Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity". Pope Francis/Pope Benedict
email:torontocatholicwitness@rogers.com

Friday, 23 January 2015

Thomas Rosica, CSB: "Intrinsically disordered" is "offensive" ~ part two of our critique of the "lecture"

Cardinal Muller:  at the Synod there were 
"even bishops who have allowed themselves 
to be somehow blinded by a secularized society".

Does The Catechism of the Catholic Church contain "expressions or terminology that are offensive or that ordinary people cannot grasp"? So implied Thomas Rosica, CSB, at his lecture on the Synod of the Family, broadcast on Salt and Light TV, this past Tuesday, 19, 2015. Apparently the use of "intrinsically disordered" in reference to homosexuality, is an, "expression[s] or terminology that are offensive...". 

Fr. Rosica claimed that the Synod did not try to change the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. (For a moment, were we being told that the mid-term relatio was a myth?).  He said that the Catechism was not being undermined. But, he then informed the sparse audience that this same relatio contained: 

"new language that is respectful of people, and avoids expressions or terminology that are offensive or that ordinary people cannot grasp. For example the document does not speak of homosexuality  as intrinsically disordered. Nor, does it use the term Natural Law, which for many people is not understandable. It doesn't categorize those who cohabit before marriage as living in sin. This provisional text, this mid-term report, looked for positive elements in the various and diversified situations in which couples live. From cohabitation to marriage and irregular unions, to homosexual unions, which its states clearly are never to be equated as matrimony".

We ask, how can chaste and holy matrimony even be mentioned in the same context of the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts? And how can there even be a suggestion that there are "positive elements" in something that is intrinsically evil?

The point is, not the rejection of "homosexual marriage", but the rejection of homosexual "unions" and homosexual activity as always and everywhere being intrinsically disordered is the point. From this basic moral principle, as pointed out in the Catechism, flows the obvious conclusion that there is no such thing as homosexual "matrimony". 

So yes! it is a black and white issue, it is a "yes or no"; there is no shade of grey here. 


Barona and The Vox

No comments: