...Tony Blair telling us how the Pope should change Catholic teachings in order to make the Church acceptable to the Blair world-view. He thinks, you see, that as he and his chums support various ideas - in this instance, about homosexual activity - it is time that the Church supported them too, and that Popes can change Catholic teachings when they want, and should do so in this instance.
Does poor Blair really, honestly, believe that Popes can change teachings because "Organised religions face the same dilemma as political parties when faced with changed circumstances" and that Our Lord planned that the Apostles should get together from time to time and change God's message to fit "changed circumstances" while holding on to their "core vote"?
Did poor Blair get any instruction, even of the simplest kind, about the Catholic Faith before he was brought into the Church?
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Perhaps he's going to be the British equivalent of America's Nancy Pelosi who lectured the Church on when life begins and even stated that St Augustine "wasn't sure" about the issue.
'Poor' Blair thinks that everything that he believes at any given moment is the truth. If he did indeed receive any instruction it cannot have lodged for more than an instant in 'poor' Blair's butterfly brain which is, in any case, devoted only to 'change' for its own sake.
Th mystery to me is that 'poor' Blair was received into the Catholic Church without a much longer period for refection.
RichardH
Did poor Blair get any instruction, even of the simplest kind, about the Catholic Faith before he was brought into the Church?
I seem to recall that during his conversion last year, a priest of some kind vouched for his instruction and fidelity. Perhaps others will remember the details.
Actually, what really stands out here is Blair's strange delusion that he pushed through civil partnerships in the teeth of enormous opposition.
Civil partnerships already do not need to be consummated. There has never been any such need. So what have they to do with homosexuality, really? Yet the legislation fails to provide for unmarried close relatives. That is proof, as if proof were needed, that the point of this measure is to privilege homosexuality on the specious basis that it is an identity comparable to ethnicity or class, or even to sex (which is written into every cell of the body).
The legislation must be amended immediately to allow unmarried relatives, whether of the same or of opposite sexes, to register their partnerships. Then there would be no problem. If it had said that at the time of its enactment, then there would never have been anything more than a few newspaper stories about how same-sex couples were "planning to make use of a new law to protect elderly unmarried relatives living together from inheritance tax when one of them dies".
So why wasn't it set up like that?
See above, I'm afraid.
Remember, that, generally, we are instructed to obey the Pope, not to agree with him.
Mr Blair doesn't commit any public homosexual acts. He's confused, as any reasonable person would be, by the tone of official pronouncements, straining at differences between "acts" and "orientation" as though the traditional teaching is an embarrassment. He is completely orthodox in that he feels incitement to hatred or cruelty towards homosexuals is wrong.
What he fails to realise is that the current controversy about homosexuality is just the extreme edge of two ideological currents - "I can do what I want with my own body", and "groups of victims have a special moral status". Neither are diametrically opposed to Christianity, like all heresies, they take a truth and exaggerate it.
The comments on Mr. Blair's Catechesis seem singulary lacking in Christian Charity. With this sort of attitude, I am amazed that people still wish to join the Catholic Church.
The polls tell us that 80 percent of Catholics in the USA practice artificial birth control. On any average Sunday, almost the whole church congregation goes up to recive communion.
Has not the local Church, thru omission in preaching and practice changed on the subject of artificial birth control?
I agree with Mr. Walton's comment about the uncharitable nature of the remarks.Any Catholic (even a non practising Catholic) could have explained to Mr. Blair that homosexuality amongst other things will never be accepted by the Church. It's very hard to be an authentic practising Catholic and I can't imagine anyone wanting to become one unless you are very
old,when most of the taboos are no longer applicable .
Post a Comment