How an incorrect translation of the synod report created chaos

“Nice lie.”

There was no lie.

“I asked you if you were gay, a logical question considering what you accused Michaelangelo of when he’s deader than a doornail and thus cannot defend himself about being a homo.”

I never accused Michelangelo of anything. I used him as an example. My language clearly showed that: “Many people - including scholars - say Michaelangelo was a homosexual. Let’s assume for a moment he was. Did he not have some “good gifts” in his command of painting and sculpture “to give to the Christian community”?”

Notice that? “LET’S ASSUME FOR A MOMENT HE WAS.” I never EVER accused him of being a homosexual. I simply used him as an example since “Many people - including scholars - say Michaelangelo was a homosexual. ... [and] Did he not have some “good gifts” in his command of painting and sculpture “to give to the Christian community”?”

Your comment was very different:

“Are you gay too and feel the need to go to ridiculous lengths to justify what the progressive priests in this Synod are attempting to do? What’s wrong with you.”

You asked if I was “gay too”. I never said anything that would make any rational person think I was a homosexual. You also said, “What’s wrong with you.”

Your comments are shameful. You should be ashamed.

“I did not accuse you of being one, but asked if you were.”

Your question essentially is an accusation and it certainly is an insult. Again, I said NOTHING that should make any rational person think there was even a slight possibility that I was a homosexual. I did not defend or support homosexuality, homosexual acts, the homosexual agenda or anything even remotely related to it. I merely focused on what the text actually said rather than create fantasies about what it said as some people are doing.

“Big difference, and you try to lie and twist my words.”

You words are plain. I said NOTHING that should make any rational person think there was even a slight possibility that I was a homosexual.

“The Synod report also lied to cover up their saying “valued” homo’s (the first dictionary definition) claiming instead that the word was “evaluated” (a second dictionary definition) not the first.”

The report lied? People lie. Documents just exist. They are written. They do not write themselves. Unless you can present some actual evidence that one interpretation was wanted by the synod fathers over another you have nothing to base your accusation on.

“This wasn’t a mistranslation, it was a blatant effort to cover up what the authors of the report really meant.”

The problem with your claims are as follows: 1) You don’t know what they meant (you would have to know what they were thinking for that or they would have to say so and they are saying you’re wrong), 2) I have no reason to believe you know anymore about the languages in question than the people in question do. 3) They’re saying it is a mistranslation. They wrote it. They would know. Quite frankly, you would not.

“Seems both you and the Synod authors of the Report have problems with the truth.”

I am the one telling the truth. You’re not.

“P.S. as to “but I would NEVER stoop to questioning your sexuality. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you did was disgusting and shameful”, you had no problems whatsoever doing it to poor old Michaelangelo, did you. Shame on you.”

No, again, shame on you. I NEVER questioned his sexuality. Here is the quote again:

“Many people - including scholars - say Michaelangelo was a homosexual. Let’s assume for a moment he was. Did he not have some “good gifts” in his command of painting and sculpture “to give to the Christian community”?”

I never once said Michelangelo was a homosexual. I said many people say he was (which is true, they do say that). And I said, “LET’S ASSUME FOR A MOMENT HE WAS.” ASSUME FOR A MOMENT. Did you see that?

What you did was shameful. You’re only adding to it now.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

It appears that you two are speaking (writing) of two different documents. The “midterm document” doesn’t mention sin. The 1986 document from the CDF, which is quoted in the article of this thread, does mention sin.

“It appears that you two are speaking (writing) of two different documents. The “midterm document” doesn’t mention sin. The 1986 document from the CDF, which is quoted in the article of this thread, does mention sin.”

Here is the document:

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html

Please note the date of that document: Oct. 13, 2014 NOT 1986.

Cut and paste it into Word. Search for the word “sin”. It shows up in paragraphs 16, 27, 47. The document mentions sin three times. ANYONE saying the document does not mention “sin” is wrong. It’s just that simple.

Yes, the synodal midterm document (of Oct 13, 2014 as you point out) does mention sin.

However, in your replies #16 and #23 above, you quote from a document produced by the CDF in 1986. If you scroll to the bottom of the linked page, you will see "Given at Rome, 1 October 1986" and it is signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect. The quote is from section three of the document.

“However, in your replies #16 and #23 above, you quote from...”

You’re absolutely correct. My mistake. Even when wrong about the one document, I was right about the CURRENT document and that was the issue.