This is a kind of a bombshell, as it concerns todas, todas, todas and blessing of persons, places and things. Does this go against the premise of Fiducia Supplians???? And this is an Augustinian priest to boot!:
Filipino priest suspended for blessing Masonic marker
And then there is a good commentary on the scandal of Fr. James Martin, SJ gushing over his 30 minute meeting with Pope Leo in the most self serving and self referential way. This commentary puts that 30 minute meeting into context:
Pope Leo Meets with James Martin
Can I be honest with you? I thought it was wrong for cardinals and bishops who publicly fought with Pope Francis, no matter how meritorious their fight might have been. It was particularly untoward to hear cardinals speaking out against Pope Francis.
Others, too, instrumentalized Pope Francis in their favor in terms of heterodox development of doctrine.
This brings us to Jesuitical Father James Martin, SJ. I know of no other priest in the Catholic Church who has gloried in and bragged about his personal meetings with Pope Francis and Pope Leo to shore up his own low self-esteem. . You’d think, listening to Fr. James, that he had hours of private meetings with these two popes and they were/are best buddies, besties!
I don’t know for sure, but I think he might have had two half hour meetings with Pope Francis.
The meeting Fr. James had with Pope Leo this week was 30 minutes.
He summarized that meeting with Pope Leo in about two sentences.
Most pastoral Catholics, and I am one of them, don’t hate people with same sex attractions nor do we wish harm on them. I don’t want to scandalize anyone, but Christ’s moral law doesn’t strive to control people, but by God’s grace enables people who struggle with any kind of sin or temptation, to be tempered and with God’s help live according to his law.
There is a delicate balance in avoiding public scandal by one’s lifestyle as it concerns Catholic morality. For example, being a thief should not define a child of God even if that child of God is a thief and has a hard time resisting the temptation to steal. They may well experience the disorder of Kleptomania which lessens not the evil of stealing, but the culpability of the seriousness of the sin. What is typically considered serious matter, stealing, and thus considered a mortal sin, becomes a venial sin due to disordered passions that the sinner often cannot curtail or control.
But let’s get back to the papacy.
The papal magisterium cannot be summed up or be built upon private audiences he has with sinners and saints, heterodox and orthodox and then what these people say about those meetings whereas the pope, and thanks be to God, says nothing nor reacts to his visitors’ post-meeting statements which may not include all that was said.
Papal magisteriums are based upon formal written statements be they homilies, letters, Apostolic letters, bulls, Motu Proprios, and encyclicals. Dogmatizing a doctrine requires a teaching from the “Chair” to be classified as infallible. Only two pope alone infallible bulls have been issued by any pope in 2,000 years, that dogmatizing the Doctrine of the Immaculate Coneption and the other of the Doctrine of the Assumption.
Pope Leo, far more than Pope Francis, makes sure that when he speaks at important events that he sticks to his written text and it is that text that will comprise his papal magisterium. He has few off-the-cuff statements that can be twisted to mean something else other than what he has said.
Thus far there hasn’t been any major interviews that others can use what Pope Leo says to promote heterodoxy.
When it comes to morality, His Holiness has written in a text to moral theologians to use the methods of the pre-Vatican II moralist, Saint Alphonsus Liguori.
His Holiness’ written text to French Catholic politicians asks them to embrace all of Catholicism in their lives and not divide their Catholic beliefs from their political advocacy. He emphasizes Natural Law, which has implications for all aspects of Catholic morality.
Is anything that Pope Leo said to Fr. Martin, and we only know what Fr. Martin thinks he said to him, since there is no transcribed witness to that meeting, contradictory to Catholic sexual teachings and the sacramental nature of the Church and that God has created only two genders, male and female, He created them? Is there?????
5 comments:
I’m sure Martin agreed with Leo what message would be disseminated in the press. Leo clearly wants to convey a positive message to LGBT Catholics and the world.
Yes, I agree with you but I believe that Pope Leo’s positive message too LGBTQ Catholics and others is tempered by Natural Law too, which Fr. Martin never, ever teaches:
The Church distinguishes between homosexual acts and a homosexual inclination, which is not considered a sin in itself. The Church calls for homosexual persons to be treated with "respect, compassion, and sensitivity" and for unjust discrimination against them to be avoided.
Homosexual individuals are called to live a life of chastity, like all unmarried people.
The purpose of these teachings:
The Catholic Church frames these teachings not as arbitrary rules but as a guide for human flourishing. From this perspective, living in accordance with the natural law, as revealed through both reason and scripture, leads to authentic human happiness. Violating natural law, including in the area of sexuality, is seen as destructive to the human person and to society.
BTW, I saw this morning on Fox News Channel that an English entertainer in the UK was arrested for posting a tweet on X that your authorities in the UK thought was illegal and he was arrested! The tweet was somewhat innocuous and by no means worse than anything anyone writes on this blog and its comments. Would you be arrested for reading this blog over there and if I go there will I be arrested. Has the UK become worse than the former Soviet Union when it comes to freedom of speech?????
Is there anything more "self serving" than a blog screed filled with complaints about a priest meeting with the pope? Is there anything more "self referential" than that same blog blather making wild assumptions, to wit: "I don’t know for sure, but I think he might have had two half hour meetings with Pope Francis."
Be that as it may be, you can never accuse me of bragging about my meetings with Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I. I did not bitterly complain at my meetings with Popes John Paul II and Francis I that someone else slapped my hand out of the way as I was about to shake the popes’ hand, so they could shake the popes’ hand. I did not complain when I saw Benedict XVI in His Holiness’ Popemobile, that he did not stop to shake my hand. I am very circumspect about those kinds of things.
Post a Comment