THE PAEDOPHILE PROTECTOR POPE, JOHN PAUL 11, LEFT BEHIND A LOAD OF DANGEROUS BULLSHIT IN HIS SO CALLED THEOLOGY OF THE BODY.
And right-wing, suicide bomber Catholics, are going around the world peddling the bullshit.
Theology of the Body is simply right-wing Catholics trying to pull us back to the bad old days of guilt and mental suffering over "impure thoughts", "impure actions" or "self-pollution", etc, etc.
In those days the RC bishops and clergy had us full of guilt and fear of going to hell. they put many a poor soul in mental hospitals with sexual guilt and psychotic scruples.
And of course, as we now know, while bishops and clergy had the rest of us going around like this they themselves were whoring around with men and women and raping our children.
We don't need right-wing, debauched "celibates" to lecture us on our human sexuality and about who we can marry.
For centuries the RC junta controlled us all by controlling our sexuality.
Now we have seen through them and they are being exposed in every part of the world for their corruption and evil.
Human sexuality is a gift to be enjoyed responsibly.
It is also God's or nature's (depending on your viewpoint) way of procreation.
The old Catholic notion that every sexual act must be open to procreation is part of the bullshit.
Sex is good in itself.
Sex is there to be enjoyed - responsibly of course and with consent.
And nature has seen to it that sex has other health benefits.
For instance, masturbation reduces stress and in men makes prostate cancer more unlikely.
So folks, do not be fooled by this new attempt at sex control - the so-called Theology of the Body.
Below is a typical article by the Theology of the Boddiers:
1.
By Andrew M. Greenwell, Esq.
Catholic Online (https://www.catholic.org)
Catholic Online (https://www.catholic.org)
It is the Church's resolute 'yes' to conjugal love, the spousal meaning of the body, and the meaning of the complementarity of the sexes, to its ordering to pro-creation, that necessarily requires a 'no' to homosexual activity
The Church's "yes" to authentic human marriage and its incalculable value to the spouses, to family life, and to the common good, compels her to say "no" to cheap imitations. All that glisters is not gold, especially if it already shows signs of rust and tarnish. The Church knows the gold of human sexuality that is open to the gift of children expressed between a man and woman within marriage, and can therefore recognize the alternative visions--the base metals--of human sexuality that present a corrosive human sexuality that is not ordered to life or to any authentic human good.
Homosexual sexual activity is expressly condemned by the Scriptures honestly interpreted. (See Gen. 19:5-8; Lev. 18:22-23; Lev. 20:13; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Rom. 1:26-27; Jude 7) It follows that, from a Scriptural standpoint, any institution--such as same-sex "marriage" or civil unions--which encourage or advance such activity is against the common good. This is also the fixed position of the Church's Magisterium. See, e.g., the CDFs Homosexualitatis problema and Persona humana, and the PCFs, Family, Marriage, and 'De Facto' Unions.
But the Church's stance against homosexual activity and same-sex "marriage" is not only, or even principally, based upon the "no" to homosexual activity in Scripture. That is like saying that the heart of the city of Jerusalem is its city walls. Walls define and protect a city, but they are not the city.
Rather, the Church's stance against homosexual activity and same-sex "marriage" is based upon an absolute and uncompromising "yes" to the reality of marriage presented in both Scripture and nature. In other words, it is based upon reality, moral reality. She sees something her opponents either do not see, or refuse to see.
It is the Church's resolute "yes" to conjugal love, the spousal meaning of the body, and the meaning of the complementarity of the sexes, to its ordering to pro-creation, that necessarily requires a "no" to homosexual activity. It is this truth--this reality which is freeing and which all refusal to abide by it is enslaving--that the Church's jealously protects from those intent to breach its walls.
The least bit of a "yes" to homosexual sexual activity--even a "maybe"--would necessarily mean a less-than-absolute "yes" to marriage as nature and nature's God intended it to be. It would be a breach in the walls of the city, the poisoning of the city's wells. It would be moral apostasy, and a capitulation to moral barbarism. It is not the first time the Church has set itself against the barbarian and sided with civilization. It is not the first time that she has been attacked or ridiculed for it.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth," wrote Blessed John Paul II in his encyclical Fides et ratio. Faith and reason are likewise the two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth in marriage.
Those who advance homosexual "marriage" as a plausible reality are either being irrational or unfaithful to God, or both irrational and unfaithful to God. It is impossible to advocate same-sex "marriage" and be both reasonable and faithful to God.
Same-sex "marriage" is not about equality, because authentic equality has to be based upon reality. An equality based upon unreality is ideology. "One law for the lion and the ox is oppression." One marriage law for the heterosexual and the homosexual is oppression. Homosexual "marriage" is not about equality, but about oppression.
The Church's "yes" to authentic human marriage and its incalculable value to the spouses, to family life, and to the common good, compels her to say "no" to cheap imitations. All that glisters is not gold, especially if it already shows signs of rust and tarnish. The Church knows the gold of human sexuality that is open to the gift of children expressed between a man and woman within marriage, and can therefore recognize the alternative visions--the base metals--of human sexuality that present a corrosive human sexuality that is not ordered to life or to any authentic human good.
Saying "yes" to the gold standard requires saying "no" to lesser, inferior, even counterfeit standards that are found in premarital sex, masturbation, contraceptive sex, adultery, polygamy (serial and parallel), and sodomy. There is nothing irrational in the Church wanting all her children--indeed all of humanity--to buy happiness with the gold dubloon of marriage, than to try to buy it with the lead slug of some alternative sexual counterfeit. On marriage, the Church--like the Father her founder, Jesus, revealed--will not equate stone for bread, or a scorpion for an egg. (Luke 11:11)
In his encyclical Humanae vitae, Pope Paul VI affirmed the Church's long-standing prohibition against artificial contraception. This proscription was a "no" to protect a greater "yes" to authentic spousal love, and was based upon the "two wings" of faith and reason. "It is impossible to understand the Church's teaching in this regard . . . unless we have an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation," wrote Pope Paul VI. HV, No. 7. We can know the "natural and earthly" by reason. We know the "supernatural and eternal" by faith.
One such "integral vision" of man and his vocation, in particular as it comes to human marriage, is found in the remarkable series of 129 catechetical addresses given by Blessed John Paul II between September 1979 and November 1984. These were based upon earlier talks on the subject by John Paul II when he was Archbishop Karol Wojtyla of Krakow.
In these talks, drawing from Scripture and Thomistic realism to find an objective anchor in revelation and creation, and recruiting the phenomenological method and its personalist and subjective emphasis, Pope John Paul, in what only can be called a tour de force, puts forth an "integral vision" of man and woman and human sexuality. This "integral vision" is popularly given the name "Theology of the Body."
We might invoke Cardinal Newman. The Theology of the Body, like Catholicism, "is a deep matter, you cannot take it up in at teacup." One cannot give even a reasonable synopsis of John Paul II's Theology of the Body and what it may mean in the context of same-sex "marriage" in a three-page article, and do it justice. Michael Waldstein's splendid edition of Pope John Paul II's talks adds up to more than 700 pages. At best, one can only introduce the subject, and encourage others to pick up Waldstein's edition of the Pope's talks and read. Tolle, lege! Tolle, lege! Take up and read! Take up and read!
Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body is built upon solid, incontrovertible foundational piers. First, he relies on the teachings of Jesus found in the 19th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. To answer the question of divorce, Jesus turns to the question of what is marriage. Jesus goes "to the beginning," and points to creation as the source for answering questions about marriage.
"Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Matt. 19:4-5; see also Gen. 1:27; 2:24)
We might distill the importance of Jesus' teachings by focusing on the italicized terms. We have to go to the beginning: at creation, to how man was before the Fall. Then we have to relate this to man as we find him after the Fall. We have to realize that at the beginning mankind is one, but also two: male and female. We have to see that one-man-in-two-sexes was, and still is, part of the Creator's plan, and this plan is fulfilled in the personal joinder of man and woman which culminates in the conjugal act, the sexual act within marriage, where they become "one flesh." Intrinsically connected to the conjugal act is the power of pro-creation. "Be fruitful, and multiply!" (Gen. 1:28)
These truths helped Jesus show his questioners why divorce was wrong. These same truths help us see why same-sex "marriage" is wrong.
The differentiation of the sexes was part of God's original intent. It is part of the gift of creation. The gift of mankind--the image of God--being divided into male and female raises the question: What is the purpose, the giver's intention, behind this gift?
The gift of the complementarity of the sexes is intended to promote communion. (That is why Scripture uses it as an analogy for the relationship between Christ and his Church.) The natural result of that communion is participation in God's creative powers--pro-creation. The gift of sexual complementarity found in Creation is therefore tied to the gift of pro-creation inherent in the sexual act, so that any severance between the nuptial act and its various purposes or meanings, in particular the procreative meaning, is an abuse of the gift. There is, therefore, a nuptial, pro-creative meaning behind our sexual differentiation as male and female. This feature of our existence is called the "nuptial meaning of the body."
Really, if we would just listen to the message of our bodies (instead of trying to justify our lusts, our disordered desires, or our life choices, or jumping on a political bandwagon), we would "hear" that the differentiation of the sexes and their natural complementarity just screams "nuptial love." Our bodies have this message written all over them, and where the body is there is the person. If we cannot see this, we are morally blind. If we do not "hear" this, we are morally deaf. If we are not capable of "reading" this message, we are morally illiterate. We need some serious moral remedial education, one generally brought about only by grace and conversion.
Using our bodies, in particular their sexual faculties, for something other than expressing this "nuptial love" within marriage is an abuse of the gift, a refusal to acknowledge the Giver and his intent behind the gift, and so is, and must always be as long as we live within reality, seriously sinful. It is a grave act of ingratitude.
"In all things give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ concerning you all." (1 Thess. 5:18). Giving thanks to God for the gift of sexuality means that we will never entertain its abuse, and if we do, that we ask God's forgiveness. The Church teaches these things "that you may not sin," but "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the just." (1 John 2:1)
Same-sex sexual desire is--by definition--not ordered toward nuptial love and not possibly ordered to being pro-creative. For that reason, the Church teaches that the desire itself is disordered, not a positive good but a privation or lack of sorts, and that acting out that desire--by knowing and voluntary homosexual genital activity or even by internal consent to such--is in each and every case, a mortal sin.
Of course, homosexual desire is not the only sexual disorder from which men and women suffer. There are disordered sexual desires of all kinds, affecting men and women of all stripes. It should be no news to the person suffering from homosexual desires that he or she, like his or her fellows, may be caught up in a web disordered sexual desires. Welcome to the club of Fallen man!
But fact that we humans to greater or lesser extent may suffer from disordered desires, including homosexuality among others, does not justify our acting upon them. The only human response, which is to say, the only Christian response, is to ask God's grace to overcome these dispositions and to strive, through spiritually-disciplined life, through prayer, sacraments, and proper spiritual and psychological guidance, toward a life of virtue. Welcome to the club of the Redeemed!
-----
Andrew M. Greenwell is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas, practicing in Corpus Christi, Texas. He is married with three children. He maintains a blog entirely devoted to the natural law called Lex Christianorum. You can contact Andrew at agreenwell@harris-greenwell.com.
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel with your nasty vitriol and venom. Pope Francis is very much in reconciling mode at present when we look at the recent China situation. You may never know the efforts that were genuinely made at attempting to reconciling you back and heal the wounds in recent times. We spoke about this on a blog before. It became clear that you intentionally chose to deepen that rift more and more by your campaign of hate against the Church which you clearly love. Looking at this article today is but a further example of that deepening rift. When people tried to throw you a lifejacket it's little wonder you are sinking in deep water when you chose not to take it. Perhaps it's now time again for mature reflection on your part. Pax
ReplyDeleteNo body has ever approached me in reent times and years lookinging reconciliation and healing.
DeleteI find it difficult to believe what you say.
Sorry.
08.30 Unfortunately Pat doesn't do nor encourage reconciliation.
DeletePat has nothing but hate and unleashed this campaign against anyone that by their own very right is a member off the Catholic Church with campaigns of malicious scandal.
A Christian? I doubt not!
Perhaps it wasn't obvious to you at the time.
DeletePat, your opening comments reflect your own impoverished theology, spirituality and philosophical insights. Your world view is "anything goes" so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. While I accept that the Church heaped much unnecessary guilt on us in relation to sexual morality, nonetheless we all need a moral framework within our relationships with one another. We simply cannot always be seeking our own gratification or selfish desires. Also, with the sexualisation of children at so young an age through the modelling and beauty industry, with the exploitation of their innocence and the easy access which they have to social media, surely a caring society must protect the DIGNITY, INNOCENCE and PRECIOUSNESS of children and your teenagers. An "anything goes, do what you like" attitude is a grave endangerment to children. At least Pope St. John Paul 11 gives a clear moral, philosophical and Christian approach to the gift of sexuality and human relationships. It trumps your laissez faire "do what you like" attitude anytime. Pat, don't rubbish well written documents which inspire, educate and give a deep moral and Christian framework for the dignity of our lives.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you will explain to use why John Paul took millions off the paedophile Marciel Maciel and covered up his mega abuse?
DeleteAnswer please!
Pat at 09.56: This reference you make has nothing to do with the article today. Are you just annoyed because of the references to homosexuality and other judgments made by the author? Do they make you look more honestly into your heart and conscience? Sadly, you despise anyone who espouses and upholds Church teachings. You should reacquaint yourself with its' teachings on moral issues. You should not encourage a philosophy of self indulgence or a "do what you like" attitude. That's morally irresponsible.
DeleteI'm sorry, you are wrong.
DeleteHow can a man who covered uop child abuse have any authority on any form of morality?
John Paul was an actor, a tyrant and a liar.
His theology of the body is a cover for what he was really like and did.
I am not encouraging a philosophy of indulgence.
I am encouraging an end to brainwashing and crippling guilt.
10.19: Further proof if needed about how confused you are Pat and how you make up everything as you go along. Have you any liking in your heart for anyone other than yourself? You have an ugly intolerance for all who don't conform to your narrow view. Pity.
Delete10.19: I'm sorry you are wrong Pat. Why do you dismiss all who disagree with your soundbyte approach to dialogue and debate? You are not at all capable of objectivity and therefore you are invariably imbalanced, biased and prejudiced. Dare I say, hateful in your approach to all things CATHOLIC...
DeleteBp Pat, during the months leading up to JPII’s death, I read he was propped up watching constant reruns of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” while slavering “it is as it was, it is as it was...” all day long.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 09:11
DeleteDon't believe everything you read Ya eejit.
Yes, the fatheaded Polack was known for slavering, especially about that saint and child-lover, the holy priest Fr Maciel.
DeleteSo, too, was the German ex-Nazi, Ratzinger.
Mad Magna Caca at 23:02
DeleteHow do you know,you're known for slavering with the gargle. You are wrong about Benedict XVI you're more a Nazi. Love and prayers B. Eviva Maria!
Fr Mo Marsden's favourite bedtime reading.
ReplyDeleteYes Pat, Sex in and of itself is good. Sex as it was intended by God, between a man and a woman. Responsibly - within marriage. There are many great benefits to this, it's an expression of love and unity with your spouse and also the bringing forth of life. Masturbation may well be a way for men to relieve their stress but it is is not good.for them on so many other levels. It's ultimately self-serving and can lead to too much focus inwardly rather than to God. Your views at the beginning of this blog are radically warped on the teaching of the church and of St Pope John Paul II. This blog actually seems to be very self-serving...maybe now we have a glimpse as to why!
ReplyDeletePlease tell us the horrible evil things that masturbation does.
Delete09.58: You're the expert Pat - tell us...
DeleteI would have thought turning us inwardly to ourselves and away from God would be the greatest evil of all? We are to be focused continually on gaining heaven and living our lives in accordance with the laws of God written by his hand in the very fibre of our being. Promoting myths that masturbation helps relieve stress, reduces the risk of cancer or that having self control might be harmful some way only serves to aid comfort in your sin.
DeleteStupid attitude to isolate masturbation as the case of 'turning away from God to the self.'
DeleteIs having a good meal, turning away from God to the self?
If having a good laugh with friends turning away from God to the self?
What is it about sex that is problematic - uniquely - as a pleasure, that makes it a problem? Particularly in this case, where there is no possibility of procreation that is not desired by the person?
Admit it. Sex is isolated as a uniquely problematic pleasure - in the way others are not - and that is a function the RC Church huge problem with sex.
It is the Church that has a problem with sex. Not the rest of us.
09.29: You are right : Pat's introductory remarks are radically warped on the tea things if Pope St. John Paul 11. But then, Pat has carved out his own pathway and it's a free for all, do what you want territory, no boundaries, once it makes you feel good. A reckless and dangerous approach to morality and to the integrity of sexuality as a gift. Pat's world is devoid of integrity and truth. It's spiritually self serving and is not a SACRED MEMORY OF CHRIST.
ReplyDeleteObviously you prefer people committing suicide through brainwashing and guilt?
Delete10.21: A very bizarre response. Empty if any intellectual grounding re: human sexuality. Poor theology makes for poor spirituality and belief in God's ways.
DeleteMournemanMichael:
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that all those criticising +Pat above by accusing him of having a "laissez faire" and "do what you like" attitude to sex are so indoctrinated and hide bound by the RC church's power driven guilt ridden concepts of sexual morality that they either fail to read, or choose to ignore what +Pat has stated: "sex is there to be enjoyed, RESPONSIBLY OF COURSE, AND WITH CONSENT".
(I've intentionally put it in capital letters for them!)
I find their misguided restrictive attitudes ridiculous, and laughable, as is their recourse for justification to the bible, the magesterium or papal writings.
MMM
The only thing laughable on here is you Mournful Mick. You are just another disgruntled failed Seminarian who still has that chip on your shoulder. Eviva Maria
DeleteMMM at 10.58: The reason Pat is receiving negative criticisms is because not all of us share his "do what you like" approach to life, sexuality or theology. We all need a moral or ethical framework for our lives and for many people the Church provides that clear guidance. Nothing wrong with that. Pat's problem is that he is so BLINDED by his prejudice, bias and disrespect for all things Catholic that he has lost the ability to see any positivity or good in Catholic teachings. His disdain for his former spiritual home is well rehearsed and his dislike of Pope St. John Paul 11 is written in stone. I share the Church's moral vision of human sexuality and on moral issues very challenging, despite my abhorrence and disgust at Church abuse scandals. I am not indoctrinated nor full of guilt even though I am a fervent Catholic. I have the intellectual capacity to sift through that which in the past was unhealthy but I find the writings of Pope St. John Paul 11 very inspiring.
DeleteMournemanMichael: to Anon@12:13:
DeleteI think your impovrished understanding is so limited that you can possibly think, for an instant, that 50+ years after choosing, of my own volition, to leave a seminary, that I in any way "carry a chip on my shoulder" for that decision. Ridiculous concept in reality, especially as I've clearly said on this blog several times that as a Humanist for 40 years plus I have no deist beliefs, and even less belief in the validity of the RC or any other religious organisation. I can only imagine you have difficulty in understanding this concept.
But believe I'm quite happy with it.
MMM
13:49, what, exactly, from the Polack's musings inspire you.?
DeleteI'm almost lost for words when people like you put such faith in the mental meanderings of an allegedly celibate, Roman Catholic cleric with a distrust of sex and a penchant for protecting fellow paedophile/ephebophile priests.
Please tutor me about this fatheaded Polack's wisdom, who so got off on power and control that he remained CEO of an institution when he was clearly unsuited to the role through worsening personsal health.
10.21: Pat, accept legitimate comments that challenge your makey up theology! Of course no one wants any person to harm themselves. There are a myriad of reasons why people self harm and we must always be sensitive to any person, for whatever reason, who is in inner turmoil. To use your example to bolster your hippie style theology is risible and clutching at straws. Also, you know, as most of us know, the free for all and have what I want mentality in sexual gratifications has caused many people to self harm or has brought about their death prematurely. Surely you should, as a "bishop", be teaching responsible and caring sexuality which acknowledges the inate dignity and sanctity of human life. Children and young teenagers need wise guidance and Pope St. John Paul 11 gives that in abundance. I won't be advising anyone to turn to you for guidance!!
ReplyDeleteMakey up theology? Isn't this the domain of Roman Catholicism, with its former justification of slavery, limbo, the death penalty, etc?
DeleteYes, if you want theological fantasy, Rome's yer whore of choice. 😆
Mad Magna at 22:19
DeletePolly, ya auld wagon would ye ever just shut up. We've all heard your makey up theology to suit and justify yourself. The only HOOR is you. Love and prayers Eviva Maria!
https://vimeo.com/211025498
ReplyDeleteFr. Marsden ladies and gentlemen!
15:19
DeleteI watched that before and today.
Father Marsden is obviously a TOB theology of the body, fan.
I think this is sad and I think that TOB is cultish and irrational.
I do believe that Father Marsden's involvement in TOB renders him unsuitable to minister to seminarians or young people.
But I also think that he was right to highlight and oppose the on goings in Maynooth.
There is a huge difference between freely embracing and celebrating your sexuality and turning seminaries into holy whore houses.
Im glad that somebody realises that Jesus DID oppose gay sex even in committed relationships. That is why pro gay theology is not really helping LGBT rights. The only answer is to say that Jesus and the monstrous faith based on him are real threats to LGBT rights
ReplyDeleteWhoa there, amigo? Where, exactly, does Jesus oppose gay sex?
DeleteOh dear, already this debate has descended in to a shouting match. Such a pity, considering how important a theology of the body and sexuality is to those of us what are human and sexual beings.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that over the decades I have moved insistently away from the Roman Catholic Church's theology of body and sexuality, in particular from the way in which it was made to be be biggest sin of all, and was the prism through which pretty much everything else about a person was viewed. I understand the theological history and background to this, and in view of the lack of scientific and human understanding over the centuries there is no surprise that this dominated. But, given our by far clearer understanding of humanity - psychologically, emotionally, intellectually, sexually - it is right for us to move to a more mature and sensible theology of the body where sexuality and sex is not the trump card that defines everything and everybody.
There was something sinisterly sinful about the way I was taught that I was going to hell for the slightest sexual deviation. It f****d people up big time and caused much pain to people It was wrong, and the Christian Churches, and in particular the Roman Catholic Church, were responsible for peddling this dysfunctional understanding of the body and sexuality.
It is time for us to move on. I have. I do not feel guilty about it, I do not feel any less for it, and I do not think that God thinks any the less of me for it. I've always thought that God had bigger things to worry about than my little ways when it comes to sexual expression. And, I've always thought that the measure of a man or woman is not sexuality and its expression, but how they are in terms of justice, truth, honesty, decently, love, gentleness, kindness, generosity - in other words the Gospel values. So, let's concentrate on them, and leave sexuality and the body alone. The RC Church has been obsessed with the latter for too long and done too much damage to people already.
MournemanMichael
DeleteGood comment SB, particularly the positive suggestions of your last paragraph.
Fortunately Irish society is departing our previous repressive strictures to an expression of morality more aligned to the Golden Rule.
But the 'scales' have yet to fall from indoctrinated eyes.
MMM
Thanks Servingbloger for your comments above. A very fair and balanced remark and I totally agree with every word that you said. While we are sexual beings through and through, our sexual expression for the majority of people anyway, is a very small part of our lives. It is done in private with the person they love and care for the most in the world, and does not define us as a person.
DeleteI would suppose that the reason why this is so emotive issue is because our sexuality is something that is very deep and sensitive to all people regardless of our sexuality or relationship status.
The Church has a duty and a right to preach about the dignity of the human person, and lay out the path it believes is right for followers of Christ to aspire. On the same token it recognises that we are all human and fall short of the mark, and the Church treats us with mercy and compassion when we fail to live up to these high standards. I know- I have experienced this through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, as have many others.
By pointing to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the Church is seeking to glorify the human person so that he or she can reflect the Glory of God in the world and by teaching these high standards gives us an ethical compass to strive to live our lives. Given the emotive nature of the topic it is wrong to point the finger and take the moral high ground. No one is perfect. Perhaps all future commentators can reflect first on their own personal situation before posting comments.
Faith and Reason is the kingpin. Reason acknowledges society evolves We need to respect God and others and be true to ourselves
ReplyDeletePat @09.54 Does this not highlight how blind you really are that you couldn't recognise the olive branch that was being extended and you didn't recognise the signs. Says it all Pat for me and I think when an Archbishop has to take you through lawyers really highlights how you are a lost cause. It was only ever about YOU and always will be.
ReplyDeletePlease remind me of how and when an olive branch was held out to me.
DeleteI do not know what you mean.
The last time I was approached by the hierarchy was when Paddy Walsh sent the chancellor.
I cooperated 100% and agreed to give them ALL the things they required of me and more.
I composed a 15 page document as a guide line on the process.
I do not know if someone leaned on Walsh.
It came to nothing.
I have always said and meant that I am open to reconciliation.
If the US and South Korea can meet with North Korea then the hierarchy and I can come to some agreement.
I am totally open to any hand that is held out to me and will not turn it away.
No one ever “leaned” on Paddy Walsh - never ever. Except, maybe and perhaps, his Ma.
Delete14.48: Pat, I don't think you'd be happy in any reconciliation. I don't intend this as an insult. I don't always agree with your analysis, criticisms or opinions but you have created too wide a gap between yourself and your previous spiritual home. In a way you are to be admired for your forthright views and the pathway you've followed. I think you'd have to compromise too many of your own personal freedoms and principles.
DeleteMaybe?
DeleteBut we must always remain open to peace with those from whom we are estranged in any way.
It's called the Dialogical Imperative.
DeleteBishop Buckley you all will return to the catholic Church even Fr. Davide Pagliarani who is head of SSPX want to all come home and the CDF and Pope Francis is working on it.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows the Catholic Church under the Leadership of the Supreme Pontiff is the correct way.
Yes there is problems with this abuse but Pope Francis has inherited it.
Bishop pat it takes one to start the communications and as you say you never got any letter of from the Holy See banning you.
Pope Francis has made one thing clear this past week and that is those clergy convicted of Child Abuse will not be welcome and he would personally sign the letter as they are a disgrace to the hard working clergy.
"Yes there is problems with this abuse but Pope Francis has inherited it."
DeleteLOL McCarrick, Daneels
Theology of the Body is indeed dangerous tripe. Our whole notion of bourgeois "family values" is totally foreign to the Gospel, as well as to the teaching of the Fathers and the great medieval theologians such as St Thomas.
ReplyDeleteAquinas was a glutton and a fool. The pervert grew so fat that his confreres had to make a semi-circular incision in the refectoory table to enable the fat bastard to get close enough to his food.
DeleteThere is a causal link between obesity and impurity.
It astonishes me that, even today, Catholics are thick enough to set store by the musings of a medieval sexual pervert.
But then, the same people wax approvingly about the Polack's Theology of the Body.
Among your many vile and disgusting comments on this blog, Magna Caca, that one at 22:31 ranks pretty high for its utter nastiness, crass stupidity, untruthfulness and ignorance.
Delete23:08, truth is, well, truth, isn't it?
DeleteSo what, in your opinion, was untruthful in my post at 22:31? 😆
MC’s appalling comment at 22:31 reveals clearly the sheer depths of his stupidity and crass multi-levelled bigotry.
DeleteEvidence, 23:26? 😆
DeleteGo ahead. Make my day. 😆😆
I'm a very bad boy, aren't I 23:26? 😈
Delete😆
23.17: One thing untruthful - your spelling - "refectory" - without a double "o"!!! After that - you are simply a piece of putrid humanity. Your stench flows through your words - you ugly bastardo. Your ignorant comments reveal a nasty perversion within your heart. GOD HELP YOU. I hope you never have anything to do with Children!
DeleteWish I could think the same of that fat slug and kiddie-fiddler, Aquinas. 😆
DeleteAquinas taught that one could not commit a mortal sin of gluttony.
DeleteNow now, Magna, attacking one of the greatest intellects in history won't make the boiling vat of diarrhoea that is your life any more bearable.
DeleteRC reconciliation is only ever about submission to the church or its values. The moment my life improved was when I realised I could follow my own conscience and values.
ReplyDeleteThe church even managed to come between my mother and me because she flatly refused to believe me when I was abused by a priest!
Now I would think what the power balance is before reconciling with anyone: if what is expected of me does not respect my own values and boundaries, it's no deal.
Pat, there have been small steps taken behind the scenes on your behalf to Rome. That is why i stressed in my post @ 08.30 that you may never realise it and you may not be aware of it. I also stressed in a follow up post that it may not have been obvious to you at the time. I am not personally involved but I know the person who is. There has been an effort to involve Pope Francis personally and I know for a fact it was raised with him again on his visit to Ireland. Believe me he is not the bad person you portray him to be. I also know he has been made aware of the Tramore and Phonsie Cullinan incident, so much has been done. I think the current impasse with Archbishop Eamon and some blog entries along with hostility from some of the Irish hierarchy and beyond have stalled things a little. However, as I said earlier, mature reflection is called for on all sides. I could go into a lot more detail but I want to stay loyal to the person who I know is involved. Pax
DeleteI have, never had, any indication of any steps.
DeleteAs I have always said that, as an attempting Christian always open to reconciliation.
That remains my position.
I think it is possible to be reconciled with God without being reconciled with the RC church.
ReplyDelete20-14. I couldn’t agree more. The day I walked away from the institution called the RC Church and followed the order of the Golden Rule was the most liberating day of my life. I began to establish a closer, more conscious connection and a much healthier relationship with a loving God.
ReplyDeleteFree from guilt and spirituality richer.
MournemanMichael:
DeleteYou've done well Anon@ 21:17.
Spirituality is not dependent on the shackles of religion. The Golden Rule is the best possible template.
MMM