“The
Archbishop of St. John’s, Newfoundland, Martin Currie, told the CBC: ‘Hopefully
we can find some accommodation where [same-sex] unions are accepted and
respected and they can have a part in the church life.’ ... ‘I
uphold Church teaching. I do not accept same-sex marriages. Whatever the Church
teaches [on homosexuality], I support that. I have had to discipline people for
going to same sex weddings.’ ”
I ask:
how can we accommodate and ‘respect’ same-sex pairings which are contrary to
natural law, the Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterial teaching? We cannot, is
the simple answer. Seeking to uphold Church teaching while accommodating such ‘unions’
is to seek the impossible. Such thinking is a striking example of the confusion
that arose among the people of God during the Extraordinary Synod on the Family.
That
Synod has much to put it in a bad light; not only in that it demonstrated there
are rebellious voices existing within the very heart of the Church, but in the
manipulation of the Synod:
- the imposing of secrecy on the proceedings
- the setting up of a commission to look at streamlining annulments before the Synod even began, thereby pre-supposing a particular outcome
- manipulation of the mid-way text in order to achieve a particular outcome
- the inclusion of voted-down paragraphs appearing in the final text.
In
that all that is done in God is done in the light and in Truth (cf. MK.4v22 and
Jn.3v21) one may speculate that this Extraordinary Synod, because it was cloaked
in secrecy and subject to manipulation, was not of God, and that today’s Rome (and
a number of prelates around the world) act as though the Pope, Rome and/or the
Episcopate, stand over and above Divine Revelation –which is to usurp the place
of God. All in all, it surprises no one to hear folk saying something evil has
been influencing Rome in recent times, and that this was made evident at the
Synod.
In
considering the family, there are many Catholics who live heroic lives of faith
who needed to hear sound and supportive things from the Synod, i.e., those who
struggle to preserve a solid family life amid poverty, violent social oppression
and relationship difficulties; and those who, being either separated, divorced
or living with a homosexual proclivity, live faithful to the Gospel by espousing
celibacy.
There
are associations which seek to support these heroic people which would have
benefitted from supportive, wise words from the Synod; associations geared
toward family support such as ‘The Holy Family Guild’ in our
own Diocese (and the ‘National Association of Catholic Families’).
Also, ‘The Association of Separated and Divorced Catholics’ which
gives support to those whose marriages and families have broken down; and ‘Courage’
which supports those with a homosexual orientation to live a chaste and holy
life. These associations were let down very badly by the Synod.
One
hopes that many souls in such Associations, souls who have already taken up the
arms of prayer and sacrifice, will take up also the arms of the pen to inform both
their local Bishop and the President of their Episcopal Conference that seeking to accommodate and welcome that which
is contrary to the Gospel just will not do -and undermines all the sacrifices made
by them as faithful families; as faithful members of ‘The Association for the
Divorced & Separated Catholics’, and as faithful Catholic members of ‘Courage’
etc. The voice of these faithful (and thus heroic) Catholics, needs to be heard
above the bellows of those dissenters who seek to overturn the Gospel for the
sake of having sexual experience as, when and with whomsoever they desire it.
It
is to the heroes that the Pope and the Bishops need to listen and give their
support, not the dissenters who wish to tear up the Gospel, abandon Tradition
and undermine the authority of the Church so as to indulge their passions. It is
all very well to speak of ‘dialogue’ and ‘pathways’, but these words too often to
blindside the faithful: dialogue becoming the seeking of new terminology that
disguises sin, while ‘pathways’ becomes an ‘opening up of welcome’ to sinful
practices.
May
the ‘God of Surprises’ surprise the Bishops with the voice of the heroic
Catholic, for it is the voice of the hero that needs to be heard; the voice of
the person who carries the challenge of being a divorcee or of the homosexual
orientation, yet continues to live in chaste, loving fidelity to Christ for a
cause greater than the pleasure of sexual experience: the salvation of their soul.
One of the accusations against Freemasonary is that it is a secret society and yet here we have a secret Synod where the Faithful were deprived from hearing the views of the participants. I wonder why this was? Was it because those who controlled the Synod knew that their views were so much against the historic teaching of Holy Mother Church that they did not want to be identified as individuals and wished to vote in secret. Those who have come of this shambles with credit are the courageous ones who felt compelled to stand up for the truth and shamed those who, apparently, have lost their faith.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Grandfather.
DeleteSecrecy at the Synod was a very bad move and gave an ominous sign from the start. I wonder if the Modernisers knew there would be a battle but still expected to 'win' and end the day simply revealing what the Fathers had voted to accept. For this of course, they needed more 'progressives' among the Bishops than there actually are, thus the whole secrecy thing became seen as not the facilitation of confidentiality for the sake of free discussion, but rather more cloak-and-dagger for the sake of doctrinal subterfuge. It has done Francis no public good to have imposed this secrecy; rather, it has put him t -and a number of senior Bishops in a bad light. Thank God for the Faithful Bishops who stood up for the Truth.
Sadly, the cloak-and-dagger picture many have come to see in the Synod appears reminiscent of the way Vatican II was manipulated, though without the same level of success, though it also suggests too that the underhand machinations of Vatican II have continued on in the Church ever since the Council's close. Just a thought.
God Bless.
Thank you for this, Father. You are absolutely correct. The "world" accepts "gay marriage", co-habitation, divorce, etc. and Catholics who try to follow, and teach their children, what the Church has always taught are a tiny minority. When traditional parents hear from their children that they are "unloving" and "rigid" and it even appears that this is what "The Church" is also now saying, how can they pass on the truth? Of course, we know that we must continue to stand firm and pray that God will protect our loved ones and especially His Church, but it is a huge cross and it is very necessary to hear that we are not alone. God is good and He is sending people like you, Father, as voices in the wilderness to comfort us.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ellen.
DeleteYou make a very good point: those who seek to bring up their children with traditional morals have been badly let down because rebellious children can now say 'Even the Church isn't as hard and cold as you", The Dissenting voices at the Synod/in Rome have not helped families at all; they have opened them up to harm.
God Bless.
The way forward out of this chaos is to discourage regular communion. We need a "new" Eucharistic theology and find alternative expressions towards Our Lord present in the blessed sacrament. The Church is being placed in an impossible situation and present pastoral praxis is creaking under the pressure.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Sadie.
DeleteI can see where you are coming from. Perhaps rather than discouraging frequent Holy Communion we need to encourage Confession as preparation for Communion, and return to the practices that demonstrate the sacred reality, that is, reception on the tongue while kneeling. Fundamentally, we need a return to sound Catechesis (in schools and in Homilies) on all aspects of the Most Holy Sacrament.
God Bless
I'm not convinced this will work. Catholics approach the Eucharist as if it is their right to receive. Shuffling up in a queue in the manner of consumers in a fast food joint, the present model is simply not working with or without confession. I would certainly encourage the latter but reintroduce a more rigourous fast for reception in a manner which quietly the reduces the rate at which we receive. Exceptions would of course be the sick and dying. A new understanding of 'communion' would be encouraged and we would be "in communion" with those people who canonically are unable to receive.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Sadie.
DeleteI think we need to re-enforce the true meaning of Communion, and a more vigorous fast too. But I think a longer fast, the requirement for Confession and a return to the ancient method of reception, are better than withholding the Lord from souls that He desires be united to Him. It is not just holding souls from Communion remember, but without God from souls.
God Bless.