[ad_1]
The Pope certainly said that
Many Catholics, and this is always the case when the Pope says something incompatible with the teaching of the Church, have begun to look for the media deception, the distortion of the Pope’s words, both in the film itself and in the media that illuminated it. . Anything that portrayed Francis’ situation as a victim. It has been rightly pointed out that the exact phrase of the Pope in the original language was “law of civil coexistence” (although liberals replied that this phrase in Spanish actually means association). Such comments are neither meaningful nor correct, although they formally clarify the situation. if the Pope’s words were distorted, he himself is completely unhappy. On the opening day of the film that caused the scandal, the director of the film was awarded in the Vatican gardens.
However, the clarification is not an excuse, and the incredible importance and relevance of the topic is best illustrated by the scale of the speeches and news about this speech. It would be the responsibility of the pastor of more than one billion believers to prevent the spread of false statements in his own name. However, the speech is consistent with Francisco’s comments on the alliance in 2011, when he was still archbishop of Buenos Aires, and the interpretation that has disappointed him around the world does not bother him at all. There is nothing to justify, to blame and nothing to deny. Francis advocated homogeneous unions, which is directly contrary to the teaching of the Church. What’s next
The Pope contradicts the teaching of the Church
No Pope can change the teaching of the Church in such a way that it directly contradicts the previous teaching of the Church, and that is what the Pope is doing in this way. Advocating for homogeneous unions is directly contrary to the position of Catholicism. There were voices that argued that the Church never taught otherwise, that Catholic politicians were never obligated to oppose homogeneous unions. This is a simple and rude lie, which is published more widely in Lithuania these days in the airs of Professors Vytautas Ališauskas and Paulius Subačius LRT and 15min.lt.
The Church’s teaching on homosexuality and, in particular, on homogeneous unions has been raised repeatedly, especially by two previous popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI), since it was during his pontificate that the issue became politically relevant (the first legalization of LGBT “marriages” in 2001 in the Netherlands). The most specific and complete document on this subject is the 2003 “Comments on projects for the legal recognition of homosexual associations”. They make very clear the duty of Catholic politicians to oppose the legitimation of homogeneous unions in all cases. The document also emphasizes that the often mentioned duty of Catholics to avoid unfair discrimination and the unfair exclusion of homosexuals in no way implies an obligation to defend the legitimacy of their unions. In the context of the current debate, it makes sense to read this whole really short document.
Those who lie that the Church has never forced Catholic politicians to oppose homogeneous unions allude to these 2003 “Comments” and try to downplay them as a supposedly insignificant document (this demagogy is reviewed and possibly denied by Vygantas Malinauskas). This is perhaps the Church’s highest authority and document, not an interview, and perhaps most importantly, the document itself states that it does not contain new teaching elements and seeks to recall key points of the problem and provide rational arguments. the words are signed by the previous two popes, and the commentators should not doubt their honesty.
Finally, the Pope’s direct opposition to the Church’s teachings in the early days of the scandal was openly voiced by various cardinals, from the conservative R. Burke to the recently maligned Australian Pello, the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. , Muller and several others. . Former Vatican nuncio to the United States, Carlo Maria Vigano, openly called it heresy and invited all believers to pray for the Pope’s return to the truth. In fact, believers should.
Holier than the Pope?
All comments on opposition to the Church’s teaching were accompanied by the conclusion that it was the private opinion of the current Pope on the issue of homosexual unions. As a private opinion, it does not and cannot change the teaching of the Church. Basically, the very laconic statement from the Lithuanian Episcopal Conference said the same thing.
However, it is particularly troublesome when the position of the Church contradicts its higher hierarchy. Clearly, the person of the Pope has enormous authority and this will have consequences for the societies of the world. On the other hand, those consequences will be much more varied than the gay liberals imagine. The Pope’s speech will not change the views of believing Catholics, and it will not affect “Catholics” who do not believe. Politically, it will give the latter more courage to speak out about the need and time for the Church to change.
“Are you holier than the Pope?” The leaders of the liberal parties V. Čmilytė-Nielsen and A. Armonait have already asked, and more than one will ask. The truth is that all Catholics feel or at least feel sinful and do not claim any holiness on earth, and that the loyalty and true authority of all Catholics is not the person of the Pope, but the Church as a community established by Christ. , the only one that explains his revealed teaching. Everything arises from the representation of the Church. This dilemma never arises in the normal case in which the Pope, as he should, preserves, develops and nurtures the inherited teaching, but we see that it can arise.
When it arises When the current Pope feels more just (in liberal words, holier) than all previous popes, the Church Fathers and Scripture itself. Catholicism is based on the premise that the truths of the faith revealed or derived from natural law by the individual are not transformed or denied by the individual. Therefore, no one can personally reinterpret either the Scriptures or the teaching of the Church, the requirements that arise from it in a manner contrary to the previous teaching. Even when Church leaders attempted to do so during their darkest hours, decisions contrary to teaching were made in non-binding documents. Don’t you dare cross the line.
The Pope does not dare to do the same. Statements that contradicted or questioned the teaching of the Church were made in various interviews, conferences, films, private letters, etc. For example, year after year he gives scandalous interviews to the editor of the left-wing Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Eugenio Scalfari, Catholics hope his words are distorted, but the Vatican never publishes denials. The last time Scalfari declared that the Pope denied the existence of hell. Although there has been a lot of noise in the world for this, there is silence in the Vatican. The Pope acted in a particularly ambiguous manner during 2014-2015. The synods of the family, crowned by his encyclical Amoris Laetitia The most important issue in the media and the most controversial in the Synod itself was the provision of Communion to those who were in a second civil marriage.
The Pope, in the text of the encyclical, placed footnote 351 in the text of the encyclical, which vaguely provides for the possibility of pastors “using the sacraments in specific cases.” As no one understood the unequivocal conclusion at the time, the national episcopal conferences wrote to the Vatican asking In the second civil marriage, positive response letters were leaked in the Catholic media, but there were no public comments. / not “type) doctrinal questions on the subject of this encyclical. Since 2016, the Pope has not answered them in any way, and the clergy supporting the reforms have called the requirement of a direct answer almost an insult.
Crossing
This time the Pope’s speech is very simple and clear, all the ambiguity is brought to him only by the attempts of believers who fervently love the Holy Father and the Church to find a different meaning. In the world of media in which we live, the real event is not the words actually spoken, but the words that can be broadcast around the world. Support for homogeneous unions has been extended. Whatever nuances you have in mind, the Pope is not trying to deny it, so we shouldn’t try either. The Pope advocated a homogeneous association, pouring water into the Liberal mill. Those who recognize this fact do not contribute to it. On the contrary, only by recognizing that can we realize the true magnitude of the problem. Most believers are and will remain faithful to the faith and to the Church. They will pray for the Pope, but they will increasingly realize his flirtation with the flaws of modernity. There has already been a heated and unprecedented debate among laity and priests over the Pope’s assessment. The Pope’s silence says that this debate will not stop, it will probably only intensify.
Francis’s caution so far suggests that he understands that such statements run the risk of fragmenting the Church and he is unwilling to do so. The Pope wants the Church to adapt to the spirit of the times without destroying the Church itself. However, the Church cannot apply its teaching to the ages without destroying itself. Either she teaches Truth and Truth cannot change, or she does not teach Truth and then she can change as much as she wants, but she no longer has any meaning or authority. The Church of the Changing Teaching would inevitably become and in many places become a place of psychological (self) help and new age meditations. In the countries that have chosen this direction, the churches are inevitably emptied because they cannot give man anything unique and substantive. Liberal reforms have not helped to regain the importance and meaning of people’s lives anywhere, because they are abandoning the elements that can offer it.
The Pope’s subtle move toward change in the Church can only weaken and divide her. Catholics around the world should come to terms with this papal reformist reality and reflect on their relationship to it. There is no guilt or shame in remaining “on the side of the Church” in such a situation, on the contrary, there is such an obligation.
Prepared by propatria.lt
[ad_2]
