Current Events: Vatican

[temporal1]

This thread is a place to note occasional Catholic current events.
Comments on the various posted “events” are ok.

This thread is not about the very important+interesting denom agreement or disagreement.
There are other worthwhile threads where those discussions unfold.
Here is one that bunny trailed that way: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3609

To begin:

“Holy See: The Church cannot bless same-sex unions”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responds in the negative to the possibility of imparting a blessing to unions of same-sex couples, noting that it “does not imply a judgment on persons” involved.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-c ... nions.html

By Vatican News
The Church does not have the power to bless same-sex unions. Such blessings, therefore cannot “be considered licit”, according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) which issued on Monday a Response to a dubium that had been presented. Therefore, it is not licit for priests to bless homosexual couples who ask for some type of religious recognition of their union. The CDF says Pope Francis was informed and “gave his assent” to the publication of the Response and an accompanying Explanatory Note signed by the Prefect, Cardinal Luis Ladaria, and the Secretary, Archbishop Giacomo Morandi. The Holy See Press Office also published an Article of Commentary on the Responsum ad dubium.

The statement is based on specific assertions and some actual practices. The document situates its Response into the context of the “sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons, to whom are proposed paths of growth in faith”, as expressed also in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, which speaks of “the assistance they [those who manifest a homosexual orientation] need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.” Therefore, pastoral plans and proposals in this regard are to be evaluated, including those concerning the blessings of such unions.

Fundamental to the CDF’s Response is the distinction that must be made between ‘persons’ and ‘union’. The negative response given to the blessing of a union does not, in fact, imply a judgement regarding the individuals involved, who must be welcomed “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” avoiding “every sign of unjust discrimination” as already written in Magisterial documents.

These are the motivations at the basis of the negative response. The first regards the truth and value of blessings, which are ‘sacramentals’, liturgical actions of the Church which require that what is being blessed be “objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation”. Relationships, even if stable, “that involve sexual activity outside of marriage” – meaning, outside “the indissoluble union of a man and a woman”, open to the transmission of life – do not respond to the “designs of God”, even if “positive elements” are present in those relationships.

This consideration not only concerns same-sex couples, but also unions that involve the sexual activity outside of matrimony. Another reason for the negative response is the risk that the blessing of same-sex unions may be mistakenly associated with that of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The CDF concludes by noting that the Response to the dubium does not preclude “the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God”, while it declares impermissible “any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such”.

Now into decades, every faith group is forcefully faced with this acute, divisive topic.

[temporal1]

These last two paragraphs align well with many CM views i’ve read on this forum.
They give simple and direct, practical guidance on how all individuals may “live” this view in response to Jesus Christ.
These words speak to fornication, adultery, and abstinence from all sin, specifically carnal sin.

.. This consideration not only concerns same-sex couples, but also unions that involve the sexual activity outside of matrimony. Another reason for the negative response is the risk that the blessing of same-sex unions may be mistakenly associated with that of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The CDF concludes by noting that the Response to the dubium does not preclude “the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God”, while it declares impermissible “any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such”.

The words, “Go, and sin no more,” can be gut-wrenchingly difficult, but they are transformative.

[Bootstrap]

These last two paragraphs align well with many CM views i’ve read on this forum.
They give simple and direct, practical guidance on how all individuals may “live” this view in response to Jesus Christ.
These words speak to fornication, adultery, and abstinence from all sin, specifically carnal sin.

.. This consideration not only concerns same-sex couples, but also unions that involve the sexual activity outside of matrimony. Another reason for the negative response is the risk that the blessing of same-sex unions may be mistakenly associated with that of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The CDF concludes by noting that the Response to the dubium does not preclude “the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God”, while it declares impermissible “any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such”.

The words, “Go, and sin no more,” can be gut-wrenchingly difficult, but they are transformative.

I like that.

I do suspect some CM churches might approach this a little differently than the official Catholic response, but it's best to let them speak for themselves.

[temporal1]

Continue in Bunny Trails, Page 65:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=209&start=640

.. I do suspect some CM churches might approach this a little differently than the official Catholic response, but it's best to let them speak for themselves.

[Soloist]

Fundamental to the CDF’s Response is the distinction that must be made between ‘persons’ and ‘union’. The negative response given to the blessing of a union does not, in fact, imply a judgement regarding the individuals involved, who must be welcomed “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” avoiding “every sign of unjust discrimination” as already written in Magisterial documents.

I would find this problematic but I would need to know more as to the intent of what they think that means.

The Catholics, if they are not permitting these people to take communion... they have already judged them. Which in practicality is no different then the CM's but I suspect that the Catholic church is fragmented on this and some can take communion depending on the church location.

I like that.

I do suspect some CM churches might approach this a little differently than the official Catholic response, but it's best to let them speak for themselves.

I suspect the CM would hardly even comment on it. They would handle it on a local individual level but the CM's are sadly unprepared to help these people on a broad survey but there are pockets were there would be people willing to help walk through the difficulty. The transgender would find it even harder to get help as it is beyond rare among the plain people. Homosexuality has occurred in many CM churches resulting in excommunication and sometimes results in positive results but I've never met any positive outcomes personally.
Its easy to say something is sin. Its far harder to deal with wrong thought patterns and individualism.

The Conservative Mennonites will never deal with same sex unions. The church will walk to the world and lose the values it has before that would ever happen. This is a easily identifiable sign of apostasy that churches even have this discussion to change what God ordained from the beginning.

[temporal1]

Soloist:

Fundamental to the CDF’s Response is the distinction that must be made between ‘persons’ and ‘union’.
The negative response given to the blessing of a union does not, in fact, imply a judgement regarding the individuals involved, who must be welcomed “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” avoiding “every sign of unjust discrimination” as already written in Magisterial documents.

I would find this problematic but I would need to know more as to the intent of what they think that means.

The Catholics, if they are not permitting these people to take communion... they have already judged them.

Which in practicality is no different then the CM's
but I suspect that the Catholic church is fragmented on this
and some can take communion depending on the church location.

In general, Pope Francis may be long remembered as a confusing leader. If not worse.

As an outsider, not Catholic, i do not understand various references and chosen language - that, in fact, the average Catholic probably would not understand. As has been pointed out, the ways of the CC hierarchy are “complicated.”

Thus my great surprise this statement is as clear as it is;
no surprise it’s accompanied by some “language gymnastics” - presumably in attempt to quell predictable (now mainstream) backlash - which began in immediate response.

In my view, the last 2 paragraphs pretty well represent widespread understanding of scriptures by “non-left” believers in every denom. That is, carnal sin of all descriptions is sin. Sodomy is not “the worst” or “the exception.” Fornication, adultery, sexual predators, et al., are carnal sins.

The major rub is, so many have been compromised to buy the notion/desire that sodomy is not sin, at all, that it is to be embraced, celebrated, normalized, treated specially in daily life, in courts, in God’s eyes. So, backlash over this is now enthusiastically promoted in the mainstream.

These have no intent on admission of sin. Quite the opposite. They want God to embrace their PRIDE.
No secret. No exaggeration.

It is possible to be so overwhelmed by “the joy of sin” that one can be convinced it’s not sin, at all.
In my long years, i have witnessed this error, for sure. But it is a lie. There comes a day of reckoning.
Enabling, encouraging sin is not a “good deed done.”

- - - -

i’ll respond to the second part of your post (to boot’s b.t.) in Bunny Trails.
i’m hoping this thread will principally be about the odd Catholic Current Events that present here+there.

[MaxPC]

Vatican’s Doctrinal Office: Catholic Church Cannot Give Blessings to Same-Sex Unions
Excellent explanation here from another Catholic news source and why this topic needs to be addressed yet again. I have been asked to explain this current event from a Catholic perspective. I shall attempt to clarify some of the key passages from the article and also offer apologies for the length of this post.

The quoted passages are in italics.
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/vatican- ... sex-unions

In an accompanying note, the doctrine [sic] (doctrinal) office explained that blessings are sacramentals, and “consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord.”

“Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church,” the CDF said.

Church-speak translation
In essence, for the blessing to be licit and allowed, two factors are key:
-the “right intention” of those receiving the blessing for the relationship and

-the relationship itself which must be “ordered”, i.e. the relationship is in obedience and compliance with Biblical teaching and the Early Church Fathers.

The Catholic Church sees its incumbent mission to teach what the Bible and the Early Church Fathers teach. It will continue to uphold that teaching in regards to the administration of blessings and the sacraments.

“For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex.”

Church-speak translation
If the relationship is homosexual or other status that does not follow the Biblical teaching of marriage between one man and one woman, then it is not a marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church. It is therefore sex outside of marriage and is not licit for receiving any blessing (formal approval and the sacramental).

+++

After lengthy discussions and Biblical study, this was settled definitively in 2003:
"The CDF explained in 2003 that “the Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

Church-speak translation

Respect does not equal approval of those things that are taught against by the Bible. It means the Catholic Church respects the free will choice of individuals as God does. It does not mean that the Catholic Church will approve what God condemns as abomination.

The Church will welcome any person who gives up the disordered (non-Biblical) lifestyle but they must continue to remain chaste and to never again pursue that disordered life.

The words, “Go, and sin no more,” can be gut-wrenchingly difficult, but they are transformative.

Precisely. Too often the forgiveness factor is emphasised but there is always that second aspect to Jesus’ directive: "sin no more" (John 8:11).

God judges the individual based upon the individual’s choices. The Catholic Church upholds God’s teaching and expects the individual to seek complete conversion of the heart.

If the person chooses to ignore the stated teachings and their stated consequences then the person himself draws down God's judgment upon himself. The Catholic Church will not enable nor approve self-destructive behavior.
E.g. Children. A child is told repeatedly to avoid the hot oven door and to not touch it as it will burn him. The child ignores the instruction and chooses to touch the door, thus burning himself. Is it the fault of the instruction or the oven? Or is it the fault of the child?
The oven is hot - Truth.
The child ignores the instructions that the oven is hot - free will.
The child touches the oven and is burned. Consequences/judgment.
Free Will and the consequences of choices are a part of the complete and entire concept/definition of judgment in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

+++

"The call for liturgical blessings of same-sex unions is part of a wider push by some German bishops to change the Church’s teaching on a number of issues, including on the sacraments of priestly ordination and marriage."

The reason all of this has come up again is because of the rumblings coming from some of the German bishops. They are in a bit of a panic. Not all of the German bishops but some.They are beguiled into thinking that allowing secular lifestyles, fads and culture will increase attendance as well as membership. Of course as we have seen in other congregations, this is one of satan’s lies.

So as it does, the Vatican is making it clear yet again that nothing has changed regarding Catholic teaching and that this dogma is a Biblical mandate that cannot change: therefore all parishes and dioceses are required to obey this teaching. If they choose to disobey this teaching they incur excommunication upon themselves.

My POV:
EVERY DENOMINATION AND GROUP has had rebellious leadership and members at some point in its history. Those who are rebellious and apostate first attempt to change the groups' Biblical teachings. In those groups whose leaders and members are strongly anchored in the Bible, this attempt fails and the rebels leave.

In those groups who are not anchored in the Bible and with weak leadership and members, the attempt succeeds and the group thus falls prey to every shifting sand of society.

[temporal1]

Max:
I have been asked to explain this current event from a Catholic perspective.

your input is welcome. who asked you?

[MaxPC]

More importantly, what do you understand of what I have just written?

[temporal1]

More importantly, what do you understand of what I have just written?

i asked the easy question, as i intended to study the rest.

typically, i read and reread, and often read again the more important content.
as i did with Soloist’s post above. i first read it last night, then several times again before replying today.

i’m a slow reader, not a great reader. i try to compensate with a few methods.