Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Card. Danneel V

In yesterday’s post titled Theology, Ideology and One Confused Cardinal (see here), we demonstrated that within the medical profession, two schools of thought exits. One school of thought could be termed “scientific” while the other is one base on “ideology”. We demonstrated how to distinguish between which medical professionals are “scientific” and which are “ideologues“. We then turned to a statement that Card. Kasper made regarding the changing of Catholic doctrine with respect to “intrinsically disordered” behavior. We observed that Catholic moral teaching is based on a “scientific” approach. And we asserted that if the Church were to change its “scientific” approach, it would naturally fall into the “ideological” camp. And then we posed the following question:

Which leads to the following question: how can the Church “reconsider the situation of homosexuals” if the Church has always had and presently has an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT position with respect to “intrinsically disordered” behaviour, behaviour which encompasses homosexuals.

And then we made the follow-up observation:

That is, unless the Church wants to transform Catholic THEOLOGY into an IDEOLOGY.

Which brings us to today’s subject matter.

If our heterodox Cardinal Kasper was a bit ambiguous on the point of “changing” Catholic doctrine on “objectively disordered” behavior, the position of his fellow cardinal of Team Bergoglio and “mafia club” fame, the heterodox Cardinal Godfried Danneels leaves no room for doubt.

Actually, Cardinal Danneels not only supports changing Catholic doctrine with respect to “objectively disordered” behavior, but would even allow individuals afflicted with same-sex attraction to formalize their arrangement through “same-sex marriage”. Here is Cardinal Danneels’ position as set out by Damian Thompson (see here):

Danneels maintains that the church ‘has never opposed the fact that there should exist a sort of “marriage” between homosexuals’.

And we know that a “sort of marriage between homosexuals” would not be possible in FrancisChurch since it would not be a “sacramental marriage”, which would imply that homosexuals are second class citizens, etc. Therefore, Cardinal Danneels is claiming, ipso facto that the Sacrament of marriage encompasses “same-sex unions” for the lack of a better term.

What’s even more interesting if not outright disturbing, is that Cardinal Danneels practices what he preaches in related forms of “intrinsically disordered” behavior. When confronted with child abuse allegations of one of his fellow bishops, who was accused of raping his (the accused bishop’s) nephew, Cardinal Danneels made the following suggestion to the victim of said child abuse:

In 2010, a man confided in Danneels that he had been abused by a bishop, Roger Vangheluwe. The cardinal, who didn’t know he was being tape-recorded, told him to shut up until after the bishop retired.

Aside from holding the “progressive” position, what that other heterodox Reinhard “Bling” Marx, the cardinal of Swank (see here) would call a “left position” (see here), Cardinal Danneels’ position appears to be one of: sexual consent is only required from one party, no statutory legal age of consent required, child abuse is condoned (if bishop involved), child abuse is not considered a criminal activity so no need to investigate/report. With respect to the “Sacrament of marriage”, Card. Danneels’ position is that the “church” has never opposed the fact that there should exist a sort of “marriage” between homosexuals’.

What the above demonstrates is that Cardinal Danneels not only considers the “right” of individuals engaging in “intrinsically disordered” behavior to have their activities sanctioned by the Catholic Church, but that this sanctioning falls in the category of the “sacramental marriage”.

And to finish up this topic on the “sacrament of same-sex marriage”, Damian Thompson observes that:

No other cardinal holds this batty view.

But that’s not to say that no other “religion” holds this batty view.

One other “religion” that does hold this “batty” view, i.e. that individuals who engage in “intrinsically disordered” behavior should have the right to formalize their “relationship” by “ecclesiastical authorities” is none other than the Satanists.

According to the national spokesman for the Satanic Temple, the following is part of their “belief system”: (see here)

He added that gay “marriage” is a Satanic “sacrament.”

Here is how “Lucien Greaves” expounds on the Satanist’s “religious” beliefs:

“Lucien Greaves” told Detroit’s Metro Times that he would like to help women avoid complying with pro-life laws by saying abortion restrictions violate their Satanic religious beliefs. He added that gay “marriage” is a Satanic “sacrament.”

Therefore, the question then arises, how is it that a Catholic cardinal, the former head of the Belgian Episcopate Conference and the head of the Satanic Temple would both consider the “intrinsically disordered” behavior as being akin to a “sacrament”?

Let’s start with the easy part, i.e. the Satanists.

According to Catholic doctrine (see here), Satan is the father of lies. We also know that Satan is a fallen angel, who sinned by desiring to be “as God”. Here is a more detailed explanation:

The whole Church and each one of her children are beset by dangers, the fire of persecution, the enervation of ease, the dangers of wealth and of poverty, heresies and errors of opposite characters, rationalism and superstition, fanaticism and indifference. It would be bad enough if all these forces were acting apart and without any definite purpose, but the perils of the situation are incalculably increased when all may be organized and directed by vigilant and hostile intelligences.

Well, those forces are surely “organizing and directing” in the natural realm.

So what we can infer from the above passage is that Satan is a “hostile intelligence” who is working to promote perils in the world and the weakness of the flesh.

Therefore, if Satan is a hostile intelligent being who is working to undermine the children of the Church to promote perils and by promoting the weakness of the flesh, and we know that which Satan is promoting is not what God intended and not what the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught, then it must follow that the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE of the work of Satan can be considered to be the following: (see here)

This study compared prevalence rates of most common sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in heterosexual and homosexual men who made respectively 12,201 and 5324 visits to an STD clinic over 18 months. Overall, homosexual men were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely than heterosexual men to have gonorrhea (30.31% vs. 19.83%), early syphilis (1.08% vs. 0.34%) and anal warts (2.90% vs. 0.26%) but less likely to have nongonococcal urethritis (NGU) (14.63% vs. 36.40%, p < 0.001), herpes genitalis (0.93% vs. 3.65%, p < 0.001), pediculosis pubis (4.30% vs. 5.35%, p < 0.005), scabies (0.42% vs. 0.76%, p < 0.02), and genital warts (1.68% vs. 6.69%, p < 0.001). In most cases the differences in rates remained significant (p < 0.05) when corrected for age and race. It is speculated that higher rates of gonorrhea and syphilis result from a larger mean number of sexual contacts, more potential sites of infection, and more hidden and asymptomatic disease, while the lower rates of the other STD result from a lesser susceptibility of anal mucosa to the causative agent(s) of NGU, herpes genitalis, and venereal warts or from a lack of pubic apposition (pediculosis pubis).

So from the above OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, one can easily infer why the Satanists would not only be actively promoting this sort of “intrinsically disordered” behavior, but also why they would consider behavior that creates this type of human misery derived from the “weakness of the flesh” as one of their “sacraments”.

But what about Cardinal Danneels and why would he share the same position with the Satanists, i.e that “intrinsically disordered” behavior, behavior that creates this type of human misery derived from the “weakness of the flesh”, should be considered an “ecclesiastical sacrament”?

The easy answer: IDEOLOGY.

A secondary motivation: ECUMENISM?

I will leave you, dear reader with this thought, and pick up this topic tomorrow.

Advertisements