I have no need as you have demonstrated you have insights into the good Cardinal’s thoughts I could not hope to aspire.
This specific question was asked by a reporter at yesterday’s taped press conference. The query regarding #50 in the format was, “are we to value gays’ gifts and qualities because they are innate and emanate from their sexual orientation?” Card AB Bruno Forte first remarked that such an ontological question was difficult to answer. In the end, the question remained open as he only reiterated the exhortation to respect them.
But, with respect to His Excellency, obviously that passage means something specifically. So what is it?
And if they didn’t want people talking about it and scratching their heads, they didn’t have to release the document in its “working” form.* But they did. For a reason, whatever it is. So it’s perfectly valid to ask what things mean. And if the answer to a question about what this or that means is basically, “I don’t know,” then the question becomes, “Well, what’s the point in saying it?” If we had JPII still and he had a press conference on one of his Encyclicals, God knows he’d be ready with a wise and charitable answer for virtually any question.
It’s not about respect, authority, blah, whatever, it’s just about questions and reasonable answers. If that’s unreasonable then I don’t know why they released the working Relatio post disceptationem.
I’m not trying to stir anything up, just wondering.
We had a realtor that said much the same thing when we were looking for our current home.
If people can’t understand, much less accept the statement and the explanation of Archbishop Forte, then the problem isn’t with the Relatio post disceptationem.
Oh, since you have already managed to correct me as to what his thoughts were, I think my aspirations can hardly be more lofty than your own.
As my fellow country said, ‘We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars’
As he was of course gay (and a fellow Catholic) I am sure you will agree he offered something unique to mankind despite his various sins. .
Oscar Wilde, perhaps?
Certainly he had much to offer, as did Tchaikovsky and many others. But that still does not answer the question whether what he had to offer was somehow unique to homosexuality or was simply due to his talent. All artists who manage to pass the test of time have something unique to offer or they would not pass that test.
Indeed, indeed. However I never contended his or any other persons artistic abilities were ‘unique to homosexuality’, that is your contention and not mine.
Not mine, certainly. I only asked the question.
Exactly! Since this storm of dispute and confusion has erupted, it has embolded the progressives and raised expectations that may, in the end, be dashed. Certainly this is harmful and clarification is both reasonable and well within the rights of the laity to request. I’m encouraged that the discerning faithful are looking for answers and pinpointing the (very) obvious points of confusion. We’ll just have to wait until the final report is released and pray that the synod fathers will provide explanations.
The point is, there was no explanation. Our belief is to be elucidated by our shepherds in order that we might assent to moral teaching; reason and assent assist each other.
There was no explanation. The questions about these passages were avoided and blatantly NOT answered.
Man, is that ever true.
The media culture in Argentina where he’s from must be much different from ours and Europe’s as he doesn’t seem to appreciate how things can be very misconstrued. The press loves him, as everyone generally does, but that doesn’t mean the message is getting out.
Again, I agree. And if this information is premature people should be counseled to wait. If we have to unring the bell, people who were rejoicing in this material are going to be angry. And to the extent that we have those outside the Church who are moving towards it, such as the conservative Anglicans and some Orthodox, they’re now going to have questions. Particularly the Anglicans who have basically bolted from the Episcopal Communion over some of these same issues.
Sorry I was mean.
CNA posted yesterday that the world “valuing” (“valuing their sexual orientation”) was mistranslated. The Italian word “valutando” really means “evaluating,” or similar, apparently.
This substantially reduces the problem of the passage, as this word was the most improper. “Appreciating” can have different connotations, as well – in English, it can essentially mean “recognizing,” without attributing any positive approval.
Just goes yet again to show that the Vatican has never learned how to deal with the Press. Terrible at it.
If the Church wants to avoid the kind of confusion and poor catechesis that got our cultures into this mess, then it really must do better.
And we must remember that the Church must not conform to the culture–the culture is called to conform to the Church! In fact, one might well say that the extent to which the Church is counter-cultural is a good indication of how well it is doing its job.
Also, in this drive for Mercy, we must not forget that Mercy comes AFTER repentance–which requires a recognition of sin and a resolution to turn away from it. Mercy is at the service of Truth. Truth must come first. Any attempt to welcome people and be merciful to them must come with us recognizing that we have sinned and striving to fully convert and repent of that sin–not continue living in sin as if “mercy” lets us do so, with tacit approval.
How about Henri Nouwen? He wasn’t out and there is no evidence he had a sexual relationship with a man, but his sexuality did seem to leave a mark on this writing.