Homosexual Sins: Francis Undermines His Own Authority
Possessing nuclear bombs is a sin "today", as is the death penalty, but "it wasn't before", Francis told the Jesuits in Lisbon in August. Phil Lawler asks if Francis' strange statement also works the …More
Possessing nuclear bombs is a sin "today", as is the death penalty, but "it wasn't before", Francis told the Jesuits in Lisbon in August.
Phil Lawler asks if Francis' strange statement also works the other way around: “Can something that was once sinful become morally acceptable — perhaps even welcome?”
He refers to homosexual sins. A Jesuit told Francis that homosexuals regard God's call to chastity as “an imposition.”
In his response, Francis did not affirm the fundamental Christian teaching that homosexual practice is immoral, Lawler notes, "but instead he expressed his impatience with what he sees as an undue preoccupation with ‘sins below the waist [e.g. sexual abuse].’”
Referring to Francis' tendency to question Catholic teaching and to mock those who respect the magisterium, he insists that by doing so Francis is undermining all magisterial authority "including his own."
Picture: © Mazur/cbcew.org.uk, CC BY-NC-ND, #newsVqpntiiinl
Phil Lawler asks if Francis' strange statement also works the other way around: “Can something that was once sinful become morally acceptable — perhaps even welcome?”
He refers to homosexual sins. A Jesuit told Francis that homosexuals regard God's call to chastity as “an imposition.”
In his response, Francis did not affirm the fundamental Christian teaching that homosexual practice is immoral, Lawler notes, "but instead he expressed his impatience with what he sees as an undue preoccupation with ‘sins below the waist [e.g. sexual abuse].’”
Referring to Francis' tendency to question Catholic teaching and to mock those who respect the magisterium, he insists that by doing so Francis is undermining all magisterial authority "including his own."
Picture: © Mazur/cbcew.org.uk, CC BY-NC-ND, #newsVqpntiiinl
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
SonoftheChurch
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Phil Lawler asks if Francis’ strange statement also works the other way around: "Can something which was once sinful become morally acceptable — perhaps even welcome?"
While the answer to Phil Lawler’s rhetorical question is, of course, a resounding and unequivocal NO, inevitably there will be those who, in their enraged hatred of the truth of Christ and their perverse quest to justify and excuse …More
Phil Lawler asks if Francis’ strange statement also works the other way around: "Can something which was once sinful become morally acceptable — perhaps even welcome?"
While the answer to Phil Lawler’s rhetorical question is, of course, a resounding and unequivocal NO, inevitably there will be those who, in their enraged hatred of the truth of Christ and their perverse quest to justify and excuse what can never be legitimately approved and accepted by Holy Mother Church, will raise what might seem to be certain exceptions in the Magisterium to that principle, such as the issue of the Church’s doctrinal “development” affecting the once universally and vehemently prohibited sin of usury (better known, recognized and defined contemporarily as the practice of charging “interest” for a loan). Which is why those who are experts at the forefront of theological leadership among the true defenders of the Faith must, in their didactic zeal and devotion, be ever vigilant, and above all else, maintain a proficiency and diligence that proves them well equipped and prepared to address forthrightly and with candor all such seemingly apparent discrepancies in Church teaching. Otherwise, even the most knowledgeable among them will appear to be utterly disingenuous and hypocritical.
While the answer to Phil Lawler’s rhetorical question is, of course, a resounding and unequivocal NO, inevitably there will be those who, in their enraged hatred of the truth of Christ and their perverse quest to justify and excuse what can never be legitimately approved and accepted by Holy Mother Church, will raise what might seem to be certain exceptions in the Magisterium to that principle, such as the issue of the Church’s doctrinal “development” affecting the once universally and vehemently prohibited sin of usury (better known, recognized and defined contemporarily as the practice of charging “interest” for a loan). Which is why those who are experts at the forefront of theological leadership among the true defenders of the Faith must, in their didactic zeal and devotion, be ever vigilant, and above all else, maintain a proficiency and diligence that proves them well equipped and prepared to address forthrightly and with candor all such seemingly apparent discrepancies in Church teaching. Otherwise, even the most knowledgeable among them will appear to be utterly disingenuous and hypocritical.