Domenico Bettinelli looks at the proposed document by the USCCB regarding the “Church’s posture on homosexuality.”
I think his concerns about the document are well justified. He says "While the proposal itself includes stuff that sounds right, there is enough equivocation to sink it at the pier before it even launches." Considering their history with documents like Always our children I think skepticism is appropriate.
“For this reason, baptism of children adopted by such couples presents a pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the church does not refuse the sacrament of baptism to these children, but there must be a well-founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion.”
How much hope could you possibly have that children brought up by people so obviously in rejection of a basic moral teaching would be brought up in the fullness of the Catholic faith? In fact, what does “brought up in the Catholic religion” mean? Is there some minimum standard? That’s certainly a can of worms because there are plenty of heterosexual couples for whom the same questions can be asked.
Just how likely is a homosexual couple to teach children that active homosexuality is gravely sinful? Or for that matter cohabitation couples teaching about the sin of fornication? This goes way beyond a founded-hope into wishful thinking.
In other USCCB related news.
The U.S. bishops will vote to establish norms for hymns at Mass during their annual November meeting in Baltimore, November 13-16.
The new norms, which will require a two-thirds vote by the bishops and subsequent recognitio by the Holy See, are to ensure that liturgical songs will be doctrinally correct, based in the scriptural and liturgical texts and relatively fixed.
The norms are part of a new “Directory for Music and the Liturgy for Use in the Dioceses in the United States of America.” The directory responds to a recommendation of Liturgiam authenticam, the fifth Vatican instruction on correct implementation of liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council.
The recommended norms are here and they look pretty good. The USSCB site also says
The document said that the large number of liturgical songs that exist in the United States have benefited the liturgy, but also said that “a certain stable core of liturgical songs might well serve as exemplary and stabilizing factor.”
I hope the author of that statement went to confession after writing it. Large number? If this was true there would be no needs for these new norms.
The diocesan bishops are not binding themselves to any norms by law, but, as chief liturgists of their particular dioceses, are voting to be individually responsible for the songs sung at Mass. This is the status quo. Publishers will be bound to include an approved list of songs in their hymnals. This is a positive judgment and sets a certain standard for judgment. But it is not enough to effect change.
What? The USCCB is is being irresponsible and evasive about it’s duty to evangelize? I don’t believe it!
Oh, wait, yes, I do.
In light of reported budget cuts, perhaps the Conference could combine the 2 topics.
Now that would be an interesting document.
“Publishers will be bound to include an approved list of songs in their hymnals.”
They can’t be. Publishers aren’t bound by Church guidelines. Now, if dioceses were to ban specific hymnals that didn’t meet these guidelines, I’d be interested…
I just don’t see churches giving up their precious OCP anytime in the future. When did they really care about liturgical guidelines anyway?
Perhaps I’m too cynical for my own good.
If this means that “Let Us Break Bread Together on Our Knees” will be missing from our hymnals, I’m happy.
Sorry. It doesn’t exclude anything!
Specific norms state that
1. The approval of liturgical songs is reserved to the Diocesan Bishop in whose diocese an individual song is published.
Great – we’re screwed, at least until 2008 when Abp. Kelly goes away.
Sorry, but the biships agreeing to norms is a load of hooey! They set norms in writing but always seem to end with something akin to “…but individual bishops can decide to do things differently if they so choose…” so why bother? They got together to decide the norms about kneeling—and there are still churches with and without kneelers, still churches kneeling and not kneeling after the consecration….so why did they bother meeting and ‘deciding’ what they would ‘all’ do? Ditto with the hand holding during the Our Father! Same thing, no doubt, will happen with these liturgical hymn changes. It seems to be a lot of hot air.
A juicy point — unmarried parents, or adoptive gay parents, won’t teach their children that the church condemns their unions.
Society, in the past, was the one who did the condemning of such unions, and many children carried the taint of “illegitimacy” or bastardy.
I saw a wedding ceremony in France immediately followed by the baptism of the couple’s child. Not a single eyebrow was raised.
I guess society and the church as well are accepting premarital cohabitation and gay unions.
In the past priest had to be rigid guardians of marriage and they had a very disappoving attitude to unmarried couples or to gay couples, but it seems to me that this is changing. Many priests today are happy to bless such couples, informally.
I predict that the huge exodus of priests who wanted to marry back in the 1960s will be matched by a huge exodus of priests who want to marry other men, as soon as gay marriage becomes legal.
проститутки лесная интим орел взрослые проститутки на выезд москва гродно индивидуалки Прститутки новосибирска
большие груди толстые бляди
познакомиться с мужчиной проституткой жирные и толстые бляди и проститутки проститутки москвы за 1000 рублей познакомиться с трансексуалкой в твери камышинские шлюхи
анкеты проституток из усть-лабинска
самые дешевые шлюхи киева бляди таганрога индивидуалки г перми секс машина проститутки шлюхи секс в сауне фото где стоят проститутки в ростове