Posted on 02/14/2013 10:34:16 AM PST by Morgana
ROME, February 13, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With the eyes of the world fixed on the 125 cardinal electors who will be voting in the upcoming conclave, the former Archbishop of Westminster has advised the next pope not to “condemn” anything in the realm of sexual morality, but to focus instead on the positive.
“I think that the Church would be wise actually to focus on that in her teaching, rather than saying ‘we condemn this, we condemn that, or the other’. No – focus on what’s good and what’s true,” Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor told the BBC today.
“I think that every Pope will face what needs to be faced and with regard to contraception I think the Pope won’t say the Church has been wrong the whole time. He’ll be saying there are ways.”
“I think the Pope will be, as every other Pope has, particularly Pope Benedict, understanding that the fundamental teaching on sexuality is concentrated on marriage, on family life.”
Cormac Murphy O’Connor, at 80, is too old to vote in the conclave, but will be in Rome to advise and discuss the papal succession.
Under his rule, the archdiocese of Westminster instituted the notorious “gay Masses” that were the focus of heavy criticism by faithful Catholics until late last year when his successor, Vincent Nichols, moved the Soho Mass community to a local London parish.
John Smeaton, the head of the UK’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which has been leading the campaign against the government’s proposed “gay marriage” law, told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes the cardinal’s suggestion is absurd according to common sense.
“It would be a grave disservice to the pro-life movement if the next Pope fails to reiterate frequently the wrongness of contraception. As Popes Benedict XVI and his predecessors made clear, contraception is the gateway to killing of unborn children,” Smeaton said.
The cardinal’s advice appears to run counter to the longstanding teaching of the Church on the duties of pastors in teaching the moral law. The 2006 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church tells pastors they have “the task of proclamation, but also of denunciation” of evil. The social doctrine of the Church, in which the moral teachings are included, “also entails a duty to denounce, when sin is present.”
In one clear example of this teaching in practice, a document dated 1986, signed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, says that persons suffering from the temptations of same-sex attraction are not helped by the silence of their pastors. The “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” says bishops are instructed to offer pastoral services “in full accord with the teaching of the Church”.
“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.”
The letter goes on to say, “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.”
Maybe they shouldn’t have appointed a lumberjack as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Hey, buddy, mind your own flock!
A poor bit of advice from a man at the helm of a sinking ship.
The next Pope should simply witness to Christ. Yes, love the sinner, but as Christ said, “Go away and sin no more.”
Thank you Cicero! I was waiting to see who came up with the first sarcastic comment. That did not take long.
“Cormac Murphy O’Connor, at 80, is too old to vote in the conclave...”
Thank you! That made me happy.
Sarcasatic? There was no “sarcasm tag”! Oh how, Lord, how do I detect humour? Please send me a laugh track, Lord!
A “church” where sin is replaced with Marcuse ethics and “social justice” ?
Yeah, that`ll work.
Hello?
This man is a former Archbishop of Westminster, not Archbishop of Canterbury... he’s a Catholic Cardinal. Thankfully one who will not be able to vote in the conclave.
The Anglican Communion has enough troubles without this guy being one of ours. I trust, however, that the next pope won’t be paying much attention to the likes of this fellow.
Romans 8:7-8
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
There is always a bit of truth in dark humor.
Don’t deal in Biblical matters.
Any such priest should move to parking cars, or something else altogether.
In my opinion, the problem with the majority of Christian teaching today is the focus on belief on and in Christ WITHOUT the accompanied repentance of sin. Further, most teachings simply stop at “feeling sorry” for the sin. What is missing is the change of thinking. If a person is practicing a sin and only feels bad about that sin and does not change their behavior, then they have not changed their thinking with regards to that sin.
Cormac O’Connor was a complete loser as Archbishop and did everything he could to stop any attempts at reform and the restoration of faith. I’m sure his “advice” is very valuable.
Agree. It’s a matter of proper penitence.
eg. A murderer may go into the confession feeling terrible about what they did and ask the God through the priest for absolution. The priest would be correct in withholding absolution until the murderer exercised proper penitence by turning himself into the authorities.
Agree. It’s a matter of proper penitence.
eg. A murderer may go into the confession feeling terrible about what they did and ask the God through the priest for absolution. The priest would be correct in withholding absolution until the murderer exercised proper penitence by turning himself into the authorities.
Any bets on the next Pope coming from Africa?
Liberals always forget the second half of that quote. Jesus acknowledges that sexual sin is immoral, refuses to condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery, AND tells her to go and sin no more.
Should have read it more closely. The Catholic Church in England had many of the same problems as the Anglican Church, although things have gotten better since then, as they have in America.
I think most misunderstand the legal basis of this account. Jesus (God) who wrote the law was insisting upon what we call "due process."
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, and adulterer and the the adulteress shall be put to death. (Levititus 20:10)
Where was the man, since this woman was "caught in 'the very act' of adultery"? (You don't commit adultery alone). And further:
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mount of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people. So thou shall put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:6,7)
A witness who was not foreswearing himself (sinning) was challenged by Jesus to cast the first stone. There should have been at least two, better three. A false witness ran the risk of suffering the very punishment his testimony was trying to engineer.
And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsly against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 19:18,19)
Did the scribes and Pharisees conduct a proper investigation? Where was the man taken in adultery? This whole affair was stinking. Due process was not followed. Under these circumstances it would be a violation of the Law to condemn her, let alone stone her. Adultery is a wicked sin, but the law requires an exact process to prevent the unjust killing of the innocent. She may have been guilty, but the Law requires both (the adulterer and adulteress) be stoned by the witnesses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.