Sunday, May 06, 2018

Who told you that?

"God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations." - CCC

I was reading comments on Fr. Martin's FB post on the Belgian Cardinal de Kesel's statement that Catholic teaching on homosex is untenable and needs to be changed.  Two women responded in favor of what the Cardinal said by pointing out that the Biblical prohibitions were outdated and no longer apply to our times.  One cited Romans and that Paul's condemnation was against pederasty.  Another cited Genesis and said the Sodomite were intent upon raping the visitors.  (Modern exegeses interpreted that exclusively as 'inhospitality' based upon a passage in Ezekiel.)  Hence my response, "Who told you that?"

If you Google these questions it all shows up.  The condemnations aren't against homosexuality but pederasty, rape, and inhospitality - oh, and not being nice to the poor.  These interpretations have become canon among those who seek to undermine Catholic teaching and authority.  The mid-20th century exegeses and revisionists claims have become embedded in the literature and curriculum of universities.  It is generally accepted by Protestants and Catholic like Fr. Martin, SJ and Cardinal de Kesel.  It's an exclusive interpretation with the intent of approving homosexual acts and gay marriage.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. - CCC

Cardinal Ratzinger disputed these interpretations of scripture, as Pope he wrote privately on the errors of dismissing traditional exegesis on the major scriptural prohibitions and so on.  The Holy See is responsible for correct interpretation of scripture and doctrine - there is no 'sola scriptura' clause in Roman Catholicism.  Tradition and the Fathers of the Church handed down the understanding of these passages which condemn homosexual acts.  As Cardinal head of the CDF, Ratzinger clearly emphasized the veracity of the passage:

Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgment made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion. - Holy See

It is one thing to welcome and accompany, to even live and let live as regards the homosexual person.  It is another to lie and revise scripture to remove the prohibition against homosexual acts.  I've sometimes wondered if the final sin of Sodom wasn't so much the generalized decadence, corruption and 'radical inhospitality', but was the insistence that Lot and his family conform to Sodomite cult and ritual?  Demanding Lot hand over his guests so the Sodomites could 'have their way with them' is kind of what is happening in our day.  People are demanding the Church conform her teaching to suit contemporary morality, accepting and approving homosexual acts and 'marriage'.   That's my own crackpot-private meditation/opinion BTW - nothing more.

It seems to me that the attacks against Church teaching, as well as demanding homosexual inclusion in ritual, along with forcing approval based upon false interpretations of scripture, is sacrilegious and idolatrous.   Which is why I understood the homo-sex acts reported in the Irish parish church the other day to be a cult-like attempt to defy Catholic teaching on homosexual acts, which states: under no circumstance can they be approved.   (Again, my private interpretation/opinion.)  Even gay Christians  don't like to hear that.

Honey, this sounds like a cult!


  1. You're such a crackpot. What?

  2. The Catholic Church isn't Burger King. Everyone cannot have it their "own way". Come Holy Spirit and renew the face of the earth!

  3. "That's my own crackpot-private meditation/opinion BTW - nothing more."

    Sounds good to me as does what Papa Emerito writes ...
    I'm with you both.

  4. Church hierarchy cannot be held responsible for what individual lay people believe. I still think you need to take back your condemnation of the Cardinal. His comments were vague and could have been construed as approving of gay sex. But that is not what he said. You are reading radical far right websites that are always looking to condemn Church hierarchy and anyone else who disagrees with them. In this article from La Croix, it says this:

    Cardinal Jozef De Kesel, archbishop of Malines-Brussels and primate of the Catholic Church in Belgium, is open to reflecting on a 'pray celebration' for gay couples.

    Cardinal Jozef De Kesel of Malines-Brussels last week met with a small delegation from a local gay working group which had requested an audience. Following the meeting, Cardinal De Kesel “expressed his concern for their well-being and conveyed his respect to them. In his effort to answer questions from the working group, “the cardinal also spoke of their relationships as couples, distinguishing these from Christian marriage between a man and a woman,” De Kerpel said.“However, it does involve a personal encounter,” he said. Cardinal De Kesel expressed his desire to answer the requests of believing gay couples who are involved in a stable and lasting relationship and who wish to benefit from a symbolic recognition by the church. However, this could not be a “religious marriage” nor an “ecclesiastical blessing that too closely resembles the blessing of a marriage,” De Kerpel said.“If gay people still desire a Christian symbol of their proximity, the cardinal is thinking more of a celebration of thanksgiving or prayer.“However, this would certainly not involve an exchange of consent sealed by an exchange of rings,” De Kerpel said.“To the extent that the church has maintained a certain reserve on the issue, it is to preserve the great value of marriage and the family to the greatest extent possible,” he said.On May 5, Belgian media broadcast the statement widely, emphasizing that Cardinal De Kesel was adopting a “revolutionary position.”But in reality he had simply confirmed the position the Belgian Church had already taken on the issue.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you, Terry, while living celibate, are also living with someone for whom you care deeply. Is it an accident that none of these radical websites tell you this: Cardinal De Kesel expressed his desire to answer the requests of believing gay couples who are involved in a stable and lasting relationship and who wish to benefit from a symbolic recognition by the church” Wouldn’t the term “believing gay couples” have meaning to you? You of all people should understand that gay people are just as capable of love as straight people. That would seem to be what the Cardinal is trying to say. Others can interpret it any way they want to satisfy their own agendas. But do not condemn the Cardinal on the basis of other people’s comments, especially when they have an agenda, is just wrong.

    1. Listen Lady - I have not condemned the Cardinal but simply noted what was reported about what he said - I also read Fr. Martin's post on the news report and responded to comments on his blog - specifically posting the doctrine on homosexual acts - pasting and copying the text from the CDF. I never attacked or discredited any one involved.

      As for my living arrangement, that is none of your business, but I will tell you that I am against gay marriage and civil unions and any sort of 'couple blessings' for gay men who live together as friends, partners, whatever you want to call it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with two men living together, even after former intimacies which they repented of. There is nothing wrong with same sex friendship. Nevertheless it is not and never will be 'marriage' even for a 'believing couple'. A believing couple would make a confession of faith (the creed) which states they believe all the truths the Catholic Church teaches. Pretending to be married is a lie.

      Likewise I am completely against same-sex adoption - that said, ss marriage and adoption is legal. I have no control over that, much less any of the life-choices gay people make for themselves.

      Listen closely - read me very closely - I am not condemning hierarchy or priests or gay people. You and other biased readers seem to believe I am doing that. I am simply expressing my dismay over the fact that a horrible desecration took place on the altar of a Catholic church consisting of homosexual acts - homo-sexual acts. The Church explicitly condemns homosexual acts, and this, in my opinion, is exactly why this desecration took place. The contrast with the Cardinal's good will statement was not lost on me. I spent time in adoration and offered my communion in reparation for these offenses. Is that clear?

      I have active homosexual relatives and friends - one or two are civilly married. I never tell them how to live or how to believe, I never tell them what the Church teaches - because they already know that - and once they do, it is their choice to accept it or not. Likewise most of my relatives are in civil marriages, have no religious affiliation other than baptisms and funerals, and there is nothing I can do about it. I do not try to control other people's lives much less their thoughts, and or politics.

      I've stepped into this damnable subject because in the past year I have come to understand Joseph Sciambra's narrative a bit better, and recognize a similarity between his experience and my own - I believe he has an important message for people to hear. Voris' experience is similar as well - so pardon me if I take note of that. Voris and is outfit is way over the top and I do not subscribe to that sort of conservative journalism. So I make a reference to something I see on FB once in awhile. Sorry to disappoint you.

      Listen. Sometimes you can be right on the money with some of your posts, sometimes I wonder if you are as crazy as the LOL's you fight with. In this instance, you are just as bad as the people you condemn, suggesting that my private life is something you could even know about? Huh? I live with someone I care deeply about - a friend and a cat. What business is that of yours? In this instance you demonstrate that you are as biased as you were as a Trad. You're a typical Catholic church-lady who meddles in the lives of others, assessing their level of fidelity and based upon their personal opinion. You are as bad as the old ladies you used to fight with here. You are one more reason most people hate religious people - and definitely the reason I avoid meddling church ladies online and offline.

      Sell crazy someplace else - Pride is coming up, don't you have stuff to do to get ready?

    2. I obviously hit a nerve. I won’t bother you anymore. And my name is Mary, as you well know.

    3. You sure did - you better examine your conscience. I think you are a self-righteous troublemaker. And one more point Catholic in Brooklyn lady - your comment is as offensive as the following one I got from another 'friend' which I took down, but what the hell - here it is: "Are you still sucking cock Terry? I bet you are - I am." So, FYI Catholic lady, the commenter is talking about 'homosexual acts' - which has nothing to do with love.

    4. Terry, you really should stop. There is nothing I wrote here that deserves this much hate and vitriol from you. All I did was report the actual comments from the Cardinal instead of the lies reported by other websites. I am so sorry that it produced this kind of reaction in you.

    5. Like I said - examine your own conscience. Nobody is spewing hate towards you. Women always interpret a man's honesty as cruelty. Nothing I can do about that. If you are sorry, apologize. You just better begin to understand what people who have left homosexuality behind go through before you sit in judgment on them - I'm not asking special consideration or special treatment, but you obviously do not know what the hell you are talking about. Just saying.

    6. I know I should just leave this alone, but I think that was my entire point - I don’t understand what gay people have gone through, except to know that it is a cross they did not choose and for which they have received little to no support from the Church. The far right websites you quote from are of the opinion that all gay people are basically evil who want to destroy the Church. Maybe that is actually what you believe. And that might be true of some. But I look at gay people just as I look at myself and everyone - sinners in a fallen world in need of God’s love, mercy and forgiveness. That is the only thing that can help any of us live holy lives. Jesus Christ never condemned, and I don’t think we should either. And that is what I see in the Cardinal’s remarks. I am so sorry that you read that as some sort of condemnation and attack upon you.

  5. Oh my. I must be missing something. Since when are same sex friendships a matter of concern. In the old days religious communities monitored and forbade "particular friendships" as being against the rule. My fear is that in an effort to placate every special group we will dilute common sense teaching and throw out both dignity and tradition. I really do not care one iota what others do in the bedroom. I sure as hell (sorry) what behavior is exhibited in Church. Overt sexualized behavior in Chirch is disrespectful I think. Flaunting it is really an attempt to negate the sacred nature of the sacred place. I saw that disgusting post when first posted. I felt terrible for you Terry and was glad you took it down. What is discussing to me is not the act or the words, but the intent to hurt you.

    1. Thanks Wallace - the intent to hurt was exactly why he posted it - but I get that stuff now, that it comes from pain. You are a good friend.

  6. ....."I really do not care one iota what others do in the bedroom.".....

    Wallace, I have couple problems with your statement above:

    1. It sounds like you are 'virtue signalling'. Like maybe you're trying to prove you are not a fuddy-duddy!

    2. or else you are suggesting that since you don't care, then God doesn't either.

    The whole point of Terry's earlier Sodom post is that God does care what people do 'in the bedroom' and everywhere else.

    I apologize if I am misunderstanding

    1. I think he means it exactly the same way I do - he has no control over the lives of others. Everyone knows God cares. Please don't make this more complicated than it needs to be. Everyone has access to the Catechism. Thanks for your concern - but Mr. Hamilton is doing fine. :)

    2. Kneeling Catholic, I am way beyond caring what others may think of me. I do not need to prove I am not a cuddly duddy. I do care what God thinks of me and strive to live accordingly. I meant in my comment that I am in no position to judge. Perhaps do not care is not the best way to describe my position. I know right from wrong and must apply that to my actions. I choose not to look for scandal and out those who are different then me. Of ourse sexual abuse is another matter. I also do not presume to know God's mind. I accept our Church's teaching and try to follow it. God's grace is amazing and comforting. I pray everyone accepts it. There is no other way to happiness in this life and salvation in the next. I try very hard to avoid mean spirited people since they are basically negative and that too can be contagious. I appreciate your observation and comments. I believe you made them in charity. I probably was not very good at describing my position. Thank you.


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.