Posted on 08/03/2018 9:55:47 PM PDT by unlearner
LEXINGTON, Kentucky, Pro-homosexual dissident 'Catholic' groups see in Pope Francis' ‘changing’ of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty the hope that the Church will one day also change its teaching against homosexuality.
New Ways Ministry called the change in the Catechism proof that "Church teaching can change."
"It's important for Catholic advocates for LGBT equality to take note of this change because for decades Catholic opponents of LGBT equality argued that it is impossible to change church teaching. They often pointed to the fact that condemnations of same-sex relationships were inscribed in the Catechism, and so were not open for discussion or change. Yet, the teaching on the death penalty is in the Catechism, too, and, in fact, to make this change in teaching, it was the text of the Catechism that Francis changed," the group stated on its website.
New Ways Ministry, which works to "promote the acceptance of LGBT people," said that Pope Francis' move will help advance "LGBT equality" in a number of ways.
"First, we now have a clear, explicit contemporary example of church teaching changing, and also a look into how it can be done: with a papal change to the Catechism," it stated.
"Second, we can see that the process that brought about this change has been decades of theological debate and discussion, and not just a papal whim. That means the theological and even ecclesial discussions and debates right now about LGBT people have great potential to shape future changes in church teaching in regard to those topics," it added.
The pro-gay group was not the only one to see the significance of Pope Francis' rewrite of the Catechism.
In a post that appeared yesterday on Twitter, Lexington-based “Fortunate Families” wrote:
The church cannot change its teaching. That is what so many others say about other topics, for example regarding LGBTQ persons. But doctrine develops. Today’s news is a sterling example.
"The idea first floated by [the] Pope on Catechism’s 25th anniversary last fall to signify development of doctrine,” the tweet continued, “rescript issued today sees Francis issue edit of the 1994 official text, now deeming capital punishment ‘inadmissible’-- the new formulation.”
“Development of doctrine”, legitimately used to describe how the Catholic Church refines and expands, but never undermines or rejects, what was taught earlier, has now been interpreted by some to mean the erasure of settled Church teaching.
Critics say Pope Francis attempted to do that yesterday when he promulgated a new teaching concerning the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, saying that it was “inadmissible.” The perennial teaching of the Church, based on Scripture and unanimously accepted by the Church Fathers and every pope until Francis, is that legitimate civil authority may impose the death penalty on a malefactor. Although both Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI were strongly opposed to capital punishment--and John Paul’s Catechism strongly circumscribed it--neither pope denied this principle.
Pope Francis’ innovation has already become a club for American liberals to beat conservatives with. Jane Fleming Kleeb, Chair of the Democratic Party in Nebraska, has tweeted “Let's be clear Nebraskans, @GovRicketts is going against the teachings of the church. We can change leaders by voting different on Nov. 6--Democrats are against the death penalty.”
Fortunate Families, founded in 1992 by Mary Ellen and Casey Lopata, the Catholic parents of a same-sex attracted man, is a group of Catholic religious and laypeople who dissent on authentic Church teaching regarding sexuality and marriage. From 2010 until this July Fortunate Families was part of a coalition with Call to Action, the banned Dignity, and the censured New Ways ministry.
Astonishingly, since November 2017 Bishop John Stowe, OFM of Lexington has served as the dissident group’s “ecclesial advisor”. Stowe is one of the five bishops who have endorsed Fr. James Martin’s pro-LGBT book Building a Bridge. The bishop was appointed to the Lexington diocese by Pope Francis in 2015.
Fortunate Families was last in the news when a Lexington Catholic church stretched an LGBT flag across its front lawn. The first executive director of the group, Stan “JR” Zerkowski, is a parishioner at St. Paul’s parish, and told media that he hoped the banner got wide publicity.
“This is a church that is open to all people and I hope this sign gets that across,” he said in the TV report. “I don’t think a Catholic Church has ever had a sign like this before in front of it during Pride Week or any other time. However, in other parts of the country we see this regularly.”
The banner read “LBGTQ+ Catholic /Family, Friends & Allies/all are welcome”, insinuating that at other Catholic churches Catholics who experience same-sex desires or suffer from gender dysphoria are barred from the worship of God.
Former homosexual Joseph Sciambra retweeted the group’s Twitter message, saying “Bishop Stowe’s ‘Fortunate Families’ believe that the [Catechism of the Catholic Church] will also ‘change’ in terms of homosexuality. FF operatives are embedded within several dioceses around the US.”
Sciambra, a survivor of the San Francisco 1990s “gay scene”, is dedicated to helping people with same-sex attractions avoid being trapped in what he says is a dangerous way of life.
There are plenty of posts here on the doings of Pope Francis which have long threads followed by comments from Catholics. It is not very difficult to figure out how freeper Catholics feel about the Pope. Some of the best ways to read up on how ordinary Catholics feel is to read the caucus threads and refrain from breaking them.
“You referred to my post in your first comment and expressed your intent on breaking a caucus.”
I think you’ve misread my first post. It is explicitly not to “break Caucus”. I specifically invited you in case you wished to participate in a non-Caucus discussion of the topic / article.
I made it very clear that I was not interested in a Catholic versus Protestant debate.
I also apologized for the disruption to your thread. Until you pointed me to the policy on this I was unclear about how the Caucus threads worked. I thought it simply meant that it was not a place for debate.
My question even then was not intended to start a debate. I simply am curious about how Catholics correct problems within their Church as that was the subject being discussed. I was not really looking for any Protestant arguments against the Catholic view. However, it seems that in order to find out the answer to that question, it requires posting in a non-Caucus thread. And, unfortunately, since it is a non-Caucus thread, some people may be prone to debate. But it is not my intention to start such a debate.
Perhaps there should be a generalized Christian Caucus thread open to ALL Christian denominations in which the purpose is explicitly NOT to debate. I don’t know.
However, there have been some pretty good replies so far, in spite of the tendency for arguments to break out between Protestants and Catholics. Thank God, it’s not like the violent conflicts of the not-so-distant past.
*****************
Demonstrably inaccurate.
Rome did not decide its NT or OT canon until Trent, April, 1546.
The Council originally said the vulgate was to be the only version and if anyone said otherwise was to be anathema.
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Session_IV/Canonical_Scriptures,
However, as with so many things Roman Catholic, the church that claims they never change....well, they changed the Council of Trent.
Later, on 3 September 1943, Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, which allowed Catholic translations to be based on texts other than the Latin Vulgate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Trent
In his justification for this, Pius XII, reversed an encyclical from Leo XIII .
Leo had condemned the use of higher criticism in the study of the Bible. Pius XII said this was now okay in light of advances in archeology and historical research which made it advisable to further define the study of the Bible.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divino_afflante_Spiritu
Really? From your post #38:
For the Catholic the answer seems to rely on the authority of the Church. For the Protestant the answer is seen as a personal reliance on the Holy Spirit.
Sounds hypocritical to me.
That is the problem a sect creates when they blasphemously elevate their leader to be “vicar of Christ’ and call him “holy father”. They are then stuck with his proclamations as if they come from God. The fruits of their own teachings. Maybe they should do as Christ taught and call no man father.
So?
The RM didn’t have a problem with it.
And it’s still not appropriate to assign intent like that.
And if I'm understanding RC Canon Law....there's really not a whole lot Roman Catholics can do about this.
No he didn't.
The dude apologized for posting on a caucus forum as he was unclear of the policy.
His exact post:
Ebb Tide posted this as Catholic Only / Caucus earlier and is, as such closed for discussion outside of Catholics. [My apologies for posting to a Caucus of which I am not a member. Even after many years on this forum, I was unclear on the policy about this.]
You're reading into this something that isn't there.
Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
I was under the understanding that the point of the caucus was to allow for discussion within the group without outsiders, not to have a monopoly on the article and disallowing anyone else from posting it to comment on it.
He did not express intent on breaking the caucus label on your thread as he did not state intent on going over and posting on your thread anyways, ignoring the caucus label.
He posted this one so that he would NOT break the caucus label on the thread you posted.
Whatever it's source, nobody on FR owns the rights to posting form it nor can they prohibit others from posting it as well. Clearly the RM doesn't have a problem with it and HE'S the one with the final say.
If you don't like the rules, take it up with him.
It seems that there's a real lack of understanding about what the caucus designation is for.
Cross threading again?
No...the complaint is the number of threads you start on basically the same topic.
“Really? From your post #38: For the Catholic the answer seems to rely on the authority of the Church. For the Protestant the answer is seen as a personal reliance on the Holy Spirit.”
You’ll have to forgive my feeble attempts to explain the Catholic view since I am not Catholic. That was a best-efforts explanation trying to present BOTH sides, as I have been doing on this thread.
I’m not hiding that I am Protestant or pretending to be Catholic. I prefer to allow Catholics to speak for themselves rather than the likelihood that my attempts to represent Catholic views fail to do them justice.
I suppose that I can understand the delicate nature of the subject at hand. You allude to it in your tagline. Not meaning to pick at your scabs, but hoping for an honest answer which I do not intend to critique, belittle, or degrade.
Not claiming to be ecumenical, but I’ve been puzzled and troubled over the controversy about the current Pope for a while. While I do not agree with many of the arguments by Catholics against Protestant beliefs, practices, or the Reformation in general, I do think (or at least did) that I understood the arguments. I could see their logical design. But I clearly do not understand how Catholics view the issue of the Pope’s fallibility and how that gels with the traditional Catholic teaching of Apostolic succession.
Even if we never agree theologically, I hope that people such as yourself are effective at remedying deviations from Church teaching (and the Bible) on abortion and homosexuality whenever and wherever this occurs.
Go for it if that makes you happy.
I have no scabs.
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.