I have read a suggestion that the (hitherto unknown) curialist who has decided to grab his moment of glory should have been disciplined for sin rather than for news conferences.
I don't agree. I wouldn't like to think that there were witch-hunts going on in the CDF; and, given my awareness of my own frailties with regard to all Ten Commandments, I strongly believe that Mercy is more important than Discipline. At both the personal and professional levels, everybody who has ever spoken to me about Gerhard Mueller has described him as a kind man and a gentle pastor; I think he has been rather badly treated by his colleague. But I expect the man's own bishop will have carefully explained that to him. Very carefully, I hope.
Proclaiming and publicly defending any sin is worse than committing it. I invite you to read the passage in Romans 1 about homosexual actions, and to dwell particularly on the last verse of the chapter. Using the conventions of Greek rhetoric, S Paul works up to a climax of condemnation; Death (thanatos) is the deserving of those who do (prassontes) such things (toiauta), but-and-also (alla kai) of those who syneudokousin with the doers.
Greek, like German, enjoys compound verbs, and syneudokein is a double compound. Dokein has, as one of its meanings, to think. Eu- stuck on the front gives it a sense of well, favourably. And the syn- adds the meaning of with. So the verb means to give ones warm approval to the commission of the perversion.
Publicly doing what one can to promote and encourage a perversion is a graver sin than to commit the perversion oneself in private, because one is deliberately drawing others, who may be victims of temptation, into this Death-deserving (S Paul uses the phrase thanatou axioi) sin. Promoting this perversion is thus a cruel attack upon the spiritual well-being of good people who have done their best to control an inclination to do "toiauta". It is, surely, just about the most deeply homophobic act one could commit.
There may, however, just conceivably, be good to come out of this sad episode. I wonder what you think about the following speculation. Is it possible that there is a homosexualist mafia at work within the Synod and/or its secretariate, advocating change in one area (remarriage of the divorced) so that they can use it to piggy-back their own cause (promotion of homosexual perversion)? You see, my own experience is that something very like this did happen in the Church of England: some homosexualist clergy, so it seemed to me, keenly supported the 'ordination' of women because they discerned that such a radical 'rethink' on gender would be a useful springboard for their own sad cause.
But the messy complications arising from the episode of this sad apparatchik and his little friend might make the larger players in any such sinister game (if there is one) wonder if now is quite the tactical moment to Go for the Big Prize.
5 October 2015
Greek Lesson ... and is there a homosexualist Mafia at the Synod?
Posted by Fr John Hunwicke at 10:57
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I think that your speculation about the homosexualists using the issue of Communion for the divorced and remarried as a battering ram to promote their own agenda is quite correct. And many people including myself have come to this conclusion also.
I would not doubt for a moment that there is a homosexualist cabal in the highest echelons of the church. There certainly was a homosexualist cabal among bishops to abet paedophile priests (and eventually bishops) by changing their duty stations rather than removing them from the ranks of pastoral clergy. We know that the evil one is always assailing and undermining Holy Mother Church, yet it is always a shock to find the evidence for it in vivo. It is a sad but unsurprising disappointment that said evil one has been so successful of late. In the end Our LORD wins; till then we do our best to help His victory along, mucking about the trenches with prayer and a heart loyal to Him.
Maybe the priest ought be pitied. He prolly was open about his sodomy and yet was admitted to a seminary and given Holy Orders and then elevated to a position of authority and then, suddenly, the Church turns on him for what must seem to him to be politics.
Is it only because he went public with his perversion that he was disciplined whereas the Church apparently was jake with his perversion, position, and power just as long as he and his boyfriend kept their sodomy out of the public view.
You know he was advocating those privately because that is what sodomites do for sodomites are naturally subversive and will sedulously strive to eliminate any canon, discipline, stricture, praxis, etc which stands as a public rebuke of their preferred perversion.
The reform by Pope Benedict XVI did not foreclose the admission of sodomites into the seminaries and so the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is ineluctably condemned to have its Pope publicly apologise for the sexual crimes of sodomites even as it continues to admit sodomites into seminaries and once those sodomites receive Holy Orders they will be set out into the flock where uncountable cute/handsome/attractive innocent adolescent males will be victims for the sodomites to groom and prepare for seduction/assault.
It is a plain and simple truth that not even one sodomite, ever, has been called by Jesus Christ to Holy Orders
I've read and heard that passage any number of times, but have not noticed the import of St. Paul's warning about advocating for sin until now.
Thank you, learned sir, for pointing it out . . . a courageous act nowadays.
"Climax of condemnation." Nice one, Father.
So would attending my gay son's "wedding" be a great sin insofar as it would seem to condone the uncondonable?
The organisation 'A Call to Action'may not be part of the Synod and/or its secretariate, but they definitely have the strategy in mind that you are wondering about. Among other changes they want the Church to make they favour the Kasper proposals. They also want the Church to change its “attitude” towards homosexual behaviour. They issued a Briefing paper on ‘Marriage and the family today: the new Vatican questionnaire’. In this Briefing paper they stated:
“51-52 deals with the key issue of admission to Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics. This is key because if established pastoral practice can be changed here, it can be changed elsewhere (see Attachment C).”
The ‘elsewhere’ no doubt refers to homosexual behaviour.
I believe Our Heavenly Father has been pleased, for His Glory and Our Salvation, to situate our lives in a most opportune time to practice the traditionally understood Spiritual Works of Mercy: Admonish the sinner; Instruct the ignorant; Counsel the doubtful; Comfort the sorrowful; Bear wrongs patiently; Forgive all injuries; and Pray for the living and the dead.
If even a cup of water given in Our Lord's Name will not miss its reward, we have a surfeit of situations these days to earn abundant grace for ourselves and to save sinners. Praying for the living and the dead doesn't require a bus pass, a membership to PayPal, a single sou, and can be done many many times a day without over exertion.
Well, perhaps, Father. But mercy in Scripture is usually tied to repentance – either pre or post factum. Surely, if discipline had been applied – assuming the facts were known – prior to the public spectacle of recent days, a greater scandal might have been averted?
The gay self-obsession began with a plea for tolerance, but incrementally moved to a demand for approval. That was evident in Rome last week with demands for changes, not just in Doctrine – but in the Scripture on which Doctrine is based!
It almost beggars belief that someone – well-educated, to boot – could be so led astray as to think this was possible, much less feasible. However, we have been warned that God does “destroy the wisdom of the wise and the prudence of the prudent.”
I did wonder aloud on another blog whether the boldness of certain parties who have been openly boasting about their scheming in high places, because they think that victory is now within their grasp, might not be a symptom of overweeing pride that will turn out to be their downfall in the end. This looks like another case of the same.
Just been reading this:
One of the contributors says something about Episcopalians (he’s an American) which takes the piggy-back idea even further back, although probably not intentionally. He sees the ordination of women arising out of priests being able to marry. So watch out for that one, too.
“the reason why the Episcopalian Church had moved toward having women ministers is because they had wives of ministers for so many years with influence with their husbands”: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matthew-balan/2015/09/28/tactless-williams-matthews-knock-catholic-dogma-during-papal-mass#sthash.IAlp2FVZ.dpuf
(No doubt married Catholic clergy might have something to say about that one.)
As an aside I discovered recently that it is now possible for married former Presbyterian ministers to be ordained to the Catholic priesthood.
Speaking of things Greek and (hopefully) relevant to this discussion, I cite here a passage which I am told supports Catholic belief in Purgatory, invincible ignorance, and the varied severity of fates awaiting wicked servants:
"...43 μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος, ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει ποιοῦντα οὕτως. 44 ἀληθῶς λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν. 45 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ: χρονίζει ὁ κύριός μου ἔρχεσθαι, καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας, ἐσθίειν τε καὶ πίνειν καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι: 46 ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει, καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν, καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει. 47 ἐκεῖνος δὲ ὁ δοῦλος ὁ γνοὺς τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ ἑτοιμάσας ἢ ποιήσας πρὸς τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ δαρήσεται πολλάς: 48 ὁ δὲ μὴ γνούς, ποιήσας δὲ ἄξια πληγῶν, δαρήσεται ὀλίγας. παντὶ δὲ ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολὺ ζητηθήσεται παρ' αὐτοῦ, καὶ ᾧ παρέθεντο πολύ, περισσότερον αἰτήσουσιν αὐτόν..." Luke 12:43-48
Thomas, I too once had a dose of 'overweeing pride' having won at darts whilst drinking 8 pints of scrumpy in the west country; it can happen to the best of us.
Tamquam, I'm a bit confused here. There may very well be those in the Vatican who would like to see sacramental gay marriage, or to see same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults declared moral.
But why in the world would they want to encourage pedophilia? There is nothing about desiring adults of the same sex that would make a person want to encourage the sexual abuse of children.
Benedict XVI believed there was an active-homosexual lobby in the Vatican and elsewhere in the Church and his opinion is good enough for me.
Also, I believe in, and hope for Mercy, but I also try my best to hold to Truth. They are inseparable.
I would refer you to the excellent article in last weeks Catholic Herald by T A Pascoe, citing the parable of the buried talent. That seems to me to be very appropriate.
The Fall of the Episcopal church was through people like Paul Moore, Bishop of New York who outwardly was a happily married man (twice, the second time after the death of his first wife), but lead a secret double life as a gay man. He advocated women priests, relaxation of divorce laws, and gay rights to coupling and marriage. New York, and other urban areas became a place where people were made ptiests, not because of calling, but political and 'social justice' agendas.
When our local Public Broadcaster referred to the present Synod, recently, it described it as "on the Family and Sexuality". Which struck me as an oddly plain ... subversion?
GOR: "The gay self-obsession began with a plea for tolerance, but incrementally moved to a demand for approval."
Archbishop Chaput made a brilliant observation about this a year or so ago: Evil pleads for tolerance when it is weak. Once it has gained the upper hand its arrogance demands that it destroy the good which stands in testimony against it. Or words to that effect, my memory not being what it ever was to begin with.
godelmynodel: "But why in the world would they want to encourage pedophilia? There is nothing about desiring adults of the same sex that would make a person want to encourage the sexual abuse of children."
I would not have thought so either, save for the statistics: 80%+ of the victims of the paedophile priests were boys over the age of 14. The homosexualist community has a long history of approving and promoting sex between adult males and under age boys. Consider that the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) marches just about every gay pride parade I ever heard of. Further:
1. Journal of Homosexuality, a prestigious pro-gay publication, published a whole special issue under the grotesquely euphemistical title of "Inter-generational Male Intimacy", whereon several articles presented pedophilia as a "love relationship"
2. Larry Elder, founder and head of an activist gay group, wrote in his book Report from the Holocaust: "In that cases of childs [sic, bearing in mind that this was translated from the Portuguese] having sex with older homosexuals, I affirm that frequently, very frequently, the child desires the act and maybe even claims for it" (non-literal translation)
3. The Advocate, one of the most influential gay magazines, regularly advertises a rubber doll, model "Penetrable Boy... available in three teasing positions"!
From http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/monstrous.htm And that was from 2002!
Having "normalized" sodomy, the homosexualists are putting the finishing touches on the "normalization" of transgenderism. And now for the next step, the drumbeat to "normalize" sexual relations between adults and children has begun: http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/
I've got news: he is a monster.
Dear Fr Hunwicke, Confronted with both such erudition and logic one can but aver: You're not daft, are you. (There is West of Scotland logic in there somewhere.)
Hi Tamquam, sorry it took a while to respond.
I think you are assuming that the gay community is more unified than it is. Specifically, whatever "homosexualists" are in the Vatican are very different from those who would support male-male pedophilia in your examples.
It is true that NAMBLA was a part of the early gay pride movement. However, as time wore on, the rest of the community decided that they should only advocate for consensual same-sex activity, and NAMBLA has since become very unwelcome. I daresay you do not attend or pay close attention to many modern-day pride parades, but I'm sure that if you did, NAMBLA would not be invited.
Now, rare individual gays may not be against pedophilia, or some may remember times before consent became important in the community. Again, this does not influence the typical pro-gay person's views.
Finally, a quick note on slang-"boy" is a word that gays often use for adult men under 30.
Any "homosexualist" in the Vatican probably gets his morals from the gay community at large. Any pederast priest would be hard-put to find gays who approve of his actions, inside or outside of the clergy.
Post a Comment