Thursday, May 24, 2018

BREAKING POLITICALLY CORRECT RHETORIC IN ORDER TO TEACH ABOUT CATHOLIC MORALITY AND OUR DOCTRINES, WILL IT FURTHER MARGINALIZE THE CHURCH IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD TRY AS WE MAY TO DIALOGUE WITH THEM?

Given the fact that Pope Francis has finally stated the obvious about the elephant in the room in terms of the lack of sexual and human maturity of homosexual priests who harm and abuse young people and have brought the Catholic Church to the brink of Armageddon, (a punishment from God?) I think it is wise to read the John Allen of Crux article on Cardinal Mueller's courage statements:

Ex-Vatican doctrine czar calls homophobia a ‘hoax’, ‘psycho-terrorism’

Ex-Vatican doctrine czar calls homophobia a ‘hoax’, ‘psycho-terrorism’
In the wake of the May 17 World Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, the Vatican’s former top doctrinal official, German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, has declared that homophobia “simply doesn’t exist” and is “an invention, an instrument of totalitarian dominion over the minds of others.”

“The homosexual movement doesn’t have scientific arguments, so it’s constructed an ideology that wants to dominate, seeking to construct its own reality. It’s the Marxist scheme, according to which it’s not reality that builds thought, it’s thought that builds reality,” Müller said.

“Whoever doesn’t accept this thought is considered sick, as if, among other things, illness could be treated with police and courts,” the 70-year-old cardinal said.

“In the Soviet Union, Christians were put into insane asylums, which are the means of totalitarian regimes such as National Socialism and Communism,” Müller said. “Today in North Korea, the same fate awaits anyone who doesn’t accept the dominant thinking.”

Müller’s comments came in a conversation with Italian blogger Costanza Miriano.

Müller served as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 2012 until June 2017, when he stepped down and was replaced by Spanish Archbishop, now Cardinal-designate, Luis Ladaria, who belongs to Pope Francis’s own Jesuit order.

Though Müller never openly broke with Francis, nevertheless his ambivalence over some of the pontiff’s moves, including his cautious opening to Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in Amoris Laetitia, was always clear.

In the interview, Miriano asked Müller for his reaction to bishops who promote prayer vigils or other events around the World Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.

“Some bishops today don’t have the courage to speak the truth, and allow themselves to be intimidated,” he said. “They don’t understand that homophobia is a hoax that serves to threaten people.”

“Today, people are being scared by psycho-terrorism, taking advantage of their ignorance,” Müller said.

Müller acknowledged that Christians are called to love all persons, including those with a same-sex attraction, but added, “It has to be clear that loving someone doesn’t mean obedience to gender ideology.”

“The reality is, there’s just man and woman,” he said. “There are two sexes, that’s the reality, and everything else is an interpretation.”

Inevitably, Müller addressed Francis’s reputation for being open and accepting of gay persons, famously expressed in the 2013 sound bite, “Who am I to judge?”

“The pope just said the same thing that’s in the Catechism: Every person merits respect because he or she is made in the image of God, and we can’t use a person for any reason,” he said.

“Yet in the same moment, Francis also spoke of a ‘gay lobby,’ and unfortunately that’s true,” he said. 

Müller cited the case of Father Krzysztof Charamsa, a Polish theologian and former official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who “came out” in October 2015 just as the pope’s second Synod of Bishops on the family was set to open.

“He never requested either help or accompaniment,” Müller said of Charamsa.

In the interview, Müller also addressed rumors about a possible “revisiting” of Humanae Vitae, the landmark 1968 encyclical by Blessed Pope Paul VI that reaffirmed the Church’s traditional ban on artificial birth control.

“I compare those who want to revisit Humanae Vitae in order to please the masses with those who made compromises during the totalitarian regimes,” he said.

“You can’t make compromises with wolves, even for the sake of saving a few sheep,” he said. “It’s an illusion to think you can save a few sheep, when you’ll lose the whole flock.”

“That’s not the logic of Jesus,” Müller said. “In order to not lose even a single sheep, he sacrificed himself, not the sheep.”

Müller suggested that those who want to see Humanae Vitae weakened often begin with the hardest cases, in order to play on emotions.

“The trick of theologians and bishops who attack doctrine is to play on emotions,” he said. “For instance, they start to talk about a father with four kids who’s lost his job and a mother who’s sick … and they end up with a discussion riding a wave of emotion based on a single case.”

“That’s not a serious way to face the question,” he said.

23 comments:

TJM said...

Bravo Cardinal Mueller. Too bad you can't do something about Cardinal "Karl" Marx!!!

Anonymous said...


“In the Soviet Union, Christians were put into insane asylums, which are the means of totalitarian regimes such as National Socialism and Communism,”...

So were gays and lesbians. So are gays and lesbians today.

“Today, people are being scared by psycho-terrorism, taking advantage of their ignorance,”...

How many gays and lesbians have been scared and scarred by the psycho-terrorism waged upon them for the last 20+ centuries?

TJM said...

Kavanaugh,

Why don't you tell us?

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous on May 24 at 2:40 pm asks:

"How many gays and lesbians have been scared and scarred by the psycho-terrorism waged upon them for the last 20+ centuries?"

And rightly so. Better than going to hell...

"If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell." Matt. 5:30 Same goes for any deep inclination to serious sin.

God bless.
Bee

Anonymous said...

"How many gays and lesbians have been scared and scarred by the psycho-terrorism waged upon them for the last 20+ centuries?"

"And rightly so." says Bee.

Compare: CCC 2358: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

Robert Kumpel said...

Perhaps Cardinal Mueller might consider having a word with the current Bishop of San Diego...something along the lines of fraternal correction?

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Fr. Anonymous at May 25, 2018 at 10:21 AM:

And perhaps you might consider our Baptismal Promises:

V. Do you reject Satan?
R. I do.
V. And all his works?
R. I do.
V. And all his empty promises?
R. I do......

People who are sick need to be told they have an illness, and it does no good for a doctor to not speak plainly about the diagnosis, lest the patient misunderstand, and minimize the gravity of their condition. Compassion in telling the diagnosis is not incompatible with truth. But hedging the truth to spare a person's feelings never will allow them to confront the malady. Facing what you are in truth is the only way to healing.

It is not my place to point out the sin in another. That is the role of the Church. But I am directed by the Church to choose my companions carefully, lest I too fall into sin. The directive in CCC 2358 instructs me to be compassionate without approving, that is all.

And what's wrong with a little suffering, or a lot of suffering, for the sake of Christ? Used to be Doctors of the Church credited unmerited suffering as grace. Or is that something the modern liberal Church wants nothing to do with? (Just so you know, that's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.)

God bless.
Bee

Anonymous said...

Bee - CCC 2358 says more than you want to allow.

They must be shown respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

You confuse these Christian virtues with "approval."

Suffering for the sake of Christ may be an unmerited grace.

Inflicting suffering on another person - wherein you comment "And rightly so" - is a grave sin.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous, your deficiency in reading comprehension is once again on display. Bee is in fact saying that 'respect, compassion and sensitivity' do not imply approval, which is the point the Catechism is making.

Anonymous said...

John, Bee is also saying that terrorism inflicted on gays and lesbians was done "And rightly so."

Your deficiency in reading and understanding the Church's doctrine is on display .

TJM said...

John Nolan, the scent of Eau de Kavanaugh is strong on this thread. You would a gentleman would respond to Bee using his name!

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous on May 26 at 4:08 pm said:
"Inflicting suffering on another person - wherein you comment "And rightly so" - is a grave sin."

Maybe. But, Anonymous, you yourself have argued previously on this blog that culpability for a sin is mitigated by factors such as the gravity of the matter, if the act committed with full knowledge, (presupposing that the person knows that the act is sinful and is opposed to God's law), is done with deliberate consent, and that many factors (feelings, passions, external pressure, emotional disorders) can diminish personal freedom.

So an act which "scares" or "scars" someone may be a "grave sin" or it may be a teensy, weensy venial sin, or no sin at all, depending on the act itself and the interior disposition of the person acting. And that can't be determined except by a priest in a confessional.

Jesus Himself used some pretty insulting language at times (you brood of vipers; you whitewashed tombs; it's not right to give the food of the children to the dogs (essentially calling the woman a dog)) in order to bring light to the situation. Not every harsh word spoken in truth is evil, especially if it convicts the listener of sin.

And I think St. Paul's example in 1 Corinthians 5 speaks to how a Christian community might deal with immorality among their own:

"It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 1Cor5: 1-5

Tough talk and actions seemed to St. Paul appropriate, but for the greater good of the sinful soul, so that they may be saved.

God bless.
Bee

Anonymous said...

Bee, No, there is no "maybe" in the question. Inflicting suffering on another person is a grave sin.

You make many references to "tough talk" when you try to justify your approval of inflicting suffering on gays and lesbians. Yet, obscenely, you omit references to the murder, torture, mutilation, dismemberment, beatings, unprovoked assaults, and other such sinful acts committed against them.

Tell me, how does referring to the words of Jesus or St. Paul justify the murder Robert Hillsborough who was stabbed to death in San Francisco by a man shouting "faggot"? Was that for the salvation of his soul?

How does it justify the beating to death of Terry Knudsen by three men in Loring Park in Minneapolis, Minnesota? Was that so that he might be saved?

Does your process of justifying the terrorism of gays and lesbians excuse the murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay student, in Laramie, Wyoming, who was tortured, beaten severely, tied to a fence, and abandoned; who was found 18 hours after the attack and succumbed to his injuries less than a week later, on October 12? Was that for his own good?

These are not "teensy weensy" venial sins. They are mortal sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.

How doe it justi

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Well, yikes Anonymous, at least be consistent in what you supposedly believe in terms of culpability for a sin as the Church teaches. And I didn't even get into the claim of some bishops on the supremacy of conscience.

"Scaring" and "scaring" is a quite a bit less than murder, I would think.

Oh, and please, PLEASE do not refer to the sins crying out to heaven for vengeance, because SODOMY is one of them!!!

You are one heck of a moral leader, I'll tell ya..

God bless.
Bee

TJM said...

vanaugh,

What does any of the examples you pose have to do with the Catholic Faith or what Bee said?

Sed contra, your beloved Muslims throw gays off of buildings, mutilate women's genitals, and put to death women who have been raped. Let's have a conversation about that, unless you are too afraid, that Muslims living near you may cut off your head for speaking the truth?

Anonymous said...

Bee, how does your citing Jesus and Paul justify or make "And rightly so" the murder, torture, mutilation, dismemberment, beatings, unprovoked assaults, and other such sinful acts committed against gays.

It doesn't, because suffering inflicted on others is gravely sinful.

If such inflicted suffering is a good thing, for the benefit of the one who suffers, then you must think that the Holocaust was good for the Jews, the Trail of Tears was good for the Cherokee, the Bataan Death March was good for American POWs, and the Armenian Genocide was good for 1.5 million Armenians killed by the Ottomans.

You see, that's your "subtext" here. And that line of reasoning doesn't work - it is contrary to the teaching of the Church as found in CCC 2358 cited above.



John Nolan said...

TJM

Interesting how Anonymous's mind works. Bee stated (correctly) that compassion does not imply approval. Anonymous misreads this to infer that Bee was conflating the two. When this is pointed out to him, he adopts a different tack, implying without evidence that I agree with another comment.

He then feebly tries to get his own back by suggesting that his deficiency in reading comprehension is matched by mine in failing to read and understand Church doctrine, although he is well aware that my understanding is as great, if not greater, than his own.

Anonymous is certainly deficient in basic honesty.

Anonymous said...

Bee - A moral leader understands that the Church's teaching applies to all people in all times and under all circumstances.

This is especially true when one minority group - Jews, Gays, Blacks, Rohingya, Native Americans - is suffering unjustly.

A moral leaders does not look at the suffering of one group and dismiss or excuse it by saying that the suffering was rightly imposed for the "good" of those being treated with psychological and/or physical contempt - or worse.

When you read, ""How many gays and lesbians have been scared and scarred by the psycho-terrorism waged upon them for the last 20+ centuries?" your response was, "And rightly so."

That flies in the face of the Church's teaching.

TJM said...

Kavanaugh,

Let's talk about the examples I posed about the Muslim "faith." Afraid of having your Democratic Party card cancelled?

TJM said...

John Nolan,

Very true!

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Know what Anonymous?...I think you are trying to pretend you are defending Church teaching, when in fact it appears to me you are simply using (twisting and bending, more like it) Church teaching to defend your favorite political ideology, which smells distinctly like Leftist Marxist Socialism, and like the latest political ideology of the Left spewed out at us daily on the MSM.

Not buying it.

If you haven't noticed, I mocking you by showing how ludicrous some of the ideas you espouse and have espoused in the past are; ideas you trot out when defending pet Leftist progressive changes proposed in the Church. When those are being discussed, you go on and on about conditions of culpability, and supremacy of conscience, but you conveniently ignore those when someone applies it to what YOU consider a "grave sin."

Funny how outraged you get when the same ideas you use to minimize and excuse serious sin are used to minimize a situation you find especially egregious.

In any case, I pray all homosexual people will receive the graces they need to turn from serious sin, and live holy and righteous lives.

I'm done with this discussion. I've said all I wanted to say.

God bless.
Bee


Anonymous said...

Bee - The Church's teaching is clear. Inflicting suffering on another is always a grave sin. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "Leftist Marxist Socialism" in any way, shape, or form.

The idea I espouse is that it is always wrong to inflict suffering on another person. That is the Church's position.

What you mock and seem to reject is the Church's teaching.

Then you add insult to injury. You say, "In any case, I pray all homosexual people will receive the graces they need to turn from serious sin, and live holy and righteous lives." Yet you approve of the suffering that is unjustly and sinfully inflicted upon them, often by "Christians" like yourself.

You might as well have said, "I pray for you but approve of the unjust suffering inflicted upon you because it is necessary for your salvation."

You may be done with the discussion, but your conscience, I hope, will not let this matter go.

John Nolan said...

The idea that people can be group-identified according to their sexual orientation is a relatively modern one, and has ironically been given considerable impetus by the vociferous LGBT lobby. The Church Fathers condemned the 'debauching' of boys by older men (accepted in the pagan classical world), something which modern secular society also condemns, although it (for various reasons) inaccurately refers to it as 'paedophilia'.

Sodomy, which covered a multitude of sins, often incurred the same canonical penances as did adultery, and was seen as another sin of concupiscence or unbridled lust. In England before 1533 when Henry VIII broke with Rome, it was dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts, which were mainly concerned with clerical delicts. It was not an offence in Common Law.

The idea that 'gays and lesbians' were a distinct group who were terrorized by church and state 'for 20+ centuries' is to project modern prejudices onto the past, something that non-historians with a polemical axe to grind are prone to, although Anonymous takes it to extremes.

Furthermore, the Church does not teach, and has never taught 'that it is always wrong to inflict suffering on another person'. Malefactors are justly punished and in extreme cases may even suffer death. Oscar Wilde certainly suffered as a result of his imprisonment, which was not for 'being gay' but for engaging in what were then illegal activities.