.gif)
Someone needs to break down the controversy regarding Pope Francis And Bishop Chaput in a Biblical manner. Allow me, although I am imperfect, to do that. Thus, let's start with the first point—after all, first things come first:
Pope Francis is right, and Bishop Chaput is wrong. According to the Bible (and I'm using the NRSV for the benefit of Catholics here, since many would consider reading a Protestant translation to be heretical and I consider the NIV a heretical translation for good reason):
On the second point with the exception of the subpoint regarding civilly-remarried couples, Bishop Chaput is right:
(By the way, as I found out a long time ago and for example, my late paternal grandfather used to fall asleep in the back of the church while my paternal grandmother, my father, and my father's two siblings would sit for Mass—trust me when I say that Pop-Pop was a Anusi whom had no interest in Jesus, and I could both give other examples that I haven't given before and regive examples that I have given before. Incidentally, maybe it was actually Pop-Pop whom was more shomer kashrut when he was still alive.
(My point is, of course, that other Non Christians would know since even my Anusi grandfather—a Rushisher-Ungarisher Yid with a father from Lipsk in Suwalki Gubernia and a mother whose parents were from Budapeszt and Locse—knew, and at least his ancestors were well aware of what even the Talmud says about same-sex marriage, and they knew that Tanakh prohibited man-man and woman-woman same-sex romances.).
In conclusion, Score One for Pope Francis—case-by-case analysis per remarriages counts—and Score One for Bishop Chaput—same-sex romantic relationships and non-marital cohabitions of sexual natures are wrong.
"Francis didn’t create a church wide admission to Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics as some progressives had wanted. But in the April document, he suggested bishops and priests could do so on a case-by-case basis in what could become a significant development in church practice."
Pope Francis is right, and Bishop Chaput is wrong. According to the Bible (and I'm using the NRSV for the benefit of Catholics here, since many would consider reading a Protestant translation to be heretical and I consider the NIV a heretical translation for good reason):
- "He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”"
- Look at how I linked "adultery" in Mark 10:11-12. The root of the word for adultery can also refer to idol worship—arguably, then (as I'd pondered before), adultery can be more than sexual—"lust" (per Matthew 5:27-28) can (as I stated, arguably) be, for example, a lust for power and control, or a lust for alcohol and/or drugs (not legally-prescribed and -used drugs, by the way). In other words, a spouse is technically cheating on the other spouse if he or she is abusive or refusing to be treated for alcoholism and/or drug addiction—he or she is putting his desire for power and control, or his or her craving for alcohol and drugs in the place of his or her spouse.
- You don't need any understanding of Greek or a concordance to agree with Pope Francis that forbidding widowed spouses and Biblically-divorced divorcees to civilly remarry is wrong.
On the second point with the exception of the subpoint regarding civilly-remarried couples, Bishop Chaput is right:
"The Philadelphia guidelines say Catholics in same-sex partnerships, civilly remarried parishioners and unmarried couples living together should not be permitted to serve on parish councils, instruct the faithful, serve as lectors or dispense Communion."On this one, I don't even need to quote Tanakh (the Old Testament) or the New Testament. In terms of same-sex romantic relationships of any kind, both Tanakh and the New Testament unequivocally state that same-sex romantic partnerships of any kind—whether same-sex dating, same-sex civil unions, or same-sex marriages—are wrong. Both also state that fornication is wrong, and the case of the Samaritan woman demonstrates that fornication includes non-marital cohabitation that is sexual in nature—remember that she was living with a man to whom she was not married—and as I said, I really didn't need to use quotes: any Christian (Jewish or gentile, Catholic or Non Catholic) and many Non Christians (including many Anusim) are familiar with the prohibitions against homosexual activity and non-marital cohabitations of sexual natures.
(By the way, as I found out a long time ago and for example, my late paternal grandfather used to fall asleep in the back of the church while my paternal grandmother, my father, and my father's two siblings would sit for Mass—trust me when I say that Pop-Pop was a Anusi whom had no interest in Jesus, and I could both give other examples that I haven't given before and regive examples that I have given before. Incidentally, maybe it was actually Pop-Pop whom was more shomer kashrut when he was still alive.
(My point is, of course, that other Non Christians would know since even my Anusi grandfather—a Rushisher-Ungarisher Yid with a father from Lipsk in Suwalki Gubernia and a mother whose parents were from Budapeszt and Locse—knew, and at least his ancestors were well aware of what even the Talmud says about same-sex marriage, and they knew that Tanakh prohibited man-man and woman-woman same-sex romances.).
In conclusion, Score One for Pope Francis—case-by-case analysis per remarriages counts—and Score One for Bishop Chaput—same-sex romantic relationships and non-marital cohabitions of sexual natures are wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment