I am unwilling to stop referring to the teaching of Cardinal Mueller.
He has recently spoken, for example, about the error of replacing the Cross with the rainbow flag; about how "one must not obey an obviously heretical bishop for formal reasons in matters of the deposit of the Faith. Faith comes above obedience."
"The Holy Father has this obligation and this duty to put in good bishops with intellectual and spiritual competence who are faithful to the doctrine of God, because bishops are the successors of the Apostles. They are not masters, the bosses of our faith, but they are only ministers of Revelation".
The frequent return of His Eminence to these themes suggests strongly to me that, from his vantage point in the Church, he discerns that there is here a locus of depraved praxis. And I have no reason to suppose that his discernment is mistaken.
We must not give an impression that certain sexual themes are over-important, or are the only ethical consideration. They are not. And we should never forget the Christian obligation to accord to all people ... whatever their sexual 'orientations' ... both charity and courtesy.
And, doctrinally, it behoves us to remember that those of us who might categorise ourselves (or be categorised) as 'straight' or 'normal' or 'heterosexual' are equally subject to the Church's teaching; and to the truth that nobody is entitled to use sexuality outside the bonds of lawful matrimony between one male and one female; or in ways that exclude the openness of each genital act to procreation.
If we do so, we are open to the perfectly fair accusation that we are ourselves living a libertarian life-style which we unjustly and illogically attempt to forbid to others.
And ...
... were PF, or any other prelate, to appear to down-play or to undermine the immemorial teaching summarised in Humanae Vitae, we would need to recall His Eminence's important teaching (supra) about our strict duty of disobedience towards heretical bishops (popes are bishops).
Perhaps I should iterate the wise and learned suggestions offerred by S John Henry Newman, about the question of a Suspense in the Teaching Office of the Church?
8 comments:
It is interesting, that the cohabitation of unwed heterosexual couples, their reception of Holy Communion, the practise of artificial birth control, easy and multiple marriage annulments ( i know catholics who have even received three annulments!), are all things long tolerated, undenounced, even widely accepted by hierarchy, clergy and lay faithful: progressive, conservative, and traditionalist. (So too are many dogmatic heresies and serious liturgical/sacramental aberrations widely tolerated). Yet only one thing causes uproar and indignation amongst both conservatives and traditionalists, the only point upon which both camps agree: the idea that persons attracted exclusively to others of the same gender might form stable, monogamous relationships, or even dare to exist. Is this rational and just? It would seem that this be the true de facto superdogma of catholicism, which noone may deny.
The question arises, How in practice does the church accord charity and courtesy to all persons of whatever sexual orientation while at the same time warning young and impressionable persons against certain life styles?
Dea Father. When Pope John Paul Il said that man was created as both male and female, was it a failure of courage to criticise his heterodox claims or was it agreement with his claim that explains the silence?
Yes there are many "remarried" Catholic adulterers who go to Mass, continue to cohabitate, get abortions, use contraceptives all the while receiving Holy Communion and they seem to be tolerated however the big difference is no one of that group of people listed deMANDS that Church law be changed, accommodate and accept their lifestyles as legit and valid before the eyes of the Lord and His Church.
The homosexuals and other groups on the other hand expect to be accepted into the Church without repentance of their lifestyle, expect to have their same sex unions sacramentalized and looked upon with approval by the Church at large. In short they want the Church to change to accommodate them instead of obeying the laws of God and Church. That is why Albertus that there is such an uproar. The Church is a Church made up of saints and sinners, yet some sinners want the Church change in their own image.
@Albertus, the traditionalist laity, clergy, and hierarchy that I know don't tolerate birth control, divorcees, or cohabitation.
Because there are no such persons as homosexual or lesbians the Church would do well to reconsider referring to them as though they do exist.
https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/21962/
Only men and women exist and they can and do commit various sexual sins but the sin(s) each of them commits does not mean they are that sin.
Ordinary Catholic: I think it is important not to assume that all those who have a same sex inclination are to be condemned.
If I have given the impression of condemning all SSA then I apologize. My reply was in answer to Albertus as to why more emphasis is on SSA in the Church than "It is interesting, that the cohabitation of unwed heterosexual couples, their reception of Holy Communion, the practise of artificial birth control, easy and multiple marriage annulments ( i know catholics who have even received three annulments!), are all things long tolerated, undenounced, even widely accepted by hierarchy, clergy and lay faithful." In my response I replied that the above are not beating the drum for the Church to change it's teaching regarding their lifestyles. However, there are "many" who are SSA in the Church that DO want the Church to change to accommodate their lifestyles. I emphasize MANY, not all.
Post a Comment