Others take a different view.
“Father Rosica is reporting what he heard on the floor, but a great problem is, we don’t know who said it and how many people agreed with it; and it’s sort of a statement without author so it floats out there. It really is a ridiculous statement in itself. To say something that is part of Catholic morality, ‘love the sinner hate the sin’ doesn’t work - work? What does that mean? Of course it works! Loving the sinner is what Jesus Christ did and he calls us to repentance! So, we have to know who said it, why did they say it, and then maybe can they explain it, if there were summaries of each individual intervention then reporters can go to that person and say, ‘well you said this, did you really mean it?’ He might say, ‘actually I misstepped or misspoke or I didn’t mean to say it and actually it means something else.’ This is really an information control problem that I think the press office and the synod management committee have made a big mistake. Statements without authors really aren’t useful in furthering discussion.” Father Gerald Murray beginning at 10:20
“The nervousness created by the lack of clarity about the process may be the worst thing of all.” Dr. Robert Royal
3 comments:
Fr. Murray is a very thoughtful, charitable priest. His analysis is spot on. Fr. Rosica not only has spun, but continues to spin over the weekend the party line of the Adulterists and Homosexualists via his Twittering. Not one word from this "spokesman" about the serious questions raised that THERE ARE bishops at the Synod who want to change doctrine.
Tom Rosica, Mottramist at Large! How the worm turns.
With this tweet, Rosica is basically giving the middle finger to his critics: Nyah nyah, the pope's on my side! What a fearful judgement awaits these men.
The one who said that loving the sinner hating the sin doesn't work any more was named somewhere, if I recall correctly. He supported it with the assertion that love for sodomitic sex is the core of a sodomite's identity, therefore the distinction between sin and sinner is an artificial one. Of course, that person used a different language from mine. The control of language had this goal exactly, from the start. It was not about compassion and mercy, but about destroying the very concepts of evil and sin.
I would say to that pseudo-Catholic, that the core of a Christian's identity is his love for Christ. Then come love for self and neighbour, not for orgasm via anal sex. Love for self an neighbour would have to exclude any possibility of degrading one's own and the neighbour's dignity.
Just imagine Jesus preaching that love of anal sex is the core of a man's identity, that he is unjustly deprived, when his love for a man is limited to a friendship, and does not involve games using genitalia, semen and anuses.
This would be the evolution of our cosmos that many of our intellectually challenged and morally depraved priests, bishops and cardinals would like to see imposed on what they clearly propose as a backward, bigoted law-giver, their god.
Post a Comment