"Jn 19:11 Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee hath the greater sin." Father Mark's follow up is very balanced, imho; he says he did not become a priest to go to hell. God give him whatever grace he needs if he finds himself at "that particular bridge". As for all the clergy, maybe the above gospel passage would be helpful. We know who handed Jesus over to the "worldly powers" that be. The clergy who are jumping on "the worldly bandwagon" are basically handing poor sinners in their care over to the powers of this world. And it's the most vulnerable of all. Those suffering with SSA need encouragement to stay on the narrow path. In the end though, imo, the whole mess is one more "spitball" in the face of every single person trying to live out their Faith. Stay the course!!
This is naive. I also don't understand how Father can cast people acting on their same sex attraction as some of the most marginalized in the west. Blessing two people coming forward whose relationship is intrinsically based on something objectively evil is the same as blessing a doctor and the patient she's about to euthanize, a murderer and their victim, or an abuser and their abusee. The latter relations can have good in them too, so maybe just focus on that? The argument can be made that a lot of heterosexual relationships are also fundamentally disordered (duh), but that can't be known (i.e. it's possible that something good is going on). There's no possibility of good in people mocking sacraments.
For me this response nails it. It's the true magesterium of the church speaking through the good Cardinal. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...my/?utm_source=featured_news&utm_campaign=usa
Father Mark is saintly and prudent young priest and I have to say I admire him for opening himself up for criticism like this and then responding in such measured charitable a way only put me in even more admiration of him both as a priest and a man. At the same time I was left totally bewildered because whilst at the same time I agreed with everything he said I disagreed with pretty well everything he said at the same time. How is this possible? Well I had to go out for a walk with the dog and do a lot of thinking and praying for help in understanding and this is what I came up with. Imagine there is a Famous Golf Club (the Church) near the town and it gets taken over by a Powerful Mafia family (Papa Frankie et al) . They decide to launch a Professional Tournament (same sex blessings) and publish a set of instruction how the professional staff (the priests) are to handle things. The staff read the new instructions and rules and discover that there are so many , 'Outs' there that they do not have to attend the Tournament or take any part in it whatsoever if they don't want to . So they shrug their shoulders and say, 'This doesn't involve us ! So that's OK then!' So yes, I can agree with Fr Mark with all this. That's fine , he has an out he doesn't have to staff the wicked tournament himself so fine. From a tactical moral viewpoint I can understand this and agree with him. He has an out and he's gonna take it fine. What's not to like? But where I disagree and have grave concerns..and there are quite a number of concerns are these. First of all the Mafia have taken over the Golf Club, is it OK to shrug one's shoulders and say, 'Its nothing to do with me, the new rules give me an out!' I mean morally as a priest, a Pastor a Shepherd is that all she wrote? Secondly this Wicked Tournament (Same sex blessings) is being held in the Golf Club (the Church) were I also work as a staff member. Can I really shrug my shoulders and say its nothing to do with me? I mean really? Isn't that a very convenient moral position to take.? But another thing the Father said, well its more than a little innocent. He said he just doesn't care what the mass media say. But what the mass media say form the views of wider society, the politicians, the courts, the police the Judges and so on. They all think now that the Wicked Tournament is just fine with the Golf Club and its owners the Mafia (Don Frankie) . Fr Mark is working away happily at the Golf Club whilst the wicked tournament is going on , it has nothing to do with him, the rules say he doesn't have to attend. Two guys come up to Father Mark and ask him to caddy at the Tournament. Fr Mark says no he won't, the rules say he does not have to. The guys say they are going to take Civil Action against him and call in the police. Who has Fr Mark's back here? Not the Mafia in Rome clearly, forget about them. What about the Golf Club itself? Well maybe , maybe not depending who the local Manager (Bishop) at the time. But when you do go to court , Fr Mark ..and make no mistake about it you will be going to court along with many many other priests...not only is it a case of who will have your back, everyone thinks the Mafia and the Golf Club now support the Wicked Tournament you want nothing to do with. So you will be way,way, way out there on your own.
I just can’t shake blessing of”couples” instead of individuals. If I had a blessing with my husband it’s is because I want graces for my marriage, otherwise I would get the blessing alone. Maybe that’s the point, they are hoping these blessings bring about conversion. Why was this declaration necessary? Individuals could always ask for a blessing from a priest. I feel more confused to be honest
Your meant to be confused. In boxing it is called throwing a sucker punch. We're dealing with a very,very,very high level of Satanic activity here. Brilliant Demonic intelligences.
An attack on so called ideologues by the political Pope of "inflexible ideologies". His lack of self introspection in this regard is stunning.
The key objection for me is the use of the term "couple". This is a secular term. The church has been evangelised by the secular world to use it's terminology. Our present incumbent in Rome is the first Pope to use the term gay to describe homosexual activity. Nowhere in scripture or tradition had the term couple been used to describe homosexual activity. So it is a misnomer, a trojan horse of word play, and devilishly clever semantics. One cannot bless that which is a perversion of marriage and the natural law.
Jesuitical. Archbishop Chaput said the document had " Jesuit" all over it. And he didn't mean it as a compliment.
We, the faithful Catholics, are not suffering from "inflexible ideologies," we are suffering from being asked to embrace cognitive dissonance. The Vatican holds that homosexual relations are "intrinsically disordered," The Vatican holds that priests must "bless" couples who practice "homosexual relations", which the Church states are "intrinsically disordered." Is it any wonder most of us are confused, and thoroughly dissappointed by this act of dissimulation.
Yes and the late and prescient former Jesuit, Father Malachi Martins writes about their downfall in his book: The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/muller-fiducia-supplicans-is-self Not sure if above has been posted yet.
