Let’s vary the words a bit shall we? Wife beating tendencies; racist tendencies; murderous tendencies; pedophile tendencies. The distinction between inclination and act is an important one in moral theology, but only in regard to homosexuals do we see this distinction seized upon to celebrate a group with a strong inclination to mortal sin. Once again this pontificate is all about putting homosexual sex on the same status as heterosexual sex.
There is no other explanation for this behavior. He is justifying his own sin (or inclination if you will.)
It’s all about feeling sentimental. Pope Francis feels sorry for pre-born babies, so he mouths words about the evils of abortion. Pope Francis feels sorry for sodomites, so he mouths words about the evils of mistreating homosexuals. It’s the false gospel of sentimentality. There’s no intellectual substance to any of this. He simply wants to be praised as the Pope who loves the rejected (babies and sodomites) as Christ loved the rejected (tax collectors and prostitutes), and who whips judgmental traditionalists out of the Temple as Christ whipped the money changers and Pharisees. He is imitating a silly caricature of our divine Lord. I think it’s blasphemous.
Yep. We all got them. Tendencies to sin; concupiscence. Resist the tendencies to sin and we go to heaven. Act on the tendencies to sin and we may go to hell.
Second grade catechism.No crime can be consented to without the loss of innocence.
Homosexuality is no sin. Acting as a sodomite is assault and battery of another person. No crime can be consented to without the loss of innocence and the danger of hell.
Hate the sin. Love the sinner in Christian Charity for as long as he lives, and we try convert him, he may come to a better mind.
Note:
There is no such thing as a heterosexual person; there are male and female persons some of which may have “inclinations”.
An inclination does not a “person” make. And you can’t say on one hand you can be whatever you’re inclined to be then say you were born that way.
(The heterosexual person distinction is a ruse aimed at the general audience to allow other “persons” into our thinking be they: homosexual, pansexual, bisexual…..)
David WS. Thank you for the clarification. Excellent.
Is this why it is flourishing?
I used to think Sodem and Gomorrah were exaggerations but I don’t anymore.
I had wondered if they feel partly responsible bc of the predatory homosexual priests – some victims continue in it.
I’ll just make an observation, if you don’t denounce strongly, you get what we have now. And because children are impressionable, you have a duty to protect them and go somewhere that a sane person is in charge
MRSOPEY
There were no children in Sodom and Gomorrah. For the children’s sake God would have spared the cities.
Our legacy to our constitutional Posterity is to safeguard their innocence, This is guaranteed in the Preamble…”to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Individuals who reject our Founding Principles forfeit their citizenship and become persona non grata.
Heaven help us.
Separating the tendency from the act is hard for me to get exercised over. Definitely not the tack taken by his red-hatted brown-noser, McElroy.
I’m not sure I believe there were no children as Lott had 2 daughters. I believe it’s ironic that he offer his daughters to be raped and they in turn rape their father later – and go on to birth what would be enemies of Israel.
If there were no children, all God would have to do is take Lott and is family out and let them die out naturally.
Then again it is an abomination which is why strong medicine is needed.
Lott didn’t escape wo being influenced or his daughters influenced either. Righteousness doesn’t mean perfection.
…and then there is that complex theological discourse about that word–condemn–never to be confused with the word judge (as in, “Who am I to judge?). The pope’s favorite phrase deliberately appears to negate the difference between the two. I was taught way back in that 1940’s catechism class that we are obligated by God, to “discern and admonish” out of love, which, of course, requires some judgement, but not condemnation.
I suspect the well-being of homosexuals would be enhanced if you stopped paying much attention to them in their capacity as homosexuals and rebuked them for histrionics.
This demonstrates precisely how language gets used to frame a narrative and make clarity on a moral issue way more difficult than it needs to be. “Homosexual tendencies,” which should be called “disordered appetites,” are in and of themselves not a sin, and thus the criminalization of a person merely with a disordered appetite outside of an accompanying act would be unjust. (That doesn’t mean, btw, that one acts as if nothing is wrong or allows access to any state in life or situation. Deep-seated issues require help and compassion to overcome such issues or live virtuously in spite of them, which is actual accompaniment…) However, the entire purpose in morphing “tendencies” into “identities” is to elide the distinction between appetite, act and ultimately being. It creates a pseudo-ontological category in which it becomes more difficult to distinguish necessary categories and speak about them intelligently. This is why it’s been a mistake ultimately to even countenance terminology like “heterosexual” or “homosexual,” for which non-sensical categories like “sexual orientation” are merely the logical culmination.
The push for “orientation” language and initially framing it as “born this way” was to make the inclination and the act one and the same, and thus orientation ultimately gives way to identity, although now identity is no longer biologically predetermined (“born this way”) but an act of will (“identifies as”). The upshot is that since the link between appetite (“orientation”), act, and identity is so strong as to be practically identical (which is why it won’t be long until “P” enters the litany of depravity), it would seem unjust to those operating under this logic to criminalize acts related to this “identity,” as one would (under this logic) be criminalizing something as essential to someone’s being as sex (well, until five minutes ago…) or race (wait about five more minutes…). This rationale in conjunction with the incessant messaging and narrative building vis-a-vis identity is why so many people find it difficult to understand the actual distinctions and how many have capitulated to if not outright celebrated its ascendance.
We then get into a situation where everything he says here can be given an orthodox spin assuming orthodox premises, but can also be employed to utterly undermine orthodox Catholic morality. The popesplainers will have their cover, and synod 2023 will probably make gay ok.
“Is this why it is flourishing?” Oddly “conscience”.
Those with unnatural inclinations are driven by conscience.
Relentless: marketing, societal acceptance, conversion…
(To quell their own conscience.)
We don’t need special Masses nor flags for unnatural tendencies.
I also don’t believe him because he call it tendencies then turns around elevating men who celebrate these unnatural tendencies.
If he were here I would give him the middle finger out of honesty and to fight corruption.
The overall program is the acceptance of active homosexual Priests. First comes the acceptance of sodomy. Next comes the abolition of celibacy for Priests. It’s a short hop with present marriage laws until you have Father X and his “wife “ Father Y in your rectory.
MRSOPEY
The deal was ten innocent persons. There were only seven innocent persons in Lot’s family
For homosexuals not to want to become priests and bishops things will need to become tough and unattractive to those who want a cushy job, and attractive only to those who have Faith. I think we’ve turned the corner.
As a faithful priest I know has said “we just have to wait until the bad ones are six feet under… “