I support Patricia Jannuzzi's right to express her Catholic mind without fear of retribution

Vivificat - From Contemplation to Action ^ | 25 Mar 2015 | Teófilo de Jesús (@vivificat)

[Alas Babylon!]

When I read here about Jesus being with sinners and how we can condemn homosexuals because certainly Jesus would have lunch with them, I am humbled, really.

Whoever said that has a valid point.

But here is another. When He said to Magdalene that there was no one left to condemn her, he also asked her to go and sin no more.

So, would we expect her to keep turning tricks and prostitute herself some more, after that?

No.

God forgive the homosexuals, but please let them repent and sin no more!

[Gamecock]

**Persecution of Christian and Catholic values?**

And? I guess they are sometimes mutually exclusive.

[metmom]

She’s right about the tactics of the gay agenda

[Alex Murphy]

Alex, shame on you....You must also be aware of the way the LGBT-STD-AIDS activists have exploited the hell out of this snippet to make it seem like the Pope is virtually part of the Lavender Mafia. Why do you want to cooperate with them in this this tactical deception?... Straighten out, stop doing the one-trick-pony thing with your one decontextualized quote, and I'll consider you --- a "person of good will" who is "seeking the Lord".

Well, ain't that a kick in the head - when did you acquire mindreading powers?

[DBeers]

For those interested -some links to documents and some excerpts:

Catholic documents and teaching on subject of homosexuality:

1. The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality - Guidelines for Education within the Family

   104. A particular problem that can appear during the process of sexual maturation is homosexuality, which is also spreading more and more in urbanized societies. This phenomenon must be presented with balanced judgement, in the light of the documents of the Church. Young people need to be helped to distinguish between the concepts of what is normal and abnormal, between subjective guilt and objective disorder, avoiding what would arouse hostility. On the other hand, the structural and complementary orientation of sexuality must be well clarified in relation to marriage, procreation and Christian chastity. "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained". A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that "are intrinsically disordered" and contrary to Natural Law.

   Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy. In any case, persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided. If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behaviour in their children, during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance.

   For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial. "They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition". "Homosexual persons are called to chastity".

2. Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics

   VIII At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

   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.

   In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

   In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

3. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

   10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

   But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

   11. 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.

4. Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons

   II. Applications

   10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

   11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

   13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

5. Third World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress

   Mention should also be made of recent attempts to legalize adoptions by homosexual persons, and this must be strongly rejected. It is obvious that this is not the situation for authentic up-bringing and personalizing growth. “The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family, nor much less can the right be attributed to a union of this kind to adopt children without a family”. With regard to foster care and adoption, the great principle to be applied is always the child’s higher interests which much prevail over other considerations.

6. Fourth World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress

   We reaffirm the rights and dignity of all children. They should never be neglected and abandoned on the streets. They should be protected, especially when threatened by exploitation through prostitution, pornography, child-labor, drug trafficking, homosexual adoption and immoral "sex education". A new threat to children is posed by the misuse of the Internet, when this intrudes into family life and undermines the rights and duties of parents.

   Children are the "crown of marriage", the real wealth of humanity. The natural place for their education is the family. It is here, in the community of life and love, that they are formed as members of Christ's Church. It is here that, honoring and loving their parents, they can enrich the lives of all members of the wider family.

7. Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

   4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.

   7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

   Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

   As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

8. Religiosorum Institutio

   30. Those To Be Excluded; Practical Directives

   Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.

9. Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

   Introduction

   In continuity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and, in particular, with the Decree Optatam Totius[1] on priestly formation, the Congregation for Catholic Education has published various Documents with the aim of promoting a suitable, integral formation of future priests, by offering guidelines and precise norms regarding its diverse aspects.[2] In the meantime, the 1990 Synod of Bishops also reflected on the formation of priests in the circumstances of the present day, with the intention of bringing to completion the doctrine of the Council on this theme and making it more explicit and effective in today's world. Following this Synod, Pope John Paul II published the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis.

   In light of this abundant teaching, the present Instruction does not intend to dwell on all questions in the area of affectivity and sexuality that require an attentive discernment during the entire period of formation. Rather, it contains norms concerning a specific question, made more urgent by the current situation, and that is: whether to admit to the seminary and to holy orders candidates who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mind-reading powers? Oh, never, never. These are just inferences from evidence.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I just bring up these lists of non-Scriptural terms because it is a commonplace that "Sola Scriptura" people take as cornerstones of their faith, stuff that isn't even in Scripture. (Like "Sola Scriptura.")

It's not something that can be applied reciprocally to Catholics, because we have never claimed nor aspired to be "Sola Scriptura." Thus the employment of words and concepts not found in the sacred text, is not a contradiction or a problem for us. We freely and gratefully rely, also, on Sacred Tradition and the authority which Christ gave His Church.

[sitetest]

Dear Mrs. Don-o,

“Latest word, though, is that the Bishop is waffling. I think he'll work something out with Mrs. Jannuzzi , if not to ‘do’ good, then in order to ‘look’ good.”

I'm not so sure about this. My sense is that when bishops go soft on the homo issue it's because they're likely homos, as well. And someone else knows, and the bishop knows they know.

And thus, such bishops tend to take a hard line against those who forthrightly proclaim the truth about this disorder.

sitetest

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's a ping to my letter to Bishop Bootkoski:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3271908/posts?page=27#27

[Mrs. Don-o]

That may be true. I don't know, God knows. I did get an email from Patricia Jannuzzi's family --- faithtruthfamily@gmail.com --- suggesting that their mother may get a job offer from the Diocese before September. Nothing specific (like, would she still be at Immaculata? Teaching?) but it was guardedly hopeful.

[redleghunter]

Thanks. I’m sure you will share the response:)

[Dutchboy88]

But, where did He give Rome the authority...Scripture? So, solely based on Scripture you argue for authority, but not for the message...unless the message matches a non-biblical tradition...which has authority due to Scripture...but does not comport with Scripture...but

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your comments seem, excuse me, a little didcombobulated. Let's see if we can sort this out.

I didn't say God gave just "Rome" (in the Western jurisdictional sense) the authority to collect and codify the canon of Scriptures, if by that one would mean that one of the five Patriarchal sees (Rome) or even one man in Rome (the Pope) imposed this on all the other churches.

Rather take good note of what St. Jerome said about his final, 46-book OT Canon: "What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches?"(Against Rufinius 11:33, A.D. 401).

"The judgment of the churches." That means he was going beyond his own individual opinion, going beyond the rabbinical opinion of rabbis who didn't believe in Christ, and going instead with the consensus of the churches who had received the Scriptures from the Apostles, and from the successors of the Apostles, for their liturgical proclamation.

In other words, Jerome could go forward with (1) his own opinion, (2) the opinion of the Christ-denying rabbis and their councils, or (3) the actual practice of the Christian churches and their councils.

He could choose his own self, the Pharisaical-rabbinical tradition, or the Christian tradition. He went with the Christian tradition. That was the ultimate source of the canon --- that, and the Holy Spirit.

Christ said (John 16:13) "When the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth." Christ, through the Holy Spirit, is protecting and teaching the Church.

I rest my case.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Keep in mind that there was a Church for 300 years before there was a canon of Scripture. The Church was the source of the canon, and not t’other way around.

[Dutchboy88]

"Your comments seem, excuse me, a little didcombobulated. Let's see if we can sort this out...I rest my case."

The point of our discussion began as a woman who was discharged for making disparaging remarks against homos. The guy who discharged her was an RC honcho (I forget whether he was Cardinal, a Bluebird, or a buzzard). But, I noted that your "pope" had lunch with homos so the RC org seemed to support her discharge...she clearly is out of step with Rome. You defended the "pope" because he behaved like Jesus and the little lambs.

Now, we are all the way to you defending traditions because your organization has its authority in the Scriptures, but you denounced Sola Scriptura. Can you not see that your cult has built its own support upon the Scriptures that it will not permit to speak? Rome's doctrines, by your own admission, looks to traditions as freely as the Scriptures, which provides absolutely no connection to the Truth. The Scriptures tell us that they are "adequate for all". But, your gang says, Oh no, we have the authority to ADD JUNK!. It says so right there in the Scriptures. Oh, and in all of our other books that we wrote and said we get the authority because we wrote them and we said it. Circularity? Discombobulated? Stand back, take a deep breath and look at Rome...it is a self-styled, home made religion of monumental proportion.

[Dutchboy88]

"Keep in mind that there was a Church for 300 years before there was a canon of Scripture. The Church was the source of the canon, and not t’other way around."

Not so, my FRiend. There was a distinct canon of 39 Hebrew manuscripts to which all Jews referred as "Scriptures". Jesus used these and Paul used them...long before there was even such a thing as a Roman Organization (around 300+ years before). And, the NT grouping was well understood and used and circulated long before Rome got its fat fingers into the pie. For goodness sake, they were ALL written by 91AD and Paul's were well circulated before Rome sacked Jerusalem. Your gang comes along 300+ years later and lays claim to having written them? (Oh, yes, most of your friends around here claim the RCC wrote the text, not just approved a compilation...talk about arrogance). But, the believers in the first and second century who knew nothing of Roman dominance used the 66 books we know as the Scriptures and found it "adequate". Then, Rome starts its headstrong push to "re-write" the story. If the Bible is important, why don't they follow it?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But, I noted that your "pope" had lunch with homos so the RC org seemed to support her [Mrs. Jannuzzi's] discharge...she clearly is out of step with Rome."

You are so wrong about this. (1) You either never bothered to read the links I sent about the Catechism's teachings and the Pope's teachings against homosexuality, or (2) you did read them and therefore you know you're wrong, yet you continue to falsely assert that Patricia Jannuzzi is "out of step with Rome."

The pope (a title which does not require scare-quotes) had lunch with 100 inmates of the prison in Naples, including 10 who came from the wing which houses gay, transgender and HIV-infected prisoners. That does not mean he approves of gay and transgender practices, nor is he in favor of HIV infections, any more than he agrees with the disorders and crimes of the other inmates-- who may be drug addicts and traffickers, murderers, armed robbers, and embezzlers.

Surely you realize that Jesus ate with sinners. And the Pharisees in those days, as in ours, didn't like it one bit.

From the Catechism AGAIN (LINK) ---(these are just excerpts, paragraphs 2357-2359, but you can read the whole thing in context at the link):

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity."

Pope Francis does not approve homosexuality, not even tacitly.

You may have missed all the whining and bitching from the gay publications and activist organizations about how their initial self-deceiving euphoria has dissolved an how disappointed they have been.

Gays Disappointed (LINK)

Pope Anti-Gay (LINK)

Five Worst (Best) Quotes from Homophobic Pope Francis (LINK)

Your failure to acknowledge what the true teaching of the Catholic Church is, even when it's sent to you, makes it unfortunately hard for you to make a credible point.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"There was a distinct canon of 39 Hebrew manuscripts to which all Jews referred as "Scriptures"."

This is incorrect. There were a number of competing canons in the first century AD, ranging from the Sadducees' canon (which was just the 5 books of the Torah) to the Septuagint canon (46 books). There was vigorous debate between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel over the Chronicles and the Song of Songs, and so forth. A twenty-four book canon is mentioned in the Midrash Koheleth. Both Jesus and His Apostles accepted the full Septuagint canon, since 85% of the OT verses quoted in the NT are quoted directly from the Septuagint.

This was the situation confronting the anti-Messianic faction of the Jews led by Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai. After the Temple was destroyed they were facing an existential threat, being increasingly challenged by the growing Messianic (Christian) movement. Whether at a hypothetical Jewish Council of Yavneh/Jamnia or elsewhere, Yohanan ben Zakkai and his halachic school eventually came up with their own canon (an anti-Messianic canon) sometime between 90 AD and 100 AD.

This scaled-down canon included 39 books and excluded 34 books. All of excluded books were written in Greek: the 7 Deutercanonicals and the entire collection of 27 more books we now know as the New Testament. (Whether John 1, 2, 3 and Revelation had been written yet I do not know, but I am including them in the count because they were all excluded by the circa 90 AD rabbinical reaction against Christianity.)

They excluded them because they supported so directly to the beliefs and practices of the rival Christian community.

The limitation of the TaNaKh to the 39 Hebrew manuscripts, while accepted by the anti-Messianic Jews (Ben Zakkai) was not accepted by the pro-Messianic Jews (Christians) nor by the Gentile converts to the Christian faith. Consider also, that the Masoretic Text, the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism, was was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD.

In other words, what is now known as the 39-book Masoretic Text, pointed for vowels and all, did not reach its completed form until 700-1,000 years after after the beginning of the Christian Church.

If you want to abide by the Rabbinical Councils, and St. Jerome finally decided to abide by the Christian Councils, I would argue that Jerome made the better choice.

[Dutchboy88]

I’m at work now and cannot respond thoroughly. But, your remarks deserve a response. Yet, there is language in here which does not sound like you...

[Dutchboy88]

Before I waste a bunch of time here, I am curious about two things...
1. Is this really you writing this post?
2. If I rebut your (or the ghost writer’s) claims and demonstrate that the 66 books known as the Scriptures (without the Apocrypha) were in place long before there was such a thing as a “Roman Catholic Church” (which I assume are intended to support RCC authority to tell the world what is true), will you swim back over the Tiber?