For those of us of a conservative disposition, the practice of ‘virtue signalling’ is a habit of the Left, who, in condemning the racism of others both signal their own virtue and impugn that of their opponents; from a debating point of view it is a form of adversarial confrontation which afford much satisfaction; from the point of view of trying to resolve issues, it is usually a failure. The difficulty is that no one ever says they are virtue signalling, and I doubt anyone does it consciously; it is something more obvious in the eye of the beholder. One might reason thus: “I am stating obvious truths clear by the right of reason in order to combat what I perceive as racism/homophobia/misogyny or some other evil; You, on the other hand, are signalling your imagined superior virtue by applying your own false standards to me and claiming that because I fall short of them, I am in the wrong.” And so it goes, with both sides talking, or more often, shouting past each other.
For those of a conservative disposition, this is most obviously seen in the cries of anguish from the Left over President Trump. Where conservatives see a figure of some vulgarity but one who is delivering what he was elected to deliver, others see a putative fascist dictator to whom the only possible response is a form of hysteria which incorporates demands he is removed from office – by a coup if necessary; he is, as the hashtag warriors have it #notmypresident. This reminds me of another set of over-reactions to an elected leader, who was opposed from the moment his election was announced, about whose election rumours were in circulation to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his position, and about whom a section of the press cannot get enough lurid headlines, and over whose actions many might use the hashtag #notmypope. But, it might be objected, has he not used harsh language about the Curia? Has he not outraged those used to a traditional way of doing things? Is he not a disruptive force? The parallels with Trump grow. Those who never liked him from the start like him even less the more he does. Everything is read through a hermeneutic of hatred and suspicion. So, does a Bishop suggest that pastoral provision might be made in certain circumstances for the divorced to take communion? Who knows, as the headline will be that that Bishop is an apostate teaching that the divorced can take communion? Any nuance gets lost in a media scrutiny whose purpose is to arouse feelings rather than convey information. And so, as with Trump, one ends up doubting most things reported in some parts of the media because it is clear that the purpose is to reinforce the initial picture formed by hostile opinion.
It would be splendid if everything in Christian life could be settled by resort of a Biblical text, but as early as the time of the Apostles, as St John and St Paul found, there were those who interpreted what they were being told in a different manner. Nor was this all just being awkward for its own sake. As the early Christological arguments showed, there were real questions to be asked about how Jesus could be God, and what it meant to talk and think in this way. Throughout Christian history there have been occasions when Christians have fiercely disagreed about how to interpret parts of their common faith – to the extent of burning each other (and then later claiming it was all the fault of the State, as though the State were some neutral by-stander uninfluenced by the Church). A living faith will always have disputes. As we reach out to embrace the infinite, we shall always be finding that there is more there than our human minds have compassed; and changed circumstances demand responses from the Church.
When I was a child, not a single one of the pupils at my school had a divorced parent; indeed it was not until I was a university lecturer that I met anyone who had been divorced. Now I would say that the balance has shifted entirely. To say that the Church should respond to this huge change and its causes by acting as though we still lived in the world of the 1950s might seem to some a simple statement of standing by the faith once given, whilst to others it might seem like adding a yoke to the already heavily burdened. There is truth in both positions, and to guy the other side as either unfeeling rigorists or unthinking apostates does no justice to a difficult situation. Those who suppose there are simple answers to complex questions will always be with us; but it is the job of the Church to discern how to help us best live a Christian life. If that were easy, we should all have been doing it a long time ago.
Steven said:
Well said. Yours is a voice of reason and moderation that is much needed right now within the religious, and Catholic, blogosphere.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you, Steven.
LikeLike
Scoop said:
As to causes of this I think there is no answer; it is the old chicken or egg routine. Did the Church become lax or did the Church need to change because of the world’s laxity on moral issues? Nobody can guarantee the answer to this. But the real argument is whether the Church meets laxity with laxity in order to save it from laxity or should the Church hold fast and attempt to reconvince the world to once again embrace Christian ethics?
I applaud your attempt to explain a ‘fault’ in argumentation and yet in this attempt you have made it impossible not to be ‘virtue signaling’ if you oppose wrong doing, immorality or what have you. Any argument against, seems to imply that you are saying that you, yourself, of course, are not guilty of such things. So even in your explanation you have ‘virtue signaled’ that you, of course, do not ‘virtue signal’ but others do.
This seems to be a trend today to enter into circular logic such that it too becomes a type of ‘pop psychology’ being applied to the art of dialectic; a method that makes it impossible to take a side in a dispute. Instead of opening up a dialogue one shuts it down immediately by such methods. The only way not to ‘virtue signal’, it would appear, is to cave in to anyone and everyone by simply not giving opposition to their position or their actions. It is a facilatators trick that was developed on a much wider scale by the Rand Corporation and sold as the Delphi Technique in order to gain consensus when there wasn’t any. I’ve witnessed its use within Church [small community] forums . . . another popular form of manipulation.
I guess the new idea of peace is the old, “I’m OK, you’re OK” brand that swims is relativism.
Thereby, I take seriously your point and yet find that it is deficient in its application; more smoke than light, perhaps???
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
I’d pose it a different way. The moment you frame it in terms of others being lax, you have, in essence posed the ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ question, the very attempt to answer which puts you on the defensive. Just as you might be upset to be accused of rigorism when, from your own point of view, you are just defending a position you think is right, so might someone accused of ‘laxity’ reason if, from their point of view, they are just defending a position they think more reasonable than one which they think does not serve current needs: spats are fine things, but who uses them now?
What I am suggesting is that this very way of framing the questions is not conducive to Christian understanding. If we begin by doubting the bona fides of others, we must not complain when they doubt our bone fides – and from that point we drift into acrimony.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
So common sense observations are no longer viable. The Church framed both moral goods and evils in such a way that it is impossible not to understand them. If sodomy is evil, as taught by the Church, and someone in the Church says sodomy is just fine, is it not objectively true that they are in error or at odds with Church teaching or not? That Catholics are no longer being taught what the Church says and now makes ‘no judgements’ on Her own teachings is non-sensical. Either there is a truth or their isn’t. This is not anything like asking “when did you stop beating your wife” but it is a logical question to ask, “when did people stop believing the Church”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Common sense cuts both ways. what would there be that wasn’t ‘common sense’ in saying that in a world in the west where divorce is epidemic there has to be a better way of dealing with the human consequences than saying ‘do what the Church has always done’? To you, and me, it might be the obvious response, but to others it would not show much sign of common sense.
Again, of sodomy, what does ‘commonsense’ say? In a society where it is illegal there is no problem. But what of a society in which it is legal? Should the Church simply carry on talking abut ‘sodomites’ deaf to how it makes homosexuals feel? Or should, as the Church has done, should it issue guidance on the pastoral care of such people? There’s a difference between saying ‘it is fine’, which is at best a minority position in the Church hierarchy, and saying ‘let’s talk and write as though we were still in the 1950s’.
Black and white are primary colours, they are not the only ones. One can say that homosexuality is objectively disordered behaviour without the need to use words which you know will hurt others. That;s not calling a spade a spade, its insisting on calling it a ‘f—ing shovel’ because you know it will hurt.
People will stop believing the Church if it sounds far from Christ. what Christ said on homosexuality/sodomy is zero. What St Paul says is what was the usual Jewish view of the day. It may well be that that is God’s view for all time, as you and I believe, but I see no need to imply to those who take a different view that to even suggest it is a sign that they are on the high road to heresy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
When they are Churchmen they are not simply on a high road to heresy; they have arrived.
That the world makes new laws and expunges old laws to appease the people is of no concern to those who are seeking a higher purpose to their life. We need not follow suit.
Let us not succumb to PC speak that refuses to call a fetus, a baby in the womb. I suppose we no longer use the word murderer for sensitivity sake in the world of abortion but we do if someone cuts off the head of someone in an alley. It is all optics to be judged as being sensitive to people’s feelings. What about the feelings of the victims and those who are exposed to ‘soul killing’ sins at a young age and led to believe that anything and everything is acceptable to try or do if it increasing my pleasure or decreases my pain and suffering.
There is, of course, a huge difference in dealing with an individual on a point of morality where they have misgivings. Compassion is required. To those who are burning and rioting so that they might openly parade their immorality in public a different tone is obviously needed. You do not stroke and console a riotous crowd . . . you meet them with force and disperse them.
So in public discourse, isn’t the ‘tone’ a matter of subjectivity as to its usefulness? Both might be of use to personalities of a different sort. One size does not fit all. Padre Pio could be both compassionate and damning to those whom he met. So I am not distressed to hear both approaches in the public forum.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
On abortion, this Pope has been entirely orthodox,and any Bishop of priest who is in favour of abortion is going nowhere in this world and possibly somewhere hot in the next. I don’t see this as a contested issue in the Church in the same way homosexuality could be.
Was St John Paul II appeasing people when he issued the document on pastoral care for homosexuals, or was he pointing out to the Church that some of its language and attitudes failed the standard to be expected of sinners whose own sins had been forgiven and redeemed?
In terms of those rioting against Trump, what is worse, rioting against a worldly leader of calling the Pope a heretic and not a Pope and encouraging, as some websites do, the most disrespectful language about ‘Bergolio’? How many souls is that sort of thing going to save? Beams and motes come to mind here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Scoop said:
Entirely orthodox in his statements and yet embraces the sustainable goals initiative which is interested in reducing the number of births by either contraception or abortion. And then he praises a lady who was personally responsible for 10,000 abortions that she personally performed. Again it is a separation of the Teaching and the Practice which brings in the fog.
It isn’t as contested because the leaders are men and are not faced with an unwanted child whilst within their midst are a number of homosexuals who are lobbying for open acceptance. But they are not above using abortion as a tactic to get what they want. They only are looking to get the thin end of the wedge placed somewhere within. The rest will follow . . . at least that is their hope.
Pastoral care is fine: that is a one on one encounter to convince people that their proclivity to sin is not a sentence of a lifetime: there is hope and there is help to overcome even a disordered desire.
Depends on the destruction the Pope is likely to render, doesn’t it? If he is leading people to embrace sin or to abandon the desire to scrupulously avoid sin and obey the commandments I think it far more harmful than anything a leader of a country can do. After all we are not to fear those who can only take our life but him who can take both our life and soul.
Popes have been declared heretics in the past while they were sitting popes . . . and then recanted on their deathbeds. And that was for what today would look like peanuts as it was a technicality of theology being taught wrongly. Now we are undermining the moral teachings that impact the family unit; the home church. Every soul is being waged on this final hand at the poker table. So diligence is needed and also sober reflection. Confront that which is leading people into confusion and sin and applaud all calls to holiness. It isn’t always easy and it isn’t always clear but then, the father of lies is the author of confusion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Or is the fog put there by the hermeneutic of suspicion? What des it mean to say he supports the SGI? To those who suspect him it seems it means he must support contraception because it does? But is that a necessary correlation or one read into it by the suspicious. The man has said nothing unorthodox and has not given express support to either contraception or abortion, but “hey, he supports this initiative, so that must speak louder than his words” – perhaps, perhaps not.
I am not seeing this drive to have abortion accepted in the Church, but if you say it is there, fair enough.
If one begins by thinking that the Pope is encouraging sin, one ends in one place, if one begins by thinking he is encouraging people not to despair and give up when they find they continue to sin, one ends us in another place; for myself, I see no reason to assume the first rather than the second, but then I don’t begin from a hermeneutic of distrust.
I don’t know how many Popes have been declared heretics formally, but I know it is far fewer than have been labelled that by those Catholics who opposed them.
I don’t disagree with you, but I do think that when we are beginning from a position where sin has undermined the basic units of the 1950s, to ignore that fact and proceed to lecture people as though it were not so is to risk a slide into both irrelevance and rigorism. What is the answer? That’s what the discussions and debates are about. It is unclear to me that either extreme in this one is right. Telling people that the family unit is the traditional one and that all others are inferior, is not going to help anyone – save the virtue-signaller who can thank God she is not like that divorced woman over there. Our Lord was not keen on such behaviour and I doubt would appreciate those who speak in his name acting so. Equally, he was not keen on people sinning, but his way of dealing with them was not that preferred by some nowadays.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
A hereneutic of clarity demands an answer to the dubia.
For crying out loud C, the Pope has the biggest bully pulpit in the world to clarify Catholic Moral teaching and he refuses. Instead it is almost a daily barrage of new, and even more confusing, statements.
Every statement he makes that recieves criticism could have been clarified and given a proper burial had he wanted.
And you point the finger at those who are confused and accuse them of using a hermeneutic of suspicion? He even has a press office the usage of the entire magisterium to clarify his meanings should he want them to place them into the mainstream of Catholic theology . . . if that were possible . . . or at least to correct them. That we are left to draw conclusions based on what he says and does is not our fault it is that he will not clarify what he means.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
He clearly has his reasons for letting the discussion run. To those who don’t think there should be a discussion this is bound to be unwelcome. To those who want the thing thrashed out, it will be welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
I love Newman’s use of the word ‘cogent’ in this context. That is what has been missing throughout all of this:
Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Diff., II, 279-280
Here I am led to interpose a remark;—it is plain, then, that there are those near, or with access, to the Holy Father, who would, if they could, go much further in the way of assertion and command, than the divine Assistentia, which overshadows him, wills or permits; so {280} that his acts and his words on doctrinal subjects must be carefully scrutinised and weighed, before we can be sure what really he has said. Utterances which must be received as coming from an Infallible Voice are not made every day, indeed they are very rare; and those which are by some persons affirmed or assumed to be such, do not always turn out what they are said to be; nay, even such as are really dogmatic must be read by definite rules and by traditional principles of interpretation, which are as cogent and unchangeable as the Pope’s own decisions themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Newman here is warning against those Ultramontanes who wanted all of Prius IX’s orbiter dicta to be considered Magisterial – got him into the Vatican ‘s list of usual suspects.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Quite cogent of Newman. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
. . . or was he merely ‘virtue signaling’?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
He was wisely warning about the limits of Papal power ☺️
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
I thought so . . . which is what I hope I am doing as well. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Good advice to us all – though those anxious to establish PIX’s reactionary views as the Catholic norm were not happy ☺️
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Nor are traditional Catholics likely to be happy as Francis dismantles every vestige of traditional teaching and worship. He did say that he saw something very deep and dark in those who wanted to hold to traditional worship . . . especially the youth. Ah well. Popes come and go and though it rains today we have hope for sun on the ‘morrow. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
It will, as my grandmother used to say, all come out in the wash 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
God knows we will need a lot of laundromats what with all of the dirty laundry that has been accumulating as of late. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It must be all that sh– eating 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Very good . . . perhaps that was what he was referring to. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
You never can tell – and sometimes don’t like to ask 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Well, I for one, have no interest in pursuing his line of reasoning. But if this is what it means to be Argentinian they are not going to be very popular at social events among cultured folks. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
There may be a reason that Argentinians aren’t renowned for high culture 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Well this won’t do much to overturn that viewpoint. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
It occurs to me that it is not helpful in this confusion that our Pope is known to talk s==t. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I wonder whether he eats his words? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Perish the thought, C. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
malcolmlxx said:
This may be off the point, but I thought that Theresa May’s Handling of Donald Trump was marvellous.
She established a working relationship with him. There’s little doubt that she didn’t agree with all his views, but we’re going to need a trade agreement with the US. She was the very soul of diplomacy and tact. She’s great.
On many moral issues we must listen to our opponent before anything else. Only when we have established a relationship can we express our convictions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
A good point, Malcolm, and an example of how not going the virtue-signalling route is usually the better option. It is not accidental that Mrs M is a practising Anglican.
LikeLiked by 2 people
malcolmlxx said:
She is a vicar’s daughter and has had a good training from her father. .
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Clearly. I occasionally saw her at Oxford, we were up at the same time and she was at my former wife’s college.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
It was, indeed. It charmed pretty much all of us. It was good for Britain, and it was good for the US, as well. Her speech in Philadelphia was even better.
Virtue signaling is something I think we all do, almost always subconsciously. And no, it never works. It widens divides, and often ends friendships. In the cases of Trump, and the Pope, both, it is made far worse by various media who also have an agenda, who also tend toward the practice. That makes proper information very hard to find. Then we all tend to spin what we read, to ourselves, even, even if we do read the source documents. Solutions are few, but the atmosphere would be helped by large doses (on all sides) of the virtue of charity.
One thing that strikes me, reading our comment streams the last few days, remembering that as a Lutheran, I believe the main source of authenticity is the Bible, not any man, is that if we really want to return to the Biblical base of our religion, well that would make us believe things that are several centuries older than that we all decry in Islam. We have always adapted our Faith for changes in the world, it is why we are still relevant, and Islam, for all its fanaticism, is not.
This year is the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation, and while many decry the Popes recognition of Luther (I understand, really I do, and toward the end of his life, he did rather go off the rails) our Catholic brethren would be wise to recognize that their Church too, has adopted many of his teachings. I think it is why the Catholic Church is still a force in the world. If it had remained as it was 500 years ago, it would now be inconsequential, because it had little to offer beyond still another secular power.
*ducks back into my trench* 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
No missiles coming from me. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of people knowingly act in bad faith – which is why acting as though they are gets their goat.
It seems to me there are a number of types of convert, and I am one of those who is grateful to the Church which helped form me ☺️
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Lots of truth there and I think that is true.
Yep, and adding practices, that while allowed, are almost unheard of these days, in my church, such as Our Lady, has helped me immensely. Always something to learn, but we need to listen, as well as be shouty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
malcolmlxx said:
NEO
I’ve always had respect for Martin Luther, but then I’m an Anglican and he had much influence on Anglican Theology. I’ve always been an Anglican and appreciate the freedom of the C of E. Several of my colleagues joined the ordinariate. I didn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
Yes, our two churches are probably the closest thing in religion to a difference without a distinction that exists. I can easily support the 39 Articles, and suspect you have little trouble with our Catechism, either. All across the spectrum of the Anglican Communion, there is a Lutheran synod to match.
Anne Boleyn was rumored to be a Lutheran, of course, maybe that is her joint legacy to us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
malcolmlxx said:
To my knowledge Ann Boleyn was a Lutheran. She was much sinned against. Henry VIII was a tyrant. The Reformation would have happened in Britain regardless of the King. Influences from the continent had a much more profound effect than Henry’s divorce.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Not sure about that last point Malcolm. Eamon Duffy’s work suggests that the older version, that Catholicism was unpopular and dying, was wrong and that it took a concerted campaign to suppress it. Unsuccessfully in terms of the type of Anglicanism which you represent here so well. I remain immensely fond of my old Church.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
I don’t know as much, but I think so as well. Wycliffe was a decided precursor, and in fact, I’ve heard Mother Julian described as a proto-Lutheran as well. Yes, Anne got a pretty raw deal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
malcolmlxx said:
It seems to me these days that there are conservatives and liberals in all churches.. I have more in common with some Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists, to name a few, than the liberals in my own Church.
I can think of liberals in the C of E who have more in common with liberals in other churches than with conservatives in their own church.
The real divide these days is between are those who believe the Scriptures and those who don’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Sums it up well, Malcolm.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
Very well, indeed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
malcolmlxx said:
The Eastern Orthodox Churches don’t have this problem. They have other problems but as regards Holy Scripture, Church Tradition and Liturgy they are 100% believers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Agreed, but as one who was, for a while, Orthodox, there are, as you say, other problems.
LikeLiked by 2 people
malcolmlxx said:
Moscow or Constantinople?
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
Alexandria 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
malcolmlxx said:
Then of course there are the Copts, the Armenians, the Syrian Orthodox etc etc etc. The churches that rejected Chalcedon. The Copts in Egypt are having a tough time, but showing amazing signs of life..
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, and very admirable people they are. I used to belong to the British Orthodox Church which is part of the Coptic Church.
LikeLiked by 2 people
malcolmlxx said:
Some years ago I visited Christian Cairo and explored some of the churches also the the Coptic Museum. Its amazing how in a predominant Muslim culture the Coptic Christians are not only surviving but making converts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Want some virture signaling?
A nun in Spain has received death threats from angry Catholics after suggesting that Mary likely had sex with husband Joseph – much like any “normal couple” would.
Sister Lucia Caram – a self-described “restless and disturbing” nun on her Twitter profile that boasts more than 183,000 followers – seemingly contradicted Roman Catholic faith by suggesting that the Virgin Mary might not have been celibate
“I think Mary was in love with Joseph and that they were a normal couple – and having sex is a normal thing,” Caram told the Chester in Love Show, according to the Guardian. “It’s hard to believe and hard to take in. We’ve ended up with the rules we’ve invented without getting to the true message.”
http://nypost.com/2017/02/02/nun-says-mary-likely-was-not-a-virgin/
You cathols are as bad as muslims. Kill someone if they insult your god. In this case, your deity is Mary. For heavens sake, the bible says she had kids. Oh , I forgot. The bible is a dead letter.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, you think that a few people issuing threats to a nun is the same as ISIS. Look up ‘sense of proportion’, or, in face, just look up ‘sense’.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
Death threats, not just any old threat. We should take this up in the other post, What We have in Common.What the members of the CC has in common with ISIS is……both of their religions say only members go to heaven. And you both have gone on killing sprees to rid the world of non believers.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Beams and motes. Yes, but we are still a religion who requires all its members to take an oath of believing all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches. Christ may have not spoken about homosexuality, but He commissioned His Apostles to teach in His stead. “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16
So, is St. Paul, after almost 2000 years, wrong because of the enlightened westerner who not only wants to go fudge packing, but also wants and demands all of humanity to embrace, adore, and celebrate his actions?
And Christ did speak on marriage, divorce, and adultery. Our teachings formed because of those sayings. Pope Francis comes along with AL, which is confusing to many, and refuses to even talk about it. And C, this is not just a discussion. Bishops are issuing rules and directives without any discussion or debate.
The bottom line is that those who refuse to truly believe what the Catholic Church teaches, should IMHO join a religion that doesn’t require an oath. You see, our church also teaches that oaths are important, unlike enlightened westerners.
LikeLike
Bosco the Immaculate said:
“You see, our church also teaches that oaths are important, unlike enlightened westerners.”
You mean like the vows of poverty and celibacy your little Christs take? Your church teaches a lot of things that not even your costumes obey, let alone the laity. Its all a cruel joke.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I am sure that you are aware of the Pastoral letter on the care of homosexual people, in which case, in using the term you use, you are, yourself, in breach of what the Church teaches. I’m not sure that being in breach of one part of the teaching of the church is best bully pulpit from which to preach on the importance of obeying all that the church teaches.
It may upset some people, but the Church is open to questioning, it has happened throughout its history. We are not some safe space for conservative snowflakes. As it happens, I agree with the teaching on the Church on this issue, and because I think it is well-founded, have no difficulty with debating those who question it, but I don’t feel that using terms of abuse help; do you find yourself drawn to debate with black people who call you a ‘cracker’?
Yes, some Bishops are issuing directives, and that too is part of the debate. If you want a safe space where there is no questioning of anything, the only one I know is the grave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Immaculate said:
I guess that was directed to good brother Steven..
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
C, I take it you disapprove of my virtue signalling. Well, that letter by Cardinal Ratzinger with the blessing of St. John Paul II was written 30 years ago. Light years ago in terms of some of the worlds “feelings” about homosexuals. Let’s review some of its statements.
“No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.”
“With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so.”
“We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”
“In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.”
Now C, I wonder which, if any, of these statements we could use nowadays without sending most homosexuals into total state of apoplexy, and in some countries be accused of hate speech? No, the snowflakes want to ban any discussion because it may harm their precious feelings. As do the Francisbishops concerning AL. It’s getting increasingly hard for the Left to engage in discussions of any kind without resorting to violence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
No, what I disapproved of was the language you used, which one does not need to be snowflake to see conflicted with the spirit of the Pastoral Letter. Why was it so hard just to acknowledge that. The Left resort to violence, the Right to ‘whataboutery’.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
I know what you were disapproving of! It shut you down just like a snowflake, who got his feelings hurt. And you started playing the person instead of the ball. Can you agree or disagree with any of my points? No, because you were so offended!
Do you disagree that homosexuals demand acceptance, not just as human beings which we all do, but of all their actions? Do you think we or the Church can say their activity in immoral without outrage? Can we state the truth of their needing psychiatric, psychological, or medical help? And so, is St. Paul wrong? Answer the question. Did Christ send out the Apostles? Did Christ not speak on marriage, divorce, and adultery? Did our teaching spring forth from those statements? Answer the question. Is not Pope Francis going against Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium with his views (AL). No need to answer this one, I know your view. But if you answer all of the above, your view would have to change. Because at that point, your oath would mean something.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Unlike you, I don’t generalise about people. I know homosexuals who are celibate and continent and offer it up as a sacrifice. You, on the other hand, point to the noisy individuals because they suit the story you have decided you need to believe. Insulting people is not very Christian, so why did you do it, and why so reluctant to apologise and repent?
LikeLike