While reading the news that Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the president of the German Bishops’ Conference and one of the nine members of Council of Cardinal Advisers, had recently “declared that, in his view, Catholic priests can conduct blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples,” a couple of things came to mind.
First, a short message I received in 2014 from someone who was very familiar with the daily workings of the Vatican and had first-hand experience with many of the key cardinals, bishops, and other “players” in Rome. The gist of the note was simple: those clerics with a pro-homosexual agenda see this pontificate as “their chance” to clear the way for acceptance of homosexuality as not only normal, but even good and healthy. And they will do everything they can to make such acceptance a reality. In pondering that sad fact, one recalls the words of then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in 2005, in his meditation on the Ninth Station of the Cross: “How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him!”
Secondly, I recalled my April 2014 editorial titled “Welcome to the Reign of ‘Gay’,” in which I recounted my experience in the 1990s working in Portland, Oregon, with some homosexual men, one of whom insisted, “We don’t have any interest in being married. We just want the same civil rights. Anyone who thinks that gays will try to change marriage is paranoid and stupid.” That, in short, is a howler; in fact, those of us who thought homosexuals really were trying to “change marriage” were far more prophetic than paranoid, and much more perceptive than stupid. And it should be emphasized that prophecy, at least in biblical terms, is not so much the divining of specific events as it is following the internal logic of good and evil actions and intentions to their inescapable ends.
Now, back to the report on Cardinal Marx:
Cardinal Reinhard Marx told the Bavarian State Broadcasting’s radio service that “there can be no rules” about this question. Rather, the decision of whether a homosexual union should receive the Church’s blessing should be up to “a priest or pastoral worker” and made in each individual case, the German prelate stated.
Notice that, according to the report, the blessing is not of a person but of a “homosexual union”. Of course, in the eyes of the Church, natural law, and common sense, there is no such thing. As Cardinal Ratzinger, when Prefect of the CDF, stated in the 1986 Letter to the bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons:
To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. (Emphasis added)
There is also the Catechism, which continues to put matters rather forthrightly, despite those who would like to rewrite it:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. (CCC, 2357)
Since homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, sterile by their very nature, and contrary to sexual complementarity, they cannot result in “unions”. Period. Thus, right from the start, Cardinal Marx begins by assuming and embracing a falsehood—one that is not just about sexual activity but about what it means to be human. After all, the big battle of our time, in so many ways, is anthropological, as St. John Paul II constantly emphasized. Moving on:
Speaking on Feb. 3, on the occasion of his 10th anniversary as Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Cardinal Marx was asked why “the Church does not always move forward when it comes to demands from some Catholics about, for instance, the ordination of female deacons, the blessing of homosexual couples, or the abolition of compulsory [priestly] celibacy.”
The question is misleading, perhaps intentionally so, because it confuses matters of discipline with matters of doctrine and morals. Married men are allowed to be priests in the Eastern Churches (and some are allowed in the West, in certain cases); but no Catholic can commit homosexual acts and say in truth and good conscience, “This is good and morally upright.” And yes, again, that is the clear implication of what Cardinal Marx says, if one follows the simple logic involved: only that which is good and proper can be blessed, so to bless a homosexual “union” is to say, quite openly, that it is good and proper.
More:
Marx said that, for him, the important question to be asked regards how “the Church can meet the challenges posed by the new circumstances of life today – but also by new insights, of course,” particularly concerning pastoral care.
Describing this as a “fundamental orientation” emphasized by Pope Francis, Marx called for the Church to take “the situation of the individual, … their life-story, their biography, … their relationships” more seriously and accompany them, as individuals accordingly.
Ever since the two Synods of 2014 and 2015, it has been obvious many in the Church think that at some point in 2013 or so modern life suddenly became so complex, so complicated, and so bewildering in its “newness” and “circumstances” that suddenly many of the Church’s teachings on morality, sexuality, and marriage had to be either reconsidered or shelved altogether. That was bad enough, but then we are told, in various ways, that the Church must look to the secular world—a world almost entirely bereft of sanity, sensibility, humility, propriety, or any sense of objective telos—for answers! It’s as if a man who is struggling with his marriage vows suddenly hits upon a novel solution: he will seek the advice of Charlie Sheen! What could go wrong? The Church, once said to be “an expert in humanity,” is now supposed to accept being a dumb disciple sitting at the feet of an ideological giant that preaches the gospel of the dictatorship of relativism—a dictatorship that builds a culture of death and actively promotes the reign of gay. It boggles the mind.
And:
Marx has recently called for an individualized approach to pastoral care, which, he has said, is neither subject to general regulations nor is it relativism.
Such “closer pastoral care” must also apply to homosexuals, Cardinal Marx told the Bavarian State Broadcaster: “And one must also encourage priests and pastoral workers to give people in concrete situations encouragement. I do not really see any problems there.”
As one commentator at CWR dryly remarked: “It must be exhausting to have to juggle so many ‘concrete situations’ at once.” With so much juggling going on, one can be forgiven for thinking he’s watching a circus. It is readily evident that Marx and Company, as they demonstrated at the Synods and beyond, want to do away with objective norms that apply to all situations, as well as the traditional belief there are, in fact, intrinsic evils. Is it any coincidence that just this past week a German moral theologian who is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Life, proposed that the term “intrinsically evil” is “outdated”? It is, I am convinced, just the latest attempt to undermine the clear moral teachings of the Church, especially as articulated by St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor:
Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. (VS, 80)
In other words, no matter how sincere or likable a person might be, the intrinsic nature of certain acts he commits cannot be dismissed or denied. And, by the way, don’t miss the footnote (#131) given by St. John Paul II, which is a citation from Pope Paul VI, who stated in 1967, not long before issuing Humanae Vitae:
Far be it from Christians to be led to embrace another opinion, as if the Council taught that nowadays some things are permitted which the Church had previously declared intrinsically evil. Who does not see in this the rise of a depraved moral relativism, one that clearly endangers the Church’s entire doctrinal heritage?
This moral relativism is especially evident in the realm of sexual morality. And Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1986, was mindful of this fact, stating:
In the discussion which followed the publication of the [1975] Declaration [on sexual ethics], however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. (emphasis added)
But Cardinal Marx, who is one of Pope Francis’ close advisers, thinks “homosexual unions” are neutral or even good. And that they somehow fall into a category beyond rules, solutions, regulations, which is simply his way of avoiding words such as “truth” and “morality” and “reality”:
Asked whether he really was saying that he “could imagine a way to bless homosexual couples in the Catholic Church,” Marx answered, “yes” – adding however, that there could be “no general solutions.”
“It’s about pastoral care for individual cases, and that applies in other areas as well, which we can not regulate, where we have no sets of rules.”
Ah, “other areas”. And “no rules.” Well, why even bother being Catholic? Seriously: why? If what was once intrinsically evil is now to be blessed, and there are no objective rules or truths that apply to all situations and people (save, perhaps, truths about global warming, immigration, and the “terrorism of gossip”), and everything is now “pastoral” and thus freed from any regulation or rules, why bother?
Fortunately, what Cardinal Marx says is nonsensical. Actually, it is far worse than nonsensical: it is falsehood parading as tolerance and love. It is a destructive lie. And now, once again, the ball is in Francis’ court, just as the lie comes from one who spends much time in that same court. Put another way, Cardinal Marx is spreading false news; he is going contrary to the Good News. What now?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The German Catholic Church. Flush with cash. Few go to Church there. And Marx and fellow bishops are hell-bent on maintaining black is white.
And Pope Francis does nothing except agree by omission.
AL has brought out the furies and tell me that this is not a full court press to bring down the Church in the name of false understanding and compassion.
Amoris Laetitia was simply a ruse to get approval for homosexual unions. If you can’t deny the Eucharist to adulterers then you can’t deny the Eucharist to anybody. The St. Gallen and lavender mafias have not only succeeded in getting the camel’s nose under the tent they’ve got the whole herd inside with the complicity of the Bishop of Rome.
According yo the Gospel, Jesus declared such relations as “abomination:
Francis believes in what Marx believes.
What counts in Francis-Kirk is big German cash (Marx), post-Catholic disbelief (Kasper) and homo-erotic sociology (the whole bunch of them, from the election manger Cardinal “coverup” Danneels, and all of their propagandists Martin, Reese, Tucson Fernandez, Forte and Coccopalmieri, and their most-favored sex abuser – “Rev.” Mauro Inzoli – restored to priestly faculties by Francis – just to show the victims’ poor parents what mercy means NOW.
Defending the faith is not easy. Perhaps it might be simpler if the Pope would exclude certain non-compatible types from practicing the faith. Just imagine… we would no longer have exhausting discussions about a valid sacramental marriage. We would no longer baptize foster children of a Gay couple. We would be free of verifying that a Gay couple was remaining celibate as they cohabitate. The length of time spent at a confessional would be less because the sinners sins would be much simpler, like mine.
“if the Pope would exclude certain non-compatible types from practicing the faith.”
He doesn’t have to bother. They’re already not practicing the Faith.
Interesting that you capitalize “Gay” but not “Faith.” That tells us everything we need to know about you: practicing perversion is good, obedience to God and to the Church is baaaaaaaad.
Sorry, but truly read what you posted! To practice the Faith, is to work at it. Meaning you are sincerely attempting to avoid serious sin, not changing what sin is. God said, not one letter of the law will be changed.
Unfortunately, Marx is no the only bishop who considers homosexual “unions” not only to exist but to be protected and blessed. I read somewhere that whilst Pope Francis is against what is called “gay marriage”, but he is not against homosexual “unions” or so-called “civil unions”, which is only another way of approving sodomy. The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmud Martin, át the time of the gay marriage referendum also defended so-called “civil unions”.
Asregards priestly celibacy in the Eastern Church, I consider the changes brought about by the Council in Trullo (or Quinisext) held at Constantinople in 691-692, which approved the present custom, to be a deviation from the original and universal tradition of the Church going back to the time of the apostles, as Fr. Christian Cecchini demonstrates. This Synod was never approved by any Pope and had an anti-Roman animus, and it also speciously attempted to base its devious teaching on the Council of Carthage of 393. The Orthodox a few centuries later even came to the extreme of forbidding the ordination of unmarried men. I invite readers to check the article by Fr.Donald Keefe, S.J which makes an excellent case for the theological nature of priestly celibacy and offers useful bibliography http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1741134/posts
Canonist Edward Peters cogently argues in favor of the application of the lex continentiae to permanent deacon, an argument brought up by Cardinal Stickler and ignored at the time of the Council: http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm
Now that the Synod for the Amazonian region is likely to provide cover for introducing “exceptions” on priestly celibacy, as the two Synods were intended to give cover to the matter of giving Holy Communion to the “divorced and remarried”, anyone interested in pursuing the matter will find useful information in by following the above links. Once the dyke is broken, the water will flow. That is how fasting disappeared from the life of the Church, by becoming optional.Priestly celibacy is about to get the same treatment, and the Germany episcopate has already expressed its desire for it as if the Orthodox and the Protestants have abundant vocations.
‘Dike’not ‘dyke’. Legit, as secondary option, but in common parlance the substitution of ‘i’ for ‘y’ indicates the (those) ladies!
At bottom…this cafeteria approach to scripture has infected both your heroes and your villains….starting within TOB in the mid ’80’s in the section on wifely obedience.
For me, the two previous Popes taught all these loons ( and appointed some of them if not most) but taught them by precedent by inter alia their own campaign publicly to end the death penalty worldwide which contradicts Rom.13:4 and their own ccc 2267 which said…rare use might be needed…( itself laughable but closer to orthodox than abolition). We are now post biblical. The three recent Popes never mentioned Romans 13:4…these pro gay magisterial figures will never mention Romans 1:26 “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”
But the process is identical….pick and choose what you prefer in scripture….don’t harmonize antilogies per Jerome.
St. JPII actually had a partial only love of scripture. Forget the death penalty. On wifely obedience, he would only quote Ephesians and not the other five New Testament verses that clear as a bell require wifely obedience ( Mulieris Digitatem 24/ TOB 89). Ephesians allowed him to use the intro to 3 successive obediences…”be subject to one another”….wives to husbands, children to both parents, slaves to masters…to imply that husbands must submit ( which they do in a myriad of small things but Ephesians wasn’t saying that but introducing three cases of obedience in big things.). By making it not an intro but part only of the first pairing…marriage couples…he thought it was ” the gospel innovation” that departed from the other NT verses that reflected “the old way”….of Sarah calling Abraham..”Lord” mentioned by one of those five verses who would not quote.
Our problems are both Biblical cafeteriaism throughout the clergy of all levels….and insufficient excommunications….for 37 years now. We need a top rated corporate consultancy firm to come in from the outside…and tell the Pope that because he won’t listen to me because I don’t hold a chair of theology…though I do have a Drexel commonwealth chair with the individual nailheads done per piece by hand in muted gold suede leather…but I digress. Catholicism is the true Church and its a mess because Popes don’t Administrate…the most needed part of the job since 1979…they change the job into doing what they liked as a lad. Two of them liked authoring…they kept admin to three hours a week and wrote their heads off. This one likes endless talking about international affairs and likes traveling…so that’s what he does. He uses more fossil fuel than a BMW M3 owned by a twenty year old.
Did any of them take measures to reduce the hookup or fornication rate in many Catholic colleges ( Newman Society…30-40% in some Catholic colleges)? Not a one. They do what they like. Benedict liked writing about the saints. That’s what he did. Were the Catholic hookup crowd reading his saint monographs? No…people who didn’t need those monographs were reading them. Popes are doing their hobby…as being their job…with three or four hours admin a week when we need 50 hours admin from them.
people who didn’t need those monographs were reading them.
Amen.
The Church remains wildly mismanaged and all people can so is shrug. And cognize its leaders. A bit amazing. Its like CEOs of failing companies getting raises…
Since Cardinal Marx is one of the closest papal advisers, Pope Francis has an obligation to offer fraternal correction to Cardinal Marx, since Cardinal Marx’s statements are a source of scandal to the faithful. If Pope Francis does not, which appears to be his MO regarding his supporters, this would suggest, with little doubt, that he sees no problem with Cardinal Marx’s statements.
Someone please remind me again why the SSPX is wrong? It seems to me that as each day passes being “in communion” is a term that only refers to earthly institutional unity and has very little to do with being one in the Faith. How is Marx in “full communion” and “good standing” when he directly contradicts the Catechism in public? How is it that excommunicated bishops who are aligned with the Chinese regime are now in full communion and loyal bishops in China or SSPX bishops are on the outs? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Because when a group rejects a council of the church, they are in violation of Vatican I and many Catholic Doctrines. Plus, when they go and ordain their own bishops, this is nothing more than a protestant runaway sect. I say this as someone who prefers the traditional Latin Mass. You can sympathize with rebels, but you cannot condone them.
I’m not an SSPX member, but in their defence they do not violate any Catholic teachings. If today was 1958 they would simply be regular Catholics. Think about that: yesterday’s faithful Catholics are now today’s “rebels”. You’ll probably be labelled a rebel soon if you continue to believe the official Catechism. Like you, I used to judge the SSPX harshly but given the state of the conciliar Church I think we have no right to judge them. Personally, I’m exploring Eastern Catholic Churches as a hopeful safe harbour.
So the Arian’s were right because they operated according to rules in place prior to the council that denounced Arianism? So its OK for a group to ordain their own bishops when they disagree with the Vatican? The womyn priest people will be glad to hear it. Oh ye of little faith who run away to seek different churches when the going gets rough.
One more thing. The SSPX doesn’t reject Vatican 2. They only reject those parts that contradict previous Catholic teaching. (And since Vatican 2 did not claim to promulgate any new doctrines, the SSPX is still in conformity with Church doctrine). Yes, they have “impaired communion” with the official Church, but given the state of affairs today, I would ask: who doesn’t? Besides, they haven’t changed, we have; and that reality is something to meditate on. The reason I bring the SSPX up is that given the confusion and false teaching coming from bishops and official Vatican sources these days I wonder what being “in communion” really means. What’s the deeper meaning of that concept?
What BS. No serious catholic prelate or theologian approves of SSPXs rejection of large parts of Vatican II Creating your own bishops is something we expect of heretics. Cardinal Burke does not approve. Cardinal Sarah does not approve. Four documents of Vatican II are magisterial.SSOX does not get to form their own church where they decide the holy spirit did not protect Vatican II. If they reject Vatican II, they reject the whole thing and are protestants, in rebellion
a) Your Arian analogy is false. Arians were heretical. The SSPX holds no heretical beliefs. Not one. And if I remember my history, St. Athanasius also would have been considered a rebel because he was one of the few bishops to not go Arian when all else had.
b) The excommunications of the SSPX bishops were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI. So you can stop your hand wringing about the consecrations. BTW Pope Francis has given SSPX priests the faculties to hear confessions and confer the sacrament of marriage. Does he do that for Protestant groups? No. He’s given them that faculty because they are Catholic.
c) You seem to be missing the bigger question. What does “full communion” really mean? As it stands now, if you believe in the Catechism’s teaching on divorce, second unions and communion you too stand in opposition to Pope and his allies. Are you now a rebel for being what the Church taught up until a few years ago? Think about it. 🙂
I suspect that the SSPX will be seen a lot more sympathetically by a lot more people before too long. I also suggest that they are not entirely wrong in their assessment of the situation.
Francis is a bad pope and his reign has been one disaster after another, but he is not the problem. He is the quintessential Vatican II bishop/pope. the problem existed before he was elected. You do not get Francis without Vatican II and you cannot prevent another Francis (or fix what he’s done) without a serious real re-evaluation of Vatican II.
You are right. It makes no sense whatever. Apostates, heretics, and schismatics not only claim to be in “full communion” and “good standing” in the Church but also are actually rewarded by this pope with titles of ”cardinal,” “archbishop,” and “bishop” and given positions of leadership in the Vatican and in their own contries. Where are the faithful and orthodox bishops condemning these hideous outraged and demanding the pope’s removal?
Exactly!
I could not agree more. I used to be skeptical, if not hostile to the SSPX, but how can any serious minded person not believe Lefebvre was right? Prelates like Marx were selected by the great reformers of the reform. St. JPII elevated him to the episcopate and Benedict XVI created him Cardinal. He is only 64! Think of how much longer he has to go. When the great promoters of Catholic orthodoxy are making appointments like this it becomes very difficult to not believe that the Traditionalists were right all along. The SSPX has been acting as the Church’s conscience for several decades. I cannot imagine how much worse things would be if they did not exist.
My thoughts, exactly!
Has anyone ever inquired of Cardinal Marx as to what is the “telos” of this pastoral care? The blessing of a same-sex “union” would pastor, say, the two men toward what? Does Cdl. Marx propose that the priest bless the gay couple so as to pastor them towards friendship without sexual activity? Has he ever been asked this question? It seems that the answer to that question would determine whether he is a sincere but misguided gradualist or a downright scoundrel.
Given that Marx and most prelates are Teilhardians (Teilhard de Chardin, who was severely repressed by Pious XII–what I wouldn’t give for a man like HH Pope Pious XII–who declared his rights forbidden). Teilhardians don’t understand Aristotle or Aquinas and, in fact, reject them.
Forget about teleology–these men think the natural state of all things is inclusiveness.
Thanks for the response. My own opinion on this is that there really are no formal “gradualists” or any true “gradualism” – just prelates lacking in faith who hope “gradually” to erase Church doctrine only because they can’t erase it in one single wipe.
Just to “consider” blessing same-sex couples is bad. These bishops must be warned and the next step must to be remove them from theor priesthood. They are giving scandal to their flocks.
Why is it so hard for everyone to say “apostasy” when a Cardinal on the Vatican’s C9 ruling council publicly claims God’s blessing on a sin that Scripture says “cries out to heaven for vengeance” without the slightest reproof or punishment by the pope?
Cardinal Marx getting on the “Let’s bless homosexual unions” bandwagon is very significant. It seems to me that the homosexual movement in the upper reaches of the church is now starting a full court press to have homosexuality approved. Despite what the scriptures say about it. All of a sudden, the homosexualists are on the march. There is something behind this. Perhaps they have advance notice that the Pope is ill, or perhaps they just feel they have five good years left to get everything homosexuals want done before they might have to deal with a non homosexualist Pope. The statements that Amoris Laetitia opens the door to use of contraception by Chiodi was a major door opening. It is clear now that they want to use AL as the means to tear down any Catholic doctrine they disagree with, on the theory that they are being “pastoral”. The sneaky thing is they will say the doctrine still stands, but each bishop or priest can decide to ignore it. We saw what happened with indults for taking communion in the hand. It quickly became STANDARD PRACTICE, essentially destroying the rule. AL is no different. It is the homosexual get out of jail for free card. The game is afoot, Watson. Watch the homosexual wheels start turning in coming weeks.
The final assault on the Catechism has begun. A proposal to change the Catechism will be made soon. Accompanied by all the usual jesuit-speak theological gymnastics.
The upper echelons of the Vatican will offer no resistance as they have laid the groundwork for it.
They think we are stupid. We are not. We simply have not the earthly power their positions afford them.
Is there anyone but me who suspects a cornered relationship between the Papal defense of the Argentine Bishop and this out-of-control German cleric? Sounds like three peas in a pod.
“What now?” is already answered in your powerful indictment.
Latin bishops don’t need to wait for the pope; if Marx is wrong they can excommunicate him themselves.
“The blessing is not of a person but the homosexual union.”
Such nonsense, pregnant with contradiction, ripe for sarcasm.
A *relation* has no existence apart from its data points – in this case human ones.
This is even so at the subatomic level where the measurables (observables) are the *effects* of a relation. Even here data points still matter.
Isolating, severing, a relation into its own existent is to bypass (the) moral & material law, vacating law of both its descriptive & prescriptive force.
Once so isolated the “relation” becomes a law unto itself as it attempts to call itself into existence apart from reference and referents. Relations, thereby, become constructs of human will – signifying nothing but arbitrary pride and caprice – unbound and unsettled.
[And, we have yet to speak of relations of *proper, lawful* referents!]
A relation unbound by referents is not a thing that exists. In short, there is no there there for Bishop (Cardinal) Marx to bless.
It is something that has started and it seems nothing can stop it but God Himself.
Irenaeus was born in the first half of the second century. His words are an ancient testimony to the unity and universality (catholicity) of the Church. Catholic belief and practice were like the sun; in the essentials the Church was “one and the same throughout the whole world.” This is because the One Holy Spirit Christ promised to send the Church was guiding it.
Let’s be honest about what is at stake here. Bergoglio, by his silence, is signalling his approval of blatant heresy in several dioceses around the world. Qui tacet consentit. (Who is silent consents.) He is thereby engaged in an assault on the universality of the teachings of the Church of which Irenaeus spoke. The Pope, it seems — if Bergoglio really is a legitimate pope, and not an anti-pope due to the violations of canon law in his election — is attempting to destroy the Catholic Church.
If the Church is not the same in the essentials of belief and practice universally it is not the Catholic (Universal) Church. If what is blessed in one diocese is a mortal sin in another, Catholicism is being destroyed. A genuine successor of Peter protected by the Holy Spirit simply cannot explicitly approve of this — or signal his approval of it by his silence.
Contrary to the scholarly opinions of canon lawyers that decided Bergoglio was legitimately elected, he may provide proof himself that he simply cannot be a genuine pope.
Are you aware that while archbishop, the Pope appealed against the condemnation of a priest found guilty in Argentina of paedophilia ? When questioned by a reporter of A2 ( French TV he turned his back on her. Doesn’t sound to me like someone opposed to church doctrine.
“After all, the big battle of our time is anthropological” (Carl Olson). Which is why Aquinas states Evil is in the will of man, due to a willful privation of direction to a due end. The Pontiff, Cardinal Marx perceive homosexuality within a radical shift away from John Paul II’s Christocentric anthropology to the Anthropocentric vision of theologian philosopher Gerhard Hover. Hover argues if time is reduced to the continuous motion of Aristotelian tradition [form and absence of form which affects human acts] it must be taken as an excessive limitation. Time then is actually greater than the space by which it is measured. Human acts are of themselves transient in nature inclusive of their intrinsic moral nature due to the exigency of Time. This refers to Pope Francis’ Paradigm Shift in which time, a “New Epoch” and current exigency surpass previous exigency. This theorem [Hover’s] in effect denies evil is in contradiction to God since evil is not intrinsic to the act but determined by temporal circumstances. Evil must then exist as commensurate to the divine justice as good or evil, but dependent on human judgment and not the infinitely good divine nature. Then nothing is intrinsically and forever evil to God. Since it is man that determines what is good or evil. It sweeps away the entire Apostolic Tradition and revelation of Christ that are the rule of morality and reason the measure. It is Antichrist. God unchanging undivided Pure Act and First Principle cannot be subject to moral divisibility that mirrors a Zoroastrian good and evil composite of justice, namely what is evil today is good tomorrow. In God there is no Darkness.
Is this the same twisted logic that says that Judas didn’t want to betray Jesus and is a good guy! Yes, as a perversion of truth they are making themselves false Gods. In their unholy confusion the true triune God becomes irrevelent! We have to pray that they will find the the truth and the truth will set them free!
I think we must seriously consider discovering whether people like Marx are themselves homosexual, practicing or otherwise. We would never dream of putting, say, a kleptomaniac in charge of a diocese’s museum of sacred vessels, would we? Why then is it sane to put those with this peculiar personality disorder in charge of “explaining” the 6th Commandment? So much damage has already been done to the Church by people like Rembert Weakland, Paul Shanley, and host of other closet sodomite clerics in the past. Isn’t it mere prudence to expose those prelates, priests, and nuns now seeking to drown Paul of Tarsus in a sea of lies? Why should we passively stand by while and allow their diseased minds to ruin the Church?
What is Cardinal Marx’s understanding (definition) of the word “union”? If he means a platonic (ADJECTIVE((of love or friendship)) intimate and affectionate but not sexual:
“their relationship is purely platonic”) union I see no problem with blessing this “union”. If he understands it to mean a sexual union then it is wrong to bless them.
“As it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they bought and sold, they planted and built. But the day that Lot left Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even so shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”–Jesus Christ, Gospel of Luke 17:28-30
It’s very difficult to convince many Christians that homosexual practices are wrong – evil. What no one will talk about is that homosexual sex by it’s very nature is horribly abusive. One must abuse, and the other must submit to abuse. There are emotional , spiritual and psychological consequences when one has chosen to live out a life of abuse. God gives us laws to protect ourselves, live peacefully with each other and serve Him. To abuse ourselves or another is contrary to God’s laws – even if the abuse is consensual.
No rules. Right.
So will Cardinal Marx consecrate unions between adults and children?
Close relatives?
Individuals and their favorite foods?
On what basis would he discriminate? There may well be love in those cases, and happiness.
And how have the circumstances of humanity changed? People, their successes, and their failings, seem much the same today as they did in Aristophanes’ time.
The way things are going is going to expedite God’s pronouncement: “Enough !”
It would appear that if we extrapolate from the past, the next orthodox conservative Pope will call for Vatican III and invite all who are not on board with traditional theology and belief, to find another religious home. I find nothing in scripture or in private revelation that assures the Church of a straight line growth chart. A bit of house cleaning from time to time greatly aids in keeping out damaging elements.
SO this the the new Marxism: “love” your neighbor if he looks like yourself. Marx is less serious than his brother Groucho or his uncle Karl. No real man or woman will fall for this nonsense, but the current hierarchy of perverts in the vatican do believe it. This is proof: nothing’s been done to stop it.
The catholic church has become like all the other modern churches: watered-down liberal nonsense. Soon we will see tranny priests……God help us.
Great essay, Carl. Sorry I missed it when it first came out.
Frankly, I don’t think Reinhard has the common sense of Groucho; I think he’s more a clown like Harpo.
THE QUESTION THAT’S NEVER ANSWERED
On the whole LGBT matter, there is one question that I never see answered by those Catholics who oppose what is being said and done by Cardinal Marx (and other bishops & priests like him).
The question is: How should a present-day society treat LGBT people?
If there was, right now, in the year 2018, a nation that was composed of 90% faithful Catholics, how would that nation treat the 1% or 2% of the population that would be LGBT people?
Let’s call that nation Catholandia.
In Catholandia, would LGBT have any rights against discrimination in employment, or in renting apartments?
Or would the citizens of Catholandia have complete liberty to do conduct no business whatsoever with known or suspected LGBT people?
Would it be the aim of the leaders and people of Catholandia to drive the 1% or 2% LGBT people back into the closet just to survive, as was the case in all Western nations prior to the 1960s/1970s?
Would the government of Catholandia make homosexual sexual activity a crime, such as it was when Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde were arrested?
I’m not defending Cardinal Marx.
But I think Cardinal Marx would defend himself by pointing out that we now know that, for some people at least, the homosexual sexual orientation is a not a choice, but is a compulsion that is as strong as is the heterosexual sexual orientation. And he’d point out that adult LGBT people often have stable relationships, and generally are law-abiding, productive citizens.
So, this leads me back to my original question: In an ideal Catholic society of today, what should be the situation of LGBT people? Should they be driven back into the closet by the fear of arrest or assault or total social exclusion? Is that really a Christian way to treat people who can’t help how they were born?
I’m really asking. I don’t know the answer. I am really surprised at what has happened in the U.S. society regarding LGBT people, the widespread normalization and liberalization.
I don’t know what the answer is, though I must say that the prospect of driving all those people into the closet seems dubious from a Christian point of view. Yet, I admit I don’t know.
But I am tired of all the endless criticism of the new situation by people who never make clear what their ultimate agenda is. How can anyone sign on to a movement when they don’t know what the ultimate destination is?
So, what do you say would be ultimate, ideal situation for LGBT people in any society that could conceivably come into existence?
There is no new situation Bartolome.
And the issue is NOT about granting or denying rights.
The issue = the Kasper/Bergoglio definition of the post-Catholic cult:
Salvation… “here and now” means “each individual can feel himself accepted and approved without reserve” so that “he becomes free to live with others….we are not doing justice to another person when we merely give him whatever he has a right to, we have to accept him as a person and approve of him.”
That is the Kasper/Bergoglio cult. Post-Catholic.
The quotes are from Kasper’s book “Jesus the Christ,” 1976, pp. 85 and 87, promoted by Pope Francis.