Gays and their children should not suffer Church bias: Vatican reuters.com/article/2014/06/26/us-vatican-synod-gays-idUSKBN0F11HV20140626
Since this is likely to spark debate (hopefully charitable debate) I am creating a separate thread for the topic of this news article.
Somehow I get the feeling that this article just might have the tiniest bit of an agenda behind it.
I just clicked over from one of the links to read the NATIONAL cATHOLIC REPORTER’s coverage on this and read the comments… made me really shake my head. Too many people have no understanding of the Gospel.
The article refers to the Church’s teaching about the disorder of homosexuality as a teaching “in the past”. Wrong. It’s the current teaching and the documents that expound on that teaching are part of the documents referenced in the Instrumentum Laboris.
It said Catholics from around the world who responded to the questions expressed concern that the sexual abuse of children by priests had “significantly” weakened the Church’s moral credibility, particularly in the United States and Europe.
Which illustrates even more ignorance (and perhaps arrogance) on the part of “Catholics” who would dare to use the sex scandal to undermine Church teaching.
Yes, I agree…read no further than the title of this thread and heading of the article. What cheek to suggest that teaching is bias.
The word disorder is a philisophical term, not medical. All too often I see people use the term incorrectly. Even the term “evil” as it’s used in the CCC and Christian philosophy has a different connotation then the popular meaning of the term. I’d definitly be in favor of the Church updating it’s terminology because it doesn’t speak to the common man (not that it ever has but it should).
That’s a valid point (though I don’t happen to agree with it) but it is not the point the article made. The article made the claim that this terminology was used “in the past” when it is, in fact, current terminology. Whether it is changed in the future is another matter entirely.
Yes, the tone of the article as well as the structure of the previous “questionnaire” in preparation for the Synod does leave me with the impression that there may be an agenda at work.
Then there is this (apparently with respect to children of gay unions): ““However, when people living in such unions request a child’s baptism, almost all the responses emphasize that the child must be received with the same care, tenderness and concern which is given to other children,” it said.”
Well, of course. All children must be received with care, tenderness, and concern. The question is, will there be a proper concern for these children’s right to be raised in the Catholic Faith? Or will the children’s right to a Catholic upbringing become secondary to the parent’s wish for acceptance? What was that saying of Jesus about children and millstones around the necks of those who would lead them astray?
When we speak of homosexual couples and their children, we have to remember that simply as a homosexual couple, they have no ability to generate children. So there is a difference at the outset. Some other factor than natural human procreation was involved in procuring children—perhaps adoption, perhaps IVF, perhaps surrogacy, the last two of which are morally wrong. And the current pope, while archbishop in Argentina, condemned adoption of children by homosexual couples.
To the bolded - yes, there will be.
Not surprisingly, the article in the OP cherry picked on line of a paragraph on the transmission of the faith to children in same sex unions. Here’s more:
Clearly, the Church has the duty to ascertain the actual elements involved in transmitting the faith to the child. Should a reasonable doubt exist in the capability of persons in a same sex union to instruct the child in the Christian faith, proper support is to be secured in the same manner as for any other couple seeking the baptism of their children. In this regard, other people in their family and social surroundings could also provide assistance. In these cases, the pastor is carefully to oversee the preparation for the possible baptism of the child, with particular attention given to the choice of the godfather and godmother.
This document also reiterates the Church’s objection to adoption by persons in same-sex unions.
It also said:
The Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful but homosexual tendencies are not.
While Vatican officials have stressed that Church teachings against homosexual activity would not change under pressure of public opinion, the document said “many responses” called for “theological study in dialogue with the human sciences to develop a multi-faceted look at the phenomenon of homosexuality”.
Those are accurate representations.
I don’t see where some of you are seeing an agenda.
It’s a straightforward news story that quotes facts, quotes the Vatican document, quotes the pope, and quotes those questioned in the various dioceses.
It is straight, plainly written, without a bias.
The wording of “in the past” is just a semantic style that most reporters do in most publications…just meaning that " so far" and “up to now”…it is not implying that Vatican will *not *refer to homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” and part of “an intrinsic moral evil” anymore or has changed that reference.
In fact, the very next sentence says clearly what the teaching is.
Where is the bias?
The article only quotes Church sources.
Do you think there is anything wrong with welcoming these children in the faith with equal dignity?**
Do you think there is anything wrong** with welcoming these children in the faith with equal dignity?
No, but that’s one area the article could have been clearer on. There’s nothing wrong with a child simply because he/she is cared for by a homosexual couple. It’s not as if the Church is saying there is any kind of guilt by association thing going on here. Certainly if the child wished to convert as a teenager, that would not be a problem. The issue is that parents who wish to have their children baptized are called to raise their child in the faith, and it’s highly doubtful that a practicing homosexual couple would be willing to do that.
The point of the article is to say “The Church hated gay people up until Pope Francis, and we’re disappointed that the Church isn’t going to reverse all of it’s sexual morality yet, although we know it will soon because we are enlightened secularists”. That’s the agenda, and this article is dripping with it, IMO.
All children should be welcomed into the Faith with dignity. What the current pope said while archbishop in Argentina was this:
“In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. **At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. **
He has said that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children.
The key is welcoming children into the Faith, not allowing them to be pulled away from the Faith.
Sorry…my brain goes faster than my fingers. Point was meant to say that the personal sins of the clergy do not invalidate the sacraments or the Mass or church teaching which has consistently reiterated divine revelation for 2,000+ years. Yet some would point to the scandal as if to say, “who is the Church to dictate morals after what their priests have done?” A human reaction maybe, but one without understanding of their faith.
Saying the piece is solely “agenda-driven” may be overstating things a little. (They actually used the more complete quote surrounding Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” comment. I have to give them credit for that.)
However, the final paragraph does betray a lack of understanding to how the Catholic Church operates:
The bishops will discuss the paper in October and could make recommendations on changes to Church teachings, on which the Pope would decide.
That’s not exactly how things work. It perpetuates the stereotype that the Pope can pretty much change whatever teaching he wants to.
Do you think there is anything wrong with welcoming these children in the faith with equal dignity?
Welcome with open arms. Remember the song
***“ALL ARE WELCOME IN THIS PLACE” ***
“Call to Action” is not happy with this document, which is a good thing: