My comment on so-called gay marriage:
***
Response to some of the things said here:
1. “The answer is simple and so clear: Love transcends all (including the current in vogue concept of monogamous marriage) AND gender.”
Love means willing the highest good for another, and the good is that which suits the nature of the thing desiring it. The physical things which same-sex ‘spouses’ do to each suit no-one’s nature, and hence cannot be considered loving (and a marriage isn’t just a Platonic union—it is a physical union, or at least, it is accomplished by a physical union). Indeed, these things are intrinsically evil, since they are abuses of the respective faculties from which they proceed. Furthermore, monogamy in marriage isn’t just a “vogue concept”—it is of the essence of marriage.
2. “As an example, where do people with ambiguous gender stand, who are they allowed to marry?”
2.1 That should be “… who*m* are they allowed to marry?”
2.2 Marriage is a conjugal contract, and is consummated by the conjugal union of the two spouses. Hence I understand that if the two prospective spouses’ respective private parts (the parts with which they were born—artificial ‘sex change’ ones don’t count) are complementary and neither spouse is absolutely or relatively impotent then there can be a valid marriage. In other words, if the marriage can be properly consummated, then there can be a marriage. See a canon lawyer for more details. The example is irrelevant, though, because two persons of the same sex have no bodily complementarity.
3. “the Church is doing what the Pharisees did in Jesus day”
Comparing someone to a Pharisee in a religious discussion is like comparing someone to Hitler in a political discussion—it just suggests the laziness of the person making the comparison and the weakness of his or her argument.
4. “How can gays destroy God's blessing? They represent 5-10% of the community; I have never understood how they could possibly undermine the other marriages of the other 90-95% of the community who are heterosexual.”
4.1 According to La Trobe Uni’s 2003 “Sex In Australia” report, the figures are more like 0.8% of Australians are lesbian and 1.6% are gay.
4.2 If 5-10% (or even just 1% or 2%) of Australia’s currency in circulation were counterfeit I imagine that the Reserve Bank would be very worried indeed, and so should we worry about so-called same-sex marriage: Counterfeit currency devalues true currency, and counterfeit marriage devalues true marriage.
5. “But even if there were no new understanding of St Paul on homosexuality (and there is, for examination) there is still the matter of the Church's teaching on invincible ignorance which states "there is error but no sin".”
Why do you assume that practising homosexuals are invincibly ignorant? Anyone with a shred of decency left cannot fail to understand how wrong same-sex pseudo-sexual acts are.
6. “So, yes, I am calling into question the responses of those posters (usually Catholic) who:
1. think all they have to do is quote Church teaching (or the bits that reinforce the way they see it) and
2.then dismiss those not following it and
3. judge them to be in bad faith (dishonest)-all in God's name, of course.”
6.1 Well, of course “those posters” are usually Catholic: This is the comments form of a Catholic news service.
6.2 Given that this is a Catholic forum, it seems quite reasonable to appeal to Magisterial authority. Nevertheless, in matters of natural ethics, the Church merely confirms what can be deduced by the light of unaided natural reason. Same-sex pseudo-sexual acts are intrinsically evil (see my point 1.), and since marriage is founded on the sexual union of the spouses, so-called same-sex marriage is founded on evil and is hence to be discouraged, or at least never encouraged, and encouragement is what State sanction for same-sex unions provides.
6.3 I’m not sure that any commenters have judged anyone else to be “in bad faith (dishonest)”, but it’s a tempting thought, given that even someone immersed in a culture as debauched as the so-called gay culture cannot extinguish that last faint spark of goodness in him or her, by whose light he or she sees that what he or she is doing is very, very wrong. Perhaps that is why we have this drive for social celebration—not just tolerance—of the so-called gay culture: The voice of conscience can never be completely silenced, so they try to drown it out with the blandishments of others, like a person trying to ignore bad news on the radio by having reassuring music blaring from another radio in order to drown it out.
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Thankyou for your comments.
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=17741
***
My comment on voodoo-Catholic syncretism:
***
"... Werner Jaegerhuber, a Haitian born composer of German extraction, selected elements of Haitian vodou, or voodoo, and blended them with music inspired by Gregorian chant to achieve an unprecedented coupling of two opposing faith traditions."
Sickening. This is syncretism at its diabolical worst. What fellowship can there be between Christ and Belial?
"Gotta love that Vatican II. Even satanically inspired voodoo is welcome. But if you want the Traditional Mass, you are out on your ear!"
Insane, isn't it?
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Thankyou for your comments.
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=17740
***
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of the Dedications of the Basilicas of SS. Peter and Paul, A.D. 2009
7 comments:
Werner Jaegerhuber, a Haitian born composer of German extraction, selected elements of Haitian vodou, or voodoo, and blended them with music inspired by Gregorian chant to achieve an unprecedented coupling of two opposing faith traditions.
Disgusting! Voo-doo is a "faith tradition"? Gimme a break.
Don't fret, Pole, as far as the Church goes, look at the signs of the times. Vocations and numbers are up wherever orthodoxy is asserted. Young people will be attracted to orthodox Catholicism not the Kumbaya counterfeit. If they're going to bother with the Faith, they will only do it for a Faith that's worth living and dying for.
In such a climate, within the Church, there will, with time, be more room for the traddies to stretch their legs.
The Cathnews crowd are really a bunch of has-beens.
"Don't fret, Pole, as far as the Church goes, look at the signs of the times. Vocations and numbers are up wherever orthodoxy is asserted."
True, but I do worry about how many souls will be lost in the meantime.
"In such a climate, within the Church, there will, with time, be more room for the traddies to stretch their legs."
This is where I have to disagree with your thinking, Louise. Tradition cannot just be one option among many, comfortable in its own little 'corner of the Church' with "room for the traddies to stretch their legs", but with competing anti-Traditional groupings and philosophies having their own little 'corners of the Church'. No, Tradition cannot fit into a pluralistic vision for the Church; the Traditional Mass must be restored to its rightful place as the normative rite--indeed, the only rite--for the Latin Church, and Traditional doctrine must be re-asserted at all levels of the Church.
True, but I do worry about how many souls will be lost in the meantime.
Yes, that's always a worry.
I understand your thinking re: tradition. Not sure that I entirely agree. Will think about it.
Having said that, I could certainly wish the NO hadn't been introduced as it was.
"Having said that, I could certainly wish the NO hadn't been introduced as it was."
If they'd just rendered the Old Mass in the vernacular then opponents of the New Mass would not have had a leg to stand on.
Yes. I'm inclined to agree. It occurs to me that the *only* thing I really like about the OF is hearing the readings and Gospel in the vernacular. I do think that's a plus especially b/c even fairly active children (my little ones are not good at sitting still) who are yet too young to read can hear the Word of God and learn much even at a fairly young age.
If we had the EF more available here, I would almost certainly attend.
Post a Comment