I have read quite a lot of the reactions to the CDF document about 'blessing' intrinsically disordered relationships. I am grateful to those who enable me to read this material by supplying links on the Internet.
As I have written before, what seems to me the acid test is this: Would these bishops and 'theologians' and 'moralists'apply identical or analogous arguments in order to justify paedophiliac relationships?
If not, why not?
Why, as far as I am aware, does nobody apart from me ask this?
I know the problems about asking this question: (1) people with a limited appreciation of logic will attack those asking such questions on the grounds that "You are arguing in favour of paedophilia". And (2) other people with equally challenged capacities will complain "You are saying that we are as bad as paedophiles".
But, unless this question (or one similar) can be asked, and answers sought, I do not see how discussion can move ahead on a rational basis. "Discussion" will continue to be, as it is now, a constant reiteration of simplistic mantras (such as "love" [undefined] justifies everything) in order eventually to wear down those who at present decline to bow before the Zeitgeist.
We had it all in the C of E. Demands for "dialogue" or "to be listened to" or "to have our experience heard" amount simply to an insistence that one must keep listening to the speaker, politely and preferably without interruption, until one is prepared to make ones submission.
On no account may one cite Holy Scripture or objective expressions of the Church's Magisterium. If one does so, one becomes particularly subject to unargued abuse and contempt.
The demand being ruthlessly made is for a one-way journey facilitated by unquestioning obedience and with a prescribed, ineluctable, conclusion.
It is a policy and a process bearing all the hallmarks of where it originated.
PS I just heard a (clerical) supporter of change, on the BBC Sunday programme, say "The Pope can change everything".
What a beautifully succinct summary of the Bergoglianite heresy. Why was poor Doellinger excommunicated for declining to subscribe to Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, while this appalling doctrinal disorder is pretty well a commonplace ... and is never disciplined?
You ask "Would these bishops and 'theologians' and 'moralists' apply identical or analogous arguments in order to justify paedophiliac relationships? If not, why not?"
I must note up front that I am *not* a German Bishop, indeed am not German at all, so my appreciation of their particular *Sitz im Leben*, their *theologicische Weltanschauung* etc. may not be accurate.
In short I believe that the answer is "no". They would not apply identical or analogous arguments in order to justify pedophiliac relationships. The reasons are simple. First, because such relationships remain, overwhelmingly, taboo in the West. Second, because these taboos are backed up by the strong *social* force of (1) anti-abuse activism by men and women who were victimized in this way as children and adolescents, (2) the liberal norm of "consent", and (3) consent laws, which give coercive force to that norm.
In other words, such arguments will not be made because the social context of these theologians, bishops, moralists, etc. does not allow for them, and they themselves, as products of that social context, would probably find the idea abhorrent. I do not believe we should expect them to be bellwethers of moral change in this way, and so I do not believe that we will see Churchmen itching to wed off 11 year olds (of any gender) again any time soon.
It seems to me that the thing to worry about is whether the underlying social norms may change. If they do, you can count on the Churchmen in Germany, Belgium, etc. to drift with them. Meanwhile, rest assured that by offering blessings to adult gay couples, they're not opening any doors philosophically to anything like what your comment suggests, since in this case (as in many others) the theological justification is downstream from the social reality.
Though, it does make me wonder if german bishops are currently in the practice of wedding (heterosexual) couples suffering from sterility and so on. But that's neither here nor there.
All the best to you!
Your definition of "dialogue" and the like is too true.
Reverende Magister Johannes,
Tetigisti rem acu, ut semper.
I agree: replace intrinsic order with choice and the liberal fiction of consent, & anything goes.The sole constraint is 'acceptability'. You may remember the leftist support for the Paedophile Information Exchange some 40 years since.
It doesn't seem a stretch to me to recognize different degrees of disorder, or shades of evil, in determining who can receive a blessing (and whether the blessing blesses the person (always a sinner) or a sin).
In my in-laws' day my Catholic father-in-law couldn't marry his Methodist bride in the sanctuary. When I married I was still a Presbyterian, but was married before a Catholic altar by a Catholic priest. I don't think it's just "progressive" Catholics who no longer treat Protestants, or divorced people, or single mothers, or illegitimate children or cohabiting singles as matter for scandal.
So where does contemporary same-sex secular marriage fit into this scheme? Should it be treated as the clergy treats second or third marriages--strictly adulterous, but treated as a marriage for purposes of social intercourse? (And of course we've now had two divorced-and-remarried American presidents, Reagan and Trump, and I don't remember even the strictest Catholic traditionalist calling them adulterers or enables of adultery).
Or should same-sex secular marriage be considered as something similar to blessing pedophilia? Many would say that consent makes a difference. So far as I know all contemporary laws treat sex with a minor, whether heterosexual or homosexual, as rape. It's not a minor issue, or a trivial line.
And, since the advent of same-sex marriage in the United States, I find myself working and socializing with them, as they no longer need to keep things secret, and find most of them quiet, good citizens and about as outrageous as Ozzie and Harriet. Their marriages plainly do not conform to Catholic or traditional Christian norms. But for myself that doesn't seem a reason to refrain from saying God bless 'em. And as a layman I am happy
to leave it to the Magisterium to work the matter out, without any particular anxiety from me about it.
When you say "gay" marriages, you use the language of the Left.
When you say "undocumented" immigrants you use the language of the Left.
Use normal language for these situations, homosexual marriages and illegal immigrants.
The Left weaponizes language to lull you into accepting the abnormal.
Three comments (sed contra to the Germans) from three Dominicans:
The Church does not oppose same-sex marriage: she believes it is impossible, as a square circle is impossible.
Unless there are some things that the word 'love' (like any other word) cannot mean, it means nothing.
The Germans and their sympathisers are trying to inveigle us into a future as domesticated court chaplains to secular humanism. [That way, I would add, leads to certain extinction.]
"The Pope can change everything".
That is, of course, taken alone, rather ridiculous. If said regarding the sacramentals, however, it is arguably in accord with Canon 1167, sec. 1: "Nova sacramentalia constituere aut recepta authentice interpretari, ex eis aliqua abolere aut mutare, sola potest Sedes Apostolica."
Pedophilia is still a crime. Sodomy isn't. Remember, the catholic left follows the culture, not the magisterium.
Post a Comment