I have never read so much rubbish in my life. The misinterpretations of the words of Pope Francis by some here are more perverted than the perverts ' sins they say Pope Francis supports and promotes. God save us from shepherds who betray our trust in The Holy Father. God save us from those who think they know better. Let me be quite clear: if a simple Catholic like me understands absolutely clearly that the Church, if it remains in Truth, can never in clear conscience knowingly offer communion to unrepentant and non-integrated divorced and remarried or practicing homosexuals and that it can never offer marriage to homosexuals, then I am sure the Pope knows this too. His word, therefore, must be read in the light of this knowledge and conviction: his knowledge and conviction and our knowledge and conviction. The harm that the misrepresentation of his words has done and will do to the Church in their rebuttal of his efforts to afford True Mercy to those souls most in need will cry out to heaven for action. This cry will be heard and then indeed will those who have denied the authentic exercise of the authority of Christ seek the same type of Mercy they have denied others. My lenses are perfectly focused. 20/20 vision. : oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those MOST IN NEED OF THY MERCY. Pope Francis recognises that need in the most needy and puts this prayer into action. May the sweet scent of roses descend on this stench of decomposition that is coming from the breakdown of faith caused by the dissenters and detractors and destroyers of truth that number among the opponents of Pope Francis. They are the ISIS of the church as they saw away with their nasty little penknives and ISIS itself must be rubbing its hands in glee at the sight of their new collaborators in the terror of decapitation. Edit. The prayer quoted above is of course the prayer of Fatina. Today is the anniversary of the first visitation at Fatima. We remember the statement and prayer made by Emeritus Pope Benedict in 2010 that Fatima is unfinished business and that the prophesies be fulfilled by 2017. Not long to go now. In Fatima he quoted Francisco the child shepherd seer, "What I liked most of all was seeing Our Lord in that light which our Mother put into our hearts". If this is what happens with rose tinted glasses may I never take them off.
What you have written in bold displays a different understanding of 'conscience' than Saint John Paul II, who insisted that it had to be informed by the clear tenets of the Church. Those whose conscience is formed by ignorance are least 'capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations'. Your last paragraph is simple truth. There is no Christian, scientific or historical basis for these foundationless notions of 'identity'. These ideas are straight out of the neo-gnostic, post-structuralist Frankfurt School playbook. Even Foucault, himself a very promiscuous sodomite, was honest enough to assert that the idea of a homosexual person did not exist before the mid-nineteenth century. Before then, there were only homosexual actions. Now, all the talk is about 'accompanying' those with homosexual tendencies, it is even asserted that these are a good thing in themselves when the person is celibate. I suspect these ideas are only a trojan horse for the acceptance of sodomitical behaviour. I don't think we can lay blame on Pope Francis for these tendencies in the Church as they have been active beneath the surface for many decades-hence the shocking failure to deal with pederasty.
Garabandal, I would suggest you reflect on this quote from Cardinal Ratzinger: Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of extemal social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle: in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. (Joseph Ratzinger, in Ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Doctrine of Vatican II, vol V, p 134.) And as for your final sentence, I find it lacks any meaning at all. You prefer "a person who struggles with a 'homosexual' condition or gives in to it" rather than "a homosexual who struggles with his condition or gives in to it". I really struggle to see any difference in meaning between those two versions!
Are you saying Joe - that all practising homosexuals are in a state of actual mortal sin? If you are - you would be in disagreement with the teachings in Amoris Letitia! Below is the exact quotation (irregular situations could be replaced by any sinful situation such as cohabitation, contraception; sex outside marriage etc). The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values” or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision” What AL teaches is that not all persons who commit objective (material) mortal sin, on a continuous basis without 'apparent' repentance are guilty of actual mortal sin, therefore, it is possible they are still in a state of grace. Actual mortal sin requires more than an objectively grave sin, it also requires full knowledge and full deliberation. So, those who appear to be in an objective state of mortal sin may not be committing actual mortal sin due to mitigating factors perhaps through ignorance or being indoctrinated by sinful secular society that certain behaviours are acceptable. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rules!
Your conscience must ultimately be what you obey in every moral decision, but you must do your utmost to inform it and if you do this properly you will know to do what is commanded by the Church. As for Garabandal's last sentence, it is not meaningless, you have failed to understand it.
Not all those with homosexual inclinations give into the sins of the flesh. They realise their condition as a trial or struggle but live chastely. There are other persons who identify their homosexual inclinations with a lifestyle and 'come out as gay' and these give into the sins of the flesh and homosexual behaviour.
I am fully aware of the the two situations. My alternative sentence referred to both. I am trying to point out that the Pope's exhortation does not use 'politically correct' language. You are finding things that are not there.
Perhaps you can clarify. I quote again what I wrote: And as for your final sentence, I find it lacks any meaning at all. You prefer "a person who struggles with a 'homosexual' condition or gives in to it" rather than "a homosexual who struggles with his condition or gives in to it". I really struggle to see any difference in meaning between those two versions!
Yes it does - to use 'homosexual person' is a politically correct phrase. God sees no one as a 'homosexual person'. He sees persons who struggle with same sex attraction. Homosexual tendencies do not constitute someone's basic identity: they are not 'homosexual persons', they are 'persons' who happen to experience homosexual attractions. Homosexual desires do not define a person. Indeed the homosexual inclination itself is ‘objectively disordered’ (Catechism 2358), meaning it is out of harmony with our deepest identity. We do not identify or define someone with an addiction to alcohol as an 'alcoholic person' as if their problem with alcohol defines their very identity. http://www.homosexuals-anonymous.com/ Homosexuals Anonymous is an international organization dedicated to serving the recovery needs of men and women who struggle with unwanted same sex attraction. This fellowship of men and women, who through their common spiritual, intellectual and emotional experiences have chosen to help each other live in freedom from homosexuality. If you are a person who struggles with unwanted same sex attraction, you are not alone Homosexuals Anonymous and many other related ministries, counselors and therapists provide valuable resources that can be of great use to you.
I feel you know quite well what I am saying. I am saying what the pope has said and meant. I have a hard days paper work ahead and I cannot waste any more energy on this. Time to shake the dust. I am as certain as I can be that I have spoken truth. Not my truth, the truth. It seems most people here disagree. Thank you for your patience and tolerance. Sorry if I have not been able to answer all the objections to my opinion satisfactorily.
I will open this up to the forum. It is my understanding that Amoris Laetitia teaches that not everyone who commits an objective (material) mortal sin are guilty of committing actual mortal sin. Below is the exact quotation from AL (irregular situations could be replaced by any sinful situation such as cohabitation, contraception; sex outside marriage etc). The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values” or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision” What AL teaches is that not all persons who commit objective (material) mortal sin, on a continuous basis without 'apparent' repentance are guilty of actual mortal sin, therefore, it is possible they are still in a state of grace. Actual mortal sin requires more than an objectively grave sin, it also requires full knowledge and full deliberation. So, those who appear to be in an objective state of mortal sin may not be committing actual mortal sin due to mitigating factors perhaps through ignorance or being indoctrinated by sinful secular society that certain behaviours are acceptable. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rules! Is this the correct reading of AL?
The point Garabandal is making is about the identity politics presented by the liberal side these days. He asserts, and I agree with him, that there is no such thing in reality as a homosexual person, as in a person with a 'homosexual identity'. This is merely a relinquishment of responsibility. The reality is that there are some persons who, for various reasons, are faced with temptations of a homosexual kind, a certain proportion who put these into practice. The errant notion of 'identity' is now degenerating into a 'spectrum' of equally imaginary 'identities' of gender. This was probably inevitable once it became standard to accept, despite any empirical evidence to support it, that there were such persons as homosexuals rather than persons who happened to perpetrate homosexual acts.
I have just had a brief look at Steps of Homosexuals Anonymous and found them very interesting and even humbling. In one step they say that they accept they have given themselves over to a lie in identifying themselves as homosexual, that this is a false identity. Now that's radical.
Obviously, it is possible to comment on that section you have quoted and not upon AL as a whole. It is my layman's understanding that Catholic moral theology has always taught that a person could commit what is objectively a mortal sin without being subjectively culpable of it, due to not having either full knowledge or full consent or both. On the face of it, this passage presents me with no grave problem. Technically, it could be briefer and clearer. Perhaps the fact it has to be said is an indictment of Catholic cathechesis in recent decades. Maybe, there is widespread resultant ignorance, which would minimise culpability, but if this ignorance is tackled by the sacraments, notably confession, this ignorance would no longer apply, so communion without cessation of adulterous activity would be out of the question.
It is radical in modernist terms, but it is really only the truth. And we know what the Truth does...
