Also since when have United Nations been taken by the Catholic Church as authoritive sources in Moral Teaching?
Their philosophy on this rests on the free will God has granted us. He will not force anyone who does not want to be part of His Son Jesus, to be in the Most Holy Trinity in heaven. It is impossible. He, the Creator, grants each soul the dignity of saying no. There is no argument with the current Magisterium here. The “How” and “Why” each soul can say no to its Creator is a different story. Does the current Magisterium believe, like St. Paul, that we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12) daily? Most traditional Catholics get much wisdom in knowing what fear of the Lord is. It hinges on and is a fruit of obedience in faith. Obedience in Faith starts with a hearing of God’s voice, and ends with a total submission to Him (think of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Annunciation). If anyone departs from this, then the true freedom of being one in Christ’s body is lost, and chaos and confusion can enter in. Peace, Ed
But if a soul can say ,'No', to God and hence be sent to help where it looses its Dignity then how can such a Dignity be said to be,'Inalienable', or , Infinite', since clearly in hell it's Dignity has been alienated from it and is, therefore, finite. The existence of Hell appears to be logically incompatible with such concepts. This is not a problem of course to Vatican heretics who do not believe in evil.Sin. Or Hell.
That wretched heretic Fernandez was asked this exact same question by journalist Diane Montagne at a Press Conference and couldn't, or wouldn't answer it. Because of course his only logical defense would be that there is no hell. But of course he's never going to be honest enough to state this. At least not yet.
Imho, in saying no to God one has forfeited the dignity that goes with being made in His Image and Likeness. There is no dignity, angelic or human, in hell. But the gift of a freewill to make that choice has been respected by Him, who gave humanity the "right to choose". Fear and trembling are necessary to working out salvation, because when face to face with the Majesty of God, in His infinite goodness, it will take great and true love for Him along with courage to beg His Mercy when the time comes. The Saints and Holy Angels will help too, as much as they are allowed. For myself, when praying the Creed, I focus on those first 2 words ~ I believe.....
As Malachi Martin said of the dead Anabale Bugnini: " poor Anabale. If he didn't believe it before he believes it now." ( referring to hell)
All that you have said is well reasoned and logical, from our perspective. From Almighty God’s perspective, He has allowed that soul in hell to remain in existence (albeit a horrific one). There is something about existence in itself that is a privilege. The privilege may be eternally squandered, but yet it remains. All that is, came from nothing but God’s Will to make it so, and for those created things made in His image and likeness, the privilege of remaining in existence does not seem to be one that He will revoke. Either in heaven, or in hell, existence goes on. This seems to be the last privilege extended to the soul in hell. From our Father’s perspective. I must check to see what St. Thomas has to say on this.
According to the document, we have ontological dignity by virtue of being human. My understanding of what the document teaches is that what's intrinsic to being human is inalienable because we will always be human wherever we spend eternity. In a later paragraph, the documents talks about how we can obscure the likeness to God aspect of our human dignity by misusing the gift of reason. That state can be corrected in this life by repenting and turning back to God. It can't be corrected in the next life. The gift of reason enables us, with God's grace, to work out our salvation. My understanding is that if we misuse the gift of reason in our earthly existence, thus rejecting God's love, we forfeit any hope of spending eternity in the Beatific vision and our ontological dignity is permanently obscured. It seems to me that what's permanently obscured is the same as being lost because the effect (eternal damnation) is the same. Maybe I'm just too stupid to see a problem with that part of the document. Here's Michael Lofton's video about it:
St. Thomas Aquinas has discussed why a soul in mortal sin is not destroyed. It has to do with God’s Justice. See below: OF GOD'S MERCY AND JUSTICE TOWARDS THE DAMNED (FIVE ARTICLES) Whether by Divine justice an eternal punishment is inflicted on sinners? [*Cf. FS, Question [87], Articles [3],4] Reply to Objection 4: The everlasting punishment of the wicked will not be altogether useless. For they are useful for two purposes. First, because thereby the Divine justice is safeguarded which is acceptable to God for its own sake. Hence Gregory says (Dial. iv): "Almighty God on account of His loving kindness delights not in the torments of the unhappy, but on account of His justice. He is for ever unappeased by the punishment of the wicked." Secondly, they are useful, because the elect rejoice therein, when they see God's justice in them, and realize that they have escaped them. Hence it is written (Ps. 57:12): "The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge," etc., and (Is. 66:24): "They," namely the wicked, "shall be a loathsome sight* to all flesh," namely to the saints, as a gloss says. [*"Ad satietatem visionis," which St. Thomas takes to signify being satiated with joy; Cf. Question [94], Article [3]]. Gregory expresses himself in the same sense (Dial. iv): "The wicked are all condemned to eternal punishment, and are punished for their own wickedness. Yet they will burn to some purpose, namely that the just may all both see in God the joys they receive, and perceive in them the torments they have escaped: for which reason they will acknowledge themselves for ever the debtors of Divine grace the more that they will see how the evils which they overcame by its assistance are punished eternally." Reply to Objection 6: Punishment corresponds to fault, properly speaking, in respect of the inordinateness in the fault, and not of the dignity in the person offended: for if the latter were the case, a punishment of infinite intensity would correspond to every sin. Accordingly, although a man deserves to lose his being from the fact that he has sinned against God the author of his being, yet, in view of the inordinateness of the act itself, loss of being is not due to him, since being is presupposed to merit and demerit, nor is being lost or corrupted by the inordinateness of sin [*Cf. FS, Question [85], Article [1]]: and consequently privation of being cannot be the punishment due to any sin. (Above taken from The Summa Theologica Supplement)
If Fernandez and Papa Frankie opened a Gay Nightclub in St Peters crypt Michael Loften would put a good face on it.
This document, in itself, has much to recommend it. However, it bears the limitations and excess of language highlighted succintly by Ed above. Such would probably be acceptable if the document was released in the midst of other orthodox teaching by a good pope. After all, Pope JPII was the first to use the phrase that titles the document. However, despite the considerable amount of orthodoxy and truth that is contained within this document, I find it impossible to avoid the strong suspicion that this, particularly because of its timing so soon after the sodomy-blessing document, is merely a gaslighting sop to reassure those outraged by the previous abomination. Looking at it at the base personal level, is it any great sacrifice for homosexuals and homosexualists (and let's be under no illusions-this is a product of the homosexual lobby that now fully controls the Catholic Church) to condemn abortion, transexuality and surrogacy? Only a very small number of them are interested in the sickening practice of becoming parents or of 'changing' their sex, so it's easy enough to throw these minorities under the bus, for the sake of sodomy.
He probably would. He's a huge fan of Cardinal Fernandez. But that doesn't make him wrong about everything. I posted the video because he quotes the parts of the document being discussed on this thread.
Many traditionalist Catholics will focus on what the document says about human dignity as it relates to sexual morality. That's understandable given how it's a hot button issue, the Church has been mired in scandals caused by deviant clerics, the secular powers are using sexuality to indoctrinate and manipulate young people especially, and the Pope has displayed a lukewarm attitude towards Catholic teaching on these issues. I get a sense that the Pope's priority has more to do with the huge changes we are seeing in the world due to the mass migration of people and his concern for how that affects the poor. It seems to me that he sees sexual morality as a side issue being used by traditionalists to distract from what he considers a greater threat to humanity and to undermine his authority. I don't think that his concerns are completely unfounded.
What you are saying seems to me that the Church ought to be another NGO dealing with worldly issues, rather than the eternal ones that are concerned with a soul's suitability to be worthy of Heaven. I apologise profusely, if I misinterpret you. Christ did not concern Himself, in His sojourn on Earth, with issues concerning the fate of humanity and emphasised that 'the poor are always with us', but seemed very emphatic about issues of sexual morality. Likewise with the Apostles whom He instructed and the Fathers who succeeded them. As for the ongoing doomsday narrative of our elites, it is God Himself will determine the fate of humanity and Who will determine when the trumpets blast. It seems to me whatever problems assail mankind are of mankind's own making and any attempt to alleviate them by mankind will more than likely make them worse. As for Pope Francis and his 'authority', I think he has undermined it himself.
As far as Papa Frankie and his cronies in the Vatican are concerned is that if people by this stage don't understand the massive Satanic evil they are dealing with, well then I just throw my hands in the air, walk away and give up. It's like banging your head against a granite column.
That's not what I'm saying but there's no need for you to apologise. I should have expressed myself more clearly. For Catholics there shouldn't be an either or attitude to sexual morality and concern for the poor. That's what I'm seeing develop when it should be both and. We Catholics have to beware of being manipulated. It's easy for us to see the manipulation of the cafeteria into believing that they can disregard teachings against sins of the flesh and gloss over it by talking about their love of the poor. It's not so easy for us to recognise that we also can be manipulated. I just can't shake off a nagging suspicion that some traditionalist buttons are being pushed by people who don't have the Church's best interests at heart. Pope Francis permits in pastoral practice and by his own example actions which undermine or downright contradict the faith. That stinks of hypocrisy to me but it doesn't give me the right to nitpick his every magisterial document for doctrinal error. God will judge any hypocrisy on the part of the Pope and will protect the Church from formalising erroneous teaching. The only part of the document I have read is what Michael Lofton quoted. I don't see a problem with it and I haven't read anything on this thread to change my mind. Yes, the poor will always be with us, therefore, we will always have a duty to hear their cry and help lift them out of poverty. I believe that Jesus used a teaching moment to let us know that our first duty is to God. I don't believe He meant for us to adopt a sola fide attitude which seems to be creeping into Catholicism particularly in wealthier countries. The poor will always be a channel of grace or an occasion of sin for those who live in comfort or opulence. The choice between grace and sin is ours. I don't think transgenderism is top of the list of priorities in the poorest parts of the world. Survival probably matters more in those regions and Francis is their Pope with as much duty to them as he has to us. It doesn't take a doomsday elitist to see the mass displacement/migration of people in the world today. Pope Francis probably thinks that it will get worse due to climate change. I'm more of the view that it's due to geopolitical skulduggery by elitists using climate change as a weapon to cover their skulduggery and to divide and control the masses. Whatever the cause, the vast majority of victims are poor and how we respond could impact our ability to spread the Gospel for generations to come. Anti-Christian forces use "charitable" NGO's to their own benefit. It seems to me that complacency has led us to conceding far too much of the high moral ground to them. Love him or loathe him, I think that Pope Francis could actually help reverse that trend. Perhaps a bit more support from traditionalists on that front would allay his fears that they are using tradition to undermine him. Sorry for the long winded reply. I hope it helps bring a bit more clarity to my attempts at laying out my thoughts which I admit are rather muddled.
