Showing posts with label Pastoral Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pastoral Care. Show all posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013
No disorderly tendency can have a right to citizenship in a person's thoughts
In its document entitled Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, which was published on October 1, 1986, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recalled the distinction between homosexual tendencies and homosexual practices: "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."
Many interpret the Church's teaching as meaning that a homosexual person only sins if he or she actually engages in homosexual acts. I have received comments at this Blog suggesting that only homosexual acts are sinful. But this is not the Church's teaching. Although the homosexual inclination itself is not a sin, still, the homosexual person sins if he or she makes a concession to this tendency in his or her mind.
It is Catholic doctrine that any disorderly tendency, and most especially toward a vice which is contrary to nature, cannot have a right to citizenship in a person's thoughts. Recall the teaching of Our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5: 27, 28: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
This is why in the Confiteor [Latin: I confess], which is part of the Penitential Rite, one asks for forgiveness for thoughts, words and deeds.
We know as well that homosexual persons also sin when their external behavior expresses a homosexual tendency. Which is why we read in Isaiah 3:9 that, 'Their very look bears witness against them; their sin like Sodom they vaunt, They hide it not. Woe to them! they deal out evil to themselves." And in Deuteronomy 22:5 we read, "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your God."
As I said in a previous post, the Cult of Softness continues to spread.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston: Ignoring USCCB Guidelines for Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
Now the USCCB has already issued guidelines which stress emphatically that persons with a homosexual inclination are to be treated with "dignity, respect and compassion" and made to feel welcome. But these same guidelines also stress that, "The ministry of the Church to persons with a homosexual inclination must always have the overriding aim of fostering the greatest possible friendship with God, participation in the divine life of the Trinity through sanctifying grace. Integral to friendship with God is holiness. God is holy and all who would come near to God must likewise become holy." (p. 12). We haven't seen this emphasis in St. Cecilia's "rainbow ministry." On the contrary, we've witnessed a departure from Church teaching.
This is all the more troubling as the USCCB's guidelines stress that, "All ministry to persons with a homosexual inclination must be guided by Church teaching on sexuality...'Departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral." (p. 13; see footnote 30).
Lastly, the USCCB's guidelines make clear that, "It can be helpful for persons who find themselves with homosexual attractions to gather together in mutual understanding and support. This can be particularly the case because persons with a homosexual inclination may feel 'different,' which can lead to isolation and alienation, which are risk factors for an unhealthy life, including unchaste behaviors. Support groups, noted for their adherence to Church teaching, for persons who experience same-sex attraction continue to be an important part of Church ministries and are to be encouraged. Persons with a homosexual inclination should not be encouraged to define themselves primarily in terms of their sexual inclination, however, or to participate in 'gay subcultures,' which often tend to promote immoral lifestyles. Rather, they should be encouraged to form relationships with the wider community." (p. 22).
Note this last passage. Persons with a homosexual inclination should not be encouraged to define themselves primarily in terms of their sexual inclination. Isn't that exactly what St. Cecilia's Parish is doing when it says that the parish is a place of welcome for the "LGBT community"?
Why is it that St. Cecilia's Parish continues to encourage persons with a homosexual inclination to define themselves as "gay," "lesbian," bi-sexual," or "transgendered"? If you doubt this, examine the image above from the parish website which includes a homosexual rainbow symbol encircling the cross. Why isn't the parish encouraging such persons to view themselves as children of God created in the Imago Dei (the image and likeness of God) who have a vocation to holiness of life rather than as "gay Christians" or members of an "LGBT community"?
What do you think?
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care are not misled by homosexual propaganda
In its 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say:
"..increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.
The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy." (Nos. 8, 9).
In No. 15 the CDF says, "We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.
An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them."
These guidelines have not been followed within the Boston Archdiocese. In my last post, I noted how Father John Unni has promoted radical homosexual activists Rabbi Devon Lerner and Charles Martel and their organization called "Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry," an organization dedicated toward promoting "gay marriage."
The CDF teaches us that "Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral." And yet, Father Unni has promoted an organization which is not concerned with the truth about homosexuality but which seeks instead to condone homosexual activity. His proposed "Gay Pride Mass," which had the initial go-ahead from the Archdiocese, would have presented yet another problem. For the CDF says in No. 17 of this same letter that, "All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous."
I guess the Archdiocese of Boston simply forgot these guidelines. Maybe they simply chose to ignore them?
"..increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.
The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy." (Nos. 8, 9).
In No. 15 the CDF says, "We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.
An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them."
These guidelines have not been followed within the Boston Archdiocese. In my last post, I noted how Father John Unni has promoted radical homosexual activists Rabbi Devon Lerner and Charles Martel and their organization called "Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry," an organization dedicated toward promoting "gay marriage."
The CDF teaches us that "Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral." And yet, Father Unni has promoted an organization which is not concerned with the truth about homosexuality but which seeks instead to condone homosexual activity. His proposed "Gay Pride Mass," which had the initial go-ahead from the Archdiocese, would have presented yet another problem. For the CDF says in No. 17 of this same letter that, "All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous."
I guess the Archdiocese of Boston simply forgot these guidelines. Maybe they simply chose to ignore them?
Friday, February 25, 2011
United Nations Promotes Prostitution as Harm Reduction
Prostitution is a form of modern day slavery. Any decent person recognizes this. The Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of the Migrants and Itinerant People, had this to say back in 2005:
"It is important to recognize that sexual exploitation, prostitution and trafficking of human beings are all acts of violence against women and as such constitute an offence to the dignity of women and are a grave violation of basic human rights. The number of women of the street has increased dramatically throughout the world for a variety of complex economic, social and cultural reasons. In some cases the women involved have experienced pathological violence or sexual abuse since childhood. Others have been driven into prostitution in order to have sufficient means of living for themselves or their families. Some search for a father figure or a loving relationship with a man. Others are trying to pay off unreasonable debts. Some leave situations of poverty in their country of origin, believing that the job being offered overseas will change their lives. It is clear that the sexual exploitation of women that pervades the world’s social fabric is a consequence of many unjust systems." See here for full text of the document.
The United Nations has failed to grasp this. Or it doesn't want to. C-FAM is reporting that the UN is now promoting prostitution as harm reduction. See here. This is a truly evil development. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that prostitution "is a social scourge" which reduces the person [usually a woman] to an instrument of sexual pleasure. (2355).
The United Nations, like many of the Termite Nations which belong to the filthy organization, must wage war against individual souls and against the family. Prostitution strikes against both of these. Why is this so? Randy Engel explains why so eloquently: "Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family? For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force." (The Family Under Siege, The Wanderer, March 6, 1980).
The United Nations has become a haunt of demons.
"It is important to recognize that sexual exploitation, prostitution and trafficking of human beings are all acts of violence against women and as such constitute an offence to the dignity of women and are a grave violation of basic human rights. The number of women of the street has increased dramatically throughout the world for a variety of complex economic, social and cultural reasons. In some cases the women involved have experienced pathological violence or sexual abuse since childhood. Others have been driven into prostitution in order to have sufficient means of living for themselves or their families. Some search for a father figure or a loving relationship with a man. Others are trying to pay off unreasonable debts. Some leave situations of poverty in their country of origin, believing that the job being offered overseas will change their lives. It is clear that the sexual exploitation of women that pervades the world’s social fabric is a consequence of many unjust systems." See here for full text of the document.
The United Nations, like many of the Termite Nations which belong to the filthy organization, must wage war against individual souls and against the family. Prostitution strikes against both of these. Why is this so? Randy Engel explains why so eloquently: "Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family? For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force." (The Family Under Siege, The Wanderer, March 6, 1980).
The United Nations has become a haunt of demons.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Father Geoff Farrow engages in dishonesty
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
