Tuesday, October 14, 2014

That's one low bar and one tiny baby step

I've got to say, I'm blown away by all the news reports saying the Vatican "urges respect for gay couples". Sure, they've finally admitted that "there are cases" - some cases - "in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners". And I'm not denying that's a step forward.


But that same sentence started like this: "Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions".

And let's not forget that at that very same synod, a cardinal - and not just any cardinal, but Raymond Burke, the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, second only to the pope himself as judicial authority - told parents not to invite their gay children and spouses/partners to Christmas if grandchildren were present:
"If homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered, which indeed they are — reason teaches us that and also our faith — then, what would it mean to grandchildren to have present at a family gathering a family member who is living in a disordered relationship with another person? We wouldn’t, if it were another kind of relationship — something that was profoundly disordered and harmful — we wouldn't expose our children to that relationship, to the direct experience of it. And neither should we do it in the context of a family member who not only suffers from same-sex attraction, but who has chosen to live out that attraction, to act upon it, committing acts which are always and everywhere wrong, evil."
He said these things, and was not rebuked.

"Profoundly disordered and harmful." "Intrinsically disordered ... indeed." "Expose our children." "Acts which are always and everywhere wrong, evil." Evil.

Yeah. I'm not sensing the "respect" here.

Labels: ,


At 2:01 PM, October 16, 2014 Anonymous Kathie had this to say...

Did you see this article in today's Washington Post? FWIW, in Portuguese "acolher" means to welcome, so I'm guessing that "accogliere" is the same in Italian.

“Vatican document on outreach to LGBT community edits out ‘welcome’ to focus on ‘providing for’ ”:

For the second time this week, top clergy at a Vatican meeting on family issues have revised their language concerning outreach to gays and lesbians, removing an urging for the church to “welcome homosexual persons” and substituting that it focus on “providing for homosexual persons.”

...The meeting is releasing information each day in several languages, and only the English version was changed on Thursday. The Italian heading for that section remains unchanged: “accogliere le persone omosessuali.” Massimo Faggioli, an Italian theologian covering the synod, tweeted Thursday that “I am Italian and that is not a translation, it is a falsification”...

At 2:26 PM, October 16, 2014 Blogger The Ridger, FCD had this to say...

No. It's not in today's print edition.

I see this: "The Rev. Thomas Reese, a priest-journalist covering the synod, said the clergy are “in a panic. They are afraid this welcoming language will confuse people. They’ll think the church is going to change its teaching.” None of the 190 clergy are pushing for that, he said.

“You get the impression they are very concerned, they want more theology in the document. They want more church teaching in the document. They want more encouragement to Catholics who are struggling to follow church teaching. They are very much afraid if they talk too much about what’s good in these incomplete and impartial relationships that people will say: ‘Then why should I bother doing what the church teaches?’”"

I'm not sure that "precious" and "valuable" are worth fighting over given the magnitude of the difference between "welcome" and "provide for". And I have to say: WTF does Reese mean by "impartial relationships"? Seriously. What does he mean? Non-complementarian?

At 4:40 PM, October 16, 2014 Anonymous Kathie had this to say...

Religious mumbo jumbo.

At 5:04 PM, October 16, 2014 Anonymous Kathie had this to say...

The article was updated online at 11:58 AM today, so presumably the part re the translation was reported then.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link

     <-- Older Post                     ^ Home                    Newer Post -->