New Teaching on Marriage? No.
Breaking In The Habit | 19 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YbbFCRk5yI
Two comments that got lots of answer comments.
"As a Catholic homosexual even I know the truth. You can't bless sin in any way. You can bless the sinner but not any sin. You can bless the sinner individually but not as a couple."
"As a homosexual I chose the way to stay single. This is my moral choice because the church taught me to do so. Now people are trying to change the dogma, it’s really hard to accept. When I decided to obey the law of the church I thought at least I have church."
1) Very much prior to Fiducia Supplicans, there is a doctrinal confusion, shared by Joe Sciambra who recently "crossed the Bosphorus" (or the Volga, not sure which), and in the case of one honourable exception known to me, not shared by Charles Chaput, presumed ordinary emeritus of Philadelphia.
The confusion is the pretence that homosexual individuals are called to or required to stay single. Josh Weed has famously procreated with his wife four daughters (at least) before trying affairs with men. Svante Pääbo, like his wife, they have a son together, and they used to think they were exclusively homosexual which doesn't follow even from predominantly homosexual.
There are similar stories from Philadelphia under Charles Chaput, but for other dioceses, or under his pro-LGBTQ successor who apologised for him, the marriages of Weed and Pääbo are due to the men not being in the Catholic Church.
If my take is traditionally speaking wrong, someone show me a document from prior to 1950 (Humani Generis) which says so. Otherwise, I think the modern ideology is fulfilling 1 Timothy 4:3.
2) Fiducia Supplicans could probably be implemented in a correct way, if the gay couple is in one of the following situations:
- looking for an extra apartment so they can break up (cease sinning) without one of them becoming homeless
- looking for a lesbian couple to effect a partner exchange for the Chaput solution (in that case, one of the men could enter the appartment of the women, one of the women the apartment of the men)
- fighting a fight for sth even more important than avoiding sodomy, like temporarily as a couple saving a baby from impending abortion
- being unable to leave each other, but asking the strength to live like Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson in the works of Conan Doyle (keeping separate bedrooms separate, I suppose some of that "community" have done fan fictions on Doyle where this is not the case, as they are presumably also doing on the Dynamic Duo).
However, it struck me, Ratzinger once spoke out about male prostitutes who would begin a kind of moralisation process if insisting on condoms.
I differed from St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (FSSPX) on that occasion. Such a person would not be more contraceptive bc of the condom, which means that it doesn't add to the sinfulness of the act. Therefore it subtracts from it by decreasing a certain risk.
The problem I begin to sense with this document is, someone could reason about two gay men beginning a kind of moralisation process by being faithful to each other. And a priest reasoning like that could bless "their fidelity, if not their sin" and such a blessing of their fidelity could, precisely like gay marriage, be an obstacle to them looking for or finding the Chaput solution, as obviously for them really trying the single solution.
3) Just in case someone assumes I take an interest in the question bc I'm somehow supposed to be HS, no, not the case. I have gratitudes to some HS men (notably to someone who took care of ma the latter part of my pregnancy). I come from a country where "homophobia" is legally a crime (Åke Green got in trouble, I didn't double check his actual words, so I presumed he had deviated from charity and even doctrine in a way he hadn't, he had just been using HS as a euphemism for active gay lifestyle). I try to both defend the doctrine and stay out of legal trouble.
A N D ... I have a similar interest in promoting a lowering of the marital age. Some have stated "it's unfair if God doesn't allow homosexuals to have sex" -- I say with Chaput God hasn't forbidden them normal sex, and God has also forbidden heterosexual people to have gay sex. Some have stated "it's unfair that we have to wait to marriage, when puberty is so much earlier" and I reply that marriage at the age of puberty was in practise available to lots of girls, plus the boys who had no financial troubles barring them from being breadwinners, i e royalty or peasants. Men have changed laws in evil ways. God did not say marriage had to wait to 18 or 21. Progressive Era and Prussian and Risorgimento men in politics did.
I'm as apologist refusing to stamp a man-made problem as a fault in God's law.
4:39 Wait ... when hearing Mark Goring, I actually was nearly endorsing it as conditionally well applicable, after reading §§31--41.
I should have read 31 a bit closer:
"so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love."
Now, this could correspond to the situation I considered as licit:
- being unable to leave each other, but asking the strength to live like Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson ...keeping separate bedrooms separate.
But it could also correspond to:
- The problem I begin to sense with this document is, someone could reason about two gay men beginning a kind of moralisation process by being faithful to each other. And a priest reasoning like that could bless "their fidelity, if not their sin" and such a blessing of their fidelity could, precisely like gay marriage, be an obstacle to them looking for or finding the Chaput solution, as obviously for them really trying the single solution.
I think I should reject the document after all.
Lesbian Activist Reacts to Same Sex Blessings
Reason & Theology | 3 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZZ1fKD_W8k
I am however somewhat concerned about § 31.
According to some theological positions, a homosexual who refuses to be promiscuous, who decides to remain in a faithful couple, certainly is still sinning, but is doing a step in the right direction.
The problem I have is, I see an attempt to shoehorn people with SSA into either that or celibacy.
I e, still no appreciation for Chaput (against whom LGBTQ-activists were scathing) and that means:
- people are still being excluded from marriage (as in one man, one woman) as per a prejudice someone with SSA could not validly will that union,
- and people unjustly reputed to be of SSA are still collateral damage to that policy.
Consider me collateral damage, sir ...
No comments:
Post a Comment