Notice how the reporter suggests that the older generation of bishops are grumpy and unmerciful,and links this with being dogmatic,or adherence to dogma. The older generation of bishops were influenced by the liberal theology and attitudes of the 1960’s and 70’s,so how were they dogmatic? And how were they grumpy and unmerciful?
I notice that that Yahoo article does the thing where they equate following Church teaching with being “theologically conservative” (and here I thought following Church teaching simply made you Catholic :rolleyes:)
This article from “In Caelo et in Terra” (a Dutch Catholic blog) says that the appointment of Cardinal Woelki “can be seen as in continuity with Cardinal Meisner”, which is very good to read.
It also notes that the names suggested by the cathedral chapter of Cologne (which were very liberal) were bypassed by Pope Francis in favor of Card Woelki, which is also encouraging. The Pope recently did the same with regards to the Freiburg Archdiocese.
The phrase “theologically conservative” usually means adherence to traditional doctrine. But liberals will sometimes call someone who pays lip-service to traditional doctrine theologically conservative to forestall criticism that he is liberal,even if he says or does things that contradict or neglect traditional doctrine.
The article quotes Cardinal Woekli as saying: “If two homosexuals take responsibility for each other, if they are loyal to each other over the long term, then one should see this in the same way as heterosexual relations.”
This is not in accord with what the Church teaches about homosexual relationships. They are sinful and gravely disordered. We should not see homosexual couples the same way we see heterosexual couples,no matter if they are responsible for each other and loyal over the long term.
Well, I’m not trying to say Card. Woelki is a staunch traditionalist or anything. But given that the article is clearly trying to paint him as a “liberal”, and the best evidence they can come up with is one ambiguous comment, thats not too bad.
And he is FAR better than the suggested alternatives.
Reuters is reporting that Cardinal Woelki said in 2012 that:
“If two homosexuals take responsibility for each other, if they are loyal to each other over the long term, then one should see this in the same way as heterosexual relations.”
Also verified in:
If he did say that, it is most troubling.
And it continues to give hope to the dissenters. Frankly, I am stunned at some of the comments that stand without any clarification.
The German Catholic Church is one of the richest in the world and helps fund Vatican activities as well as missionary work in poor countries.
Its financial strength and long history of theologians and leading Church personalities, including the now retired Pope Benedict, give it considerable influence in the Vatican.
*Politics? * In the strangest places!
You better believe it. Most troubling indeed! And as Tigg said, it’s stunning that a Cardinal in the RCC could make these comments without clarification. And what’s more stunning to me is that the Vatican would make this particular appointment. Am I alone, or does anyone else here have an uneasiness about the direction our Church seems to be leaning these days? One thing seems clear. We as Catholics appear to be more divided today than in any time in my lifetime. Whether it’s on issues such as abortion, divorce, homosexuality, or you name it, we can’t seem to be united on anything. Even when the topic of the Virgin Mary comes up…there’s division. And whenever I here that word, division,…there’s just one who immediately comes to mind.
***Peace, Mark ***
My thoughts too.
Makes it sound like the Vatican can be bought. Not good PR at all.
It appears that the Cardinal was discussing unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexuals.
I understand the problem with the media (and even translations)…I really do. But a quote that was reported in 2012 is *just now *being clarified? Oh, the harm being done in the meantime…
It’s still wrong to say that homosexual couples who are committed to each other should be regarded the same way as heterosexual couples who are committed. Homosexual relationships are against natural law. Commitment doesn’t make it better.
Commitment by unmarried heteros does not make their relationship anymore moral either. They are both committing sin and should be acknowledged as such.
There is nothing wrong with an unmarried couple being committed to each other. It doesn’t mean the relationship is sinful. And if they are sinning by having sex in the normal manner,it is still not an abomination like homosexual sex.
Well sure but that’s not the point of this whole story here.
In any case, whatever he really said, and I make no judgement because I’m really not clear, the gates shall not prevail.
It is still fornication no matter how you try to slice it. :shrug:
There is no such thing as sex in the normal manner outside of marriage. Both homosexual sex and heterosexual sex outside of marriage are abominations, both are a form of fornication.
Both are sins that wind a soul in Hell no doubt about it but some sins are worse than others (murder is worse than desiring your neighbours Ferrari). A heterosexual couple who commit pre-marital sex has a chance of straightening out (abstinence until properly married) but not for a same sex couple.
Couples that are unmarried but committed to each other are not necessarily fornicating. Those are two different things. Do you think that fiances and close friends of different sexes are all fornicating?
Yes,there is. It is normal for men and women to copulate using their reproductive organs,whether in marriage or out of marriage. It is normal because it is the natural way. It can lead to children. That is not to say that sex outside of marriage is not sinful.
Both homosexual sex and heterosexual sex outside of marriage are abominations, both are a form of fornication.
No,heterosexual sex outside of marriage is not an abomination. It does not go against the way that the human body is created. It is not equivalent to homosexual sex in its gravity of sin.