On Resisting Pope Francis to his Face

[Draggingtree]

:
On Resisting Pope Francis to his Face

By ROD DREHER • October 25, 2014, 4:58 PM

 

Here’s a powerful column by Ross Douthat, in which he says Pope Francis is pushing the Catholic Church to a precipice. Here’s the gist of his piece:

 

But going beyond such a welcome to a kind of celebration of the virtues of nonmarital relationships generally, as the synod document seemed to do, might open a divide between formal teaching and real-world practice that’s too wide to be sustained. And on communion for the remarried, the stakes are not debatable at all. The Catholic Church was willing to lose the kingdom of England, and by extension the entire English-speaking world, over the principle that when a first marriage is valid a second is adulterous, a position rooted in the specific words of Jesus of Nazareth. To change on that issue, no matter how it was couched, would not be development; it would be contradiction and reversal.

 

Such a reversal would put the church on the brink of a precipice. Of course it would be welcomed by some progressive Catholics and hailed by the secular press. But it would leave many of the church’s bishops and theologians in an untenable position, and it would sow confusion among the church’s orthodox adherents — encouraging doubt and defections, apocalypticism and paranoia (remember there is another pope still living!) and eventually even a real schism.

[SrWoodchuck]

@Draggingtree

 

This is just my personal opinion:

 

He is not "resisting" to his face. He is presenting an argument from the perspective of traditionalist Catholics.

 

There is a synod....a gathering of church hierarchy....where church doctrine is being discussed.

 

There are many differences between Rome & American Catholics. American Roman Catholics have a respect & a definitive following of Roman Catholic doctrine as ordered by Rome....but many American Catholics play fast & loose with doctrine regarding birth control, marital conditions/lifestyles & living arrangements. The "gay" mafia has little power over truly American Roman Catholic belief.....and yet, Pope Francis is looking for a way to bring inclusion to many Catholics that feel disenfranchised by traditional belief.

 

The linked articles show that the synod members have pushed for some modifications to doctrine....but that most were not accepted. Synods in the past have lasted years....sometimes many years....and often, with no clear conclusion.

 

It's good that we have people like Ross Douthat...to keep tradition in focus & forefront.

 

It is a blessed thing to wish inclusion for those that feel "stranded."

 

I'm sure we wouldn't even recognize Church doctrine that existed 500, 1000 or 1,500 years ago.

 

Incremental change that improves the faith, but stays within doctrine is what we should want.....and ideas/suggestions that help us arrive at that point are neither good, nor bad.

[SrWoodchuck]

@Draggingtree

 

This post says things much better than I am able:

 

The Special Treatment Homosexuals Demand

By Selwyn Duke

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/the_special_treatment_homosexuals_demand_.html

 

There is one particular thing that illustrates better than anything else the unreasonableness — and some would say gall — of homosexuality activists. It’s not demanding that bakers, shirt printers and wedding planners be party to events and expression deeply contrary to their principles, as offensive as that is. What I speak of is something even more fundamental, something again brought to light by the recent Vatican synod on the family.

As many know, the synod made news with an unwisely released and widely misrepresented mid-term report containing language that the secular media interpreted as signaling Church capitulation on the matter of homosexuality (an excellent article on this by Paul Bois is found here http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/bois-dont-be-fooled-pope-francis-will-never-capitulate#comment-1646325882 ). And when it emerged that the language was the handiwork of just one or two individuals and was roundly rejected by the bishops, melancholia — and Machiavellianism — defined the media. “What a shame it is that the Church rejected the more welcoming tone,” we heard. “We thought tolerance and deference to the times were winning out, but then the voices of prejudice quashed progress.” They thought? Insofar as these leftists think at all, they do it all wrong.

The media’s notion that the Catholic Church isn’t “welcoming” to people with same-sex attraction (PSSA) is at best due to ignorance, at worst driven by insidious manipulation. Just consider the following passage— which expresses a long-held Church position — from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

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 persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

What about that sounds “unwelcoming”? Let me add that for nigh on 20 years I’ve attended Mass every Sunday and on Holy Days in parishes all over my area and in other parts of the country, and I have never, ever heard a priest rail against homosexuality; in fact, lamentably, I can’t even remember a priest mentioning it during a sermon, let alone talking “about these issues all the time,” as one rather prominent Catholic put it last year. In other words, the notion that priests are smoking PSSA out of churches with fire-and-brimstone, acid-tongued preaching is a media assumption — and invention.

It’s also quite stupid. Does anyone think the Church turns away adulterers, fornicators, artificial-contraception users or self-gratifiers? So why would anyone think it’s at all different with PSSA? In accordance with Jesus’ saying that “the healthy are in no need of a physician,” that God rejoices more over one lost sheep found than 99 who were never lost, the Church’s business is attracting sinners. And, of course, since she teaches that we’re all sinners, she’d have to close her doors if her market were confined to angels.

The reality is that homosexuality activists and the media (redundant, I know) are guilty of projection. They’d have us believe that the Church and other traditionalists can’t stop talking about PSSA, when they’re the ones who cannot. Much like a man who rains down unprovoked blows upon another and then screams “Why are you so violent!?” when the victim merely raises his arms to block, they start a fight and then are shocked when others defend themselves; not only that, they then portray their offensive against tradition as defense and the defense of it as offensive.

But the Church exercises no double standard. Her teaching lists homosexual behavior as just one of many behaviors at variance with God’s plan for man’s sexuality. It’s homosexuality activists who have the double standard, and this brings us to what they really want. Since the Church has always welcomed PSSA, the issue is not one of accepting “homosexuals.”

The activists want the Church to accept homosexuality.

Perhaps this is stating the obvious for many, but framing this properly illustrates its absurdity. The activists want a special dispensation from Church sexual teaching....