Skip to content

Post no. 81

April 3, 2012

This is too close to 1st April for comfort. But let’s assume it’s true.

It says, in a nutshell, that a homosexual man in a registered domestic partnership was elected by a 67% majority to serve on some parish council. The parish priest refused to accept this. The Cardinal, after meeting the man and his partner, decided that the man was impressive – whatever that may mean – and decided to overrule the parish priest’s decision. The Cardinal said that he acted in the same way that Jesus would have acted. He saw the human being first and foremost, he said.


Jesus was presented with a comparable scenario once (John 8: 3-11) He did not condemn the woman, but he did command her not to sin any more. Also, Jesus can forgive sins. The cardinal can’t – not “out of his own pocket”, at any rate.

Secondly, by accepting the man’s lifestyle, the Cardinal gave the wrong message. We are discussing the homosexual man’s actions here, not the man himself. A homosexual household is just as bad as a heterosexual household where the man and woman are not married. This is clearly not a case of homophobia. A misdemeanour is a misdemeanour is a misdemeanour.

It wasn’t my intention to go all holy on you. (I myself was guilty of one of these “crimes” – now it’s up to you to figure out which 😉 ) I pulled this out of the bag because

a) it’s credible

b) it highlights the dangers of “individual” interpretation of anything


From → The Gripevine

  1. What are the church’s rules for who can serve on a parish council?

    • As with most other Church “things” one would have to be baptised and live a life that is at least seen to be in accordance with Christ’s teachings as interpreted by the Catholic Church.

      Then, depending on the particular function you’d have specific requirements.

      • Does the Cardinal have the authority to overrule such a thing?

      • The Church cannot change any of her teachings which, actually, were never really hers to begin with.
        Issues such as this, which pertain to the “running” of the Church as a corporation, as it were, are not written in stone and can be chopped and changed according to the circumstances. Nothing radical here, neither.

        Up to a few years ago, for instance, you couldn’t receive Communion in your hands in Malta. Then it became optional. Then, following the swine flu scare, it became mandatory.

        A Cardinal is a “prince” of the church – which means that he wields considerable “administrative” power. This doesn’t mean he can change things on a whim, either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: