acts of grave depravity.”
The Vatican distinguishes between “persons with homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts.” While persons with homosexual tendencies must be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity, and “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided,” nevertheless homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.”
The CDF also condemned Sr. Farley’s views on homosexual unions. Sr. Farley urges that U.S. legislation should support “social recognition and legal standing to unions between lesbians and gays,” making such unions equal to heterosexual unions. “This position,” states the Notification, “is opposed to the teaching of the Magisterium.”
On masturbation, Sr. Farley had written that it “usually does not raise any moral questions at all,” and maintains that it is not a moral issue, and can actually benefit relationships.
The Vatican refutes this, explaining: “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” Contrary to Farley’s assertions, the Vatican says masturbation is, “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”
Sr. Farley also maintains that divorce is sometimes acceptable, stating that marriages may be “subject to release” especially in situations “in which too much has changed” in the relationship.
“This opinion,” states the CDF Notification, “is in contradiction to Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.” The Vatican declares that not only is divorce illicit, but also in cases of marriage after divorce, “the new union cannot be recognized as valid.”
Kudos to the Vatican for correcting this wayward nun in such a public manner in defense of the faith.
*Note* – Some of the content below is specifically directed at Catholics as well as fallen away Catholics.
Kyle’s post, The Benefit of Panic, spurred my thoughts about postmodern thinkers in general. Not all of this is necessarily about him since I am unsure as to what his actual beliefs are now. The first paragraph contains my thoughts specifically on his post.
I can understand Kyle’s denunciation of the quotes that he posted by well-known Catholics which display misogyny. We all should do the same. I am not sure that I understand how he leaps from denouncing some arrogant men and their misogynist beliefs toward women, which is not a doctrinal matter, to seemingly giving sympathies and justification to redefining the meaning of marriage, even when that would mean the reversal of official Church doctrine as well as mean countering 2000 or so years of what we have known to be the definition of marriage – being between a man and women. The reversal of Church doctrine is an impossibility because the Catholic Church is infallible. I also to an extent sympathize with his advocating for some rights for the gay community. It is my belief that homosexuals should have the right to partake in their partner’s medical benefits as well as have the right to visit their partner in the hospital but am adamantly against same-sex marriage. Just because gay rights activists claim that not allowing homosexuals to marry is unfair or a matter of equality doesn’t make it true. Is it really fair to equate a homosexual couple with a heterosexual couple when the homosexual couple has no possibility of being open to procreating naturally and the heterosexual couple has the possibility to be open to procreating naturally? To me it is fallacious and unfair to equate the two sets of different couples as equal.
The postmodern culture today complicates life with their support of gay “marriage”, embryonic stem cell therapy, abortion, sexual promiscuity, replacing fathers with government checks and thrives on the denial of truth, spreading doubt. Is this doubt a sign of Jesus? Is this doubt one avenue being used by Satan to attack all that is good and true in life? The devil lays awake conjuring up ways to prey upon and take advantage of those who are weak of faith. If these temptations were nonexistent would you be questioning the validity of truth and faith?
Doubt has the possibility of festering inside us and morphing into disbelief. One must reflect on how one entered this doubting phase. Was it due to influences outside of the Church? Have the you given in to the secularist, postmodern world that revels in doubt and promotes it as if it were advertising it on a gigantic billboard? Do you have an ulterior motive behind questioning core defining principles of the Church? Is it because you seek truth outside the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church and see these Churches as equivalent to the Church Christ founded? If so, you are questioning the existential nature of the Church and thus questioning whether the Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
In John 20:24-29 the apostle Thomas needed to see the nail holes in our Risen Lord’s hands and feet in order to believe but Jesus said blessed are those who believe without seeing. Having faith means believing without seeing, without needing empirical evidence to prove the existence of God The Father, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit.
Today is the feast day of St. Athanasius. This reminded me of something I had previously posted on my blog, Tu Ne Cede, where I asked, does the Catholic Church need another Athanasius moment?
Cafeteria Catholics (Liberals!) dissent on basic Church teachings such as those on abortion, contraception, euthanasia, the all-male priesthood, and even the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Liberalism is so rampant in the Church today that it threatens to overwhelm its traditions, much as the Arian heresy threatened the Church in the 4th century. Does the Church need another Athanasius moment?
This is an excellent speech. I encourage everyone to take the time to listen to it. Grab a beverage, a snack, sit back and enjoy listening to Father Dan’s speech.
A virus is spreading throughout the world. It affects the comprehension and common sense portion of the brain and leaves its victims dumbed-down and easily herded by the propaganda masters and their political cult. Carrie’s Take strives to provide an antidote to the mind-control and hopefully will stir up memories of long ago when our society demanded truth & honesty in journalism and expected it to be the guardian of facts, rather than PR mouth pieces for self-serving politicians and their personal agendas. ~Carrie K. Hutchens
"Imam al-Khomeini spent the night with the girl in his arms, and we could hear her crying and screaming" -- Husayn al-Musawi witness account of Ayatollah Khomeini raping a small 4-year old
Knowledge of history is the precondition of political intelligence. Without history, a society shares no common memory of where it has been, what its core values are, or what decisions of the past account for present circumstances.
