In a Blog post entitled "Bishops take 'strong exception' to marriage ruling," Father Geoff Farrow writes, "In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church's watchdog for orthodoxy) produced a document entitled 'Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.' In this document, they made the most remarkable statement. They stated that there are 'homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.' Of course, that statement was made under Pope Paul VI, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have/are backpedaling furiously on that statement. But since the 'Church' (pope/bishops) can never admit a mistake, they simply ignore 'inconvenient' statements or, 'reinterpret' them away."
In the Declaration Fr. Farrow refers to (Persona Humana), this is what the CDF had to say: "A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable." (No. 8).
In 1986, the same CDF - responding to those within the Church and without who twisted this paragraph to promote the homosexual agenda - had this to say in its Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons: "In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration [Persona Humana)..an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." (No. 3).
The CDF continued: "It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.
Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace." (No. 11).
If there has been any "reinterpretation" of the Church's teaching, it has been done by dissident "Catholics" such as Fr. Geoff Farrow who have their own agenda. But Fr. Farrow has not been given the mission to instruct the faithful in "all that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith" (Dei Verbum, No. 8). That mission has been entrusted exclusively to the divinely instituted pastoral magisterium of the Bishops in union with and under the headship of the Holy Father, Peter's successor and Christ's vicar.
If that is too much for Fr. Farrow to bear, perhaps he would be more at home in the Episcopal church? While he's pondering on this, perhaps Father might care to reflect carefully on the wording used in Persona Humana, No. 8. An instinct is properly defined as "The innate aspect of behavior that is unlearned, complex, and normally adaptive." Adaptive means changeable.
Attempts to demonstrate that the homosexual orientation or inclination is biologically determined or somehow innate and immutable have failed. See here.
6 comments:
An anonymous person calling himself or herself simply "Replying" posted Father Geoff's nonsense at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website. How hard some people try to find fault with the Church's teaching on homosexuality. The impulse to rationalize sin is very powerful.
Fr. Geoff evidences the same childish trait found in most Catholic dissidents: because the Church's authentic teaching is not the result of "democratic consensus" or "majority vote" but rather issues from the Church's divinely appointed authority [the Magisterium], he sulks and implies that the Church only consists of "pope and bishops."
"Homosexuality is not hardwired...whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations...there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."
-Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: A predisposition is not a predetermination. It allows more than ample room for choice - free will.
Michael, Fr. Geoff is, by his own admission, a homosexual:
10/5/2008 Fresno, CA, USA
(KFSN) -- Father Geoffrey Farrow of the Saint Paul Newman Center in northeast Fresno shocked parishioners Sunday morning when he came out against Proposition 8, an initiative that would eliminate the right for same sex couples to marry in California.
After 23 years as an ordained Catholic Priest, Father Geoffrey Farrow has likely given his final mass. Sunday morning he invited us to hear his message, a message that shocked many parishioners.
11 o'clock mass began as usual Sunday. Father Geoff led parishioners through prayer and communion.
The homily taught of acceptance, love and rejection. But it was his closing remarks that left some parishioners stunned. "What most Catholics hear about being gay or lesbian at their parish is silence,"
Fr. Geoff says after numerous inquiries from parishioners asking for direction on Proposition 8, if passed would ban gay marriage, the Father said he must go against the Bishops recommendation and instead go with what he feels is right.
"In directing the faithful to vote yes on proposition 8, the California Bishops are not only entering the political arena, they are ignoring the advances and insights of neurology, psychology and the very statements by the church itself that homosexual is innate," says Fr. Geoff.
The priest acknowledges his controversial comments will have consequences. "I know that these words of truth will cost me dearly. But to withhold them would be far more costly and I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian couples, not only of their civil rights but of their human dignity as well."
We sat down with Father Geoff before mass, and he answered the question many are probably wondering... Is he gay? "It's a secondary issue. But yes, I am. And when I was a boy I asked God please make me normal and the prayer never got answered and I realized why. Because God would've made somebody else he wouldn't have made me."
Sunday mass ended with about half the congregation giving a standing ovation. Outside parishioners had mixed reaction about the priest's remarks.
Esmeralda Gonzalez, Parishioner, says "My reaction was extremely shocking I believe that as the body of Christ and as being Catholics we are made to follow by commandments. And God made it to be Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."
Joshua De La Cerda, Parishioner, says "This is something Jesus would have done, or Christ would have done, spoke out for the truth."
Fr. Geoff said after months of struggling with what to do, said in the end he followed his heart. "In any event regardless of what I or anyone else does in their life, one day you die, and on that day were you true to your conscience, were you true to what you believe. And I think that's the question each of us has to answer. If the answer is no, hell already began before you died."
The parish is clearly divided over this controversy. A few parishioners left in tears.
We contacted Bishop John Steinbock, the head of the Diocese of Fresno this afternoon. He said he has not talked to Father Geoff Farrow, only has heard rumors about what happened today. He told us Proposition 8 is not a homosexuality issue rather about the institution of marriage which is the basis of our society.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6431105
Mark 13: 6-13. The signs are already beginning to emerge.
Other signs are developing...
Cybersecurity bill to give president new emergency powers
By Tony Romm - 02/26/10
The president would have the power to safeguard essential federal and private Web resources under draft Senate cybersecurity legislation.
According to an aide familiar with the proposal, the bill includes a mandate for federal agencies to prepare emergency response plans in the event of a massive, nationwide cyberattack.
The president would then have the ability to initiate those network contingency plans to ensure key federal or private services did not go offline during a cyberattack of unprecedented scope, the aide said.
Ultimately, the legislation is chiefly the brainchild of Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, respectively. Both lawmakers have long clamored for a federal cybersecurity bill, charging that current measures — including the legislation passed by the House last year — are too piecemeal to protect the country's Web infrastructure.
Their renewed focus arrives on the heels of two, high-profile cyberattacks last month: A strike on Google, believed to have originated in China, and a separate, more disjointed attack that affected thousands of businesses worldwide.
Rockefeller and Snowe's forthcoming bill would establish a host of heretofore absent cybersecurity prevention and response measures, an aide close to the process said. The bill will "significantly [raise] the profile of cybersecurity within the federal government," while incentivizing private companies to do the same, according to the aide.
Additionally, it will "promote public awareness" of Internet security issues, while outlining key protections of Americans' civil liberties on the Web, the aide continued.
Privacy groups are nonetheless likely to take some umbrage at Rockefeller and Snowe's latest effort, an early draft of which leaked late last year.
When early reports predicted the cybersecurity measure would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," online privacy groups said they felt that would endow the White House with overly ambiguous and far-reaching powers to regulate the Internet.
The bill will still contain most of those powers, and a "vast majority" of its other components "remain unchanged," an aide with knowledge of the legislation told The Hill. But both the aide and a handful of tech insiders who support the bill have nonetheless tried to dampen skeptics' concerns, reminding them the president already has vast — albeit lesser-known — powers to regulate the Internet during emergencies.
It is unclear when Rockefeller and Snowe will finish their legislation. And the ongoing debate over healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform, jobs bills and education fixes could postpone action on the floor for many months.
Both lawmakers heavily emphasized the need for such a bill during a Senate Commerce Committee cybersecurity hearing on Wednesday.
"Too much is at stake for us to pretend that today’s outdated cybersecurity policies are up to the task of protecting our nation and economic infrastructure," Rockefeller said. "We have to do better and that means it will take a level of coordination and sophistication to outmatch our adversaries and minimize this enormous threat."
Post a Comment