Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

Sr. Pat on Sexual Ethics (part 4)

July 14th, 2010, Promulgated by Ben Anderson

I’ll not comment as much before this clip as the discussion w/in the actual session is starting to liven up. We start with a question from Christopher, who is an active commenter to the blog and forum.

I don’t know much about Charles Curran except that he’s a dissenter and that I prayed for him on Sunday. Perhaps someone in the comments can enlighten us or provide a link.

Other interesting notes from a friend who helped me transcribe this series

30:00 – Sr. Pat looks around for other questions but BDA (bull-dog-apologist) is only one holding hand up, “Question from someone else who hasn’t spoken?” LOL

If you’re still depressed, go pray a decade of the Sorrowful Mysteries and remember that our suffering is minor compared to that of Our Lady and Our Lord!

Tags: , ,

|

11 Responses to “Sr. Pat on Sexual Ethics (part 4)”

  1. avatar Nerina says:

    Re: Charles Curran – priest in good standing in the Rochester diocese and an area “favorite” preaching dissent especially regarding Sexual Morality. He was a major dissenter on Humanae Vitae. Eventually he was removed from his teaching position at Catholic University of America and now teaches at Southern Methodist University. See here for all the details:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curran_%28theologian%29

  2. avatar Mike says:

    Ben,

    Here’s another pertinent article on Charles Curran (with Hans Kung thrown in as a bonus).

  3. avatar Dr. K says:

    Fr. Mike Bausch of Transfiguration is enamored with Curran. Check out the following from his bulletin a few weeks ago:

  4. avatar benanderson says:

    At that time Jesus exclaimed:
    “I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
    for although you have hidden these things
    from the wise and the learned
    you have revealed them to the childlike.”

  5. avatar benanderson says:

    from the article Mike sent

    Fr Curran himself who wrote: “Our quick, purposeful response supported by so many theologians, accomplished its purpose. The day after the encyclical was promulgated, Catholics could read in the morning papers about their right to dissent and the fact that in theory Catholics could disagree with the papal teaching.”

    wow – that’s pretty creepy

  6. avatar Richard says:

    I have one solution to the TOT issue. Have 7 or 8 people go. Then, she can’t exclude questions, simply because one person seems to ask a lot of them. It’s too bad she seems a bit defensive about her stance. No wonder they want a “Controled” situation.

  7. avatar Nerina says:

    Love this part from the bulletin:

    “Through his many books and works as a teacher, he has made a whole generation of Protestants more aware of Catholic moral traditions and he has introduced Catholic scholars to a more ecumenical approach.” That’s *one* way of defining dissent. He has certainly made protestants aware of HIS version of Catholic moral traditions. I bet they mirror the “questions” proposed in Sr. Schoelles’ talk.

    Yes, Ben, Fr. Curran is very proud of his seditious actions. You should have seen how he was received at the talk I went to. He was treated to almost cult-like devotion.

  8. avatar Christopher says:

    She said, the “sources of theology are the Bible, Tradition, and people around us”. Where is the magisterial teaching?

    Does anyone understand the question on the “communities” and “global society”? I am having a hard time comprehending what the softball question “What do you think it mean?” was referred to. I may be coming at this from a slanted view but it seems very much like they were trying to infer that culture should take a more prominent role in delegating slight variances between sexual morals?

    Maybe I’m way off base, perhaps someone anonymous could explain to me where she was going with this?

    From the sound of the question and answer, it sounds like the direction might have been going to discuss what we could learn from the schism in the Anglican church with regards to sexual morals.

    To use Ben’s favorite verb, here is how the Bible and early church teachers “jive” (lol, kidding Ben) with denominations and schism.

    Jn 10:16 “there shall be one fold and one shepherd”
    Eph 4:3-6 “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father”
    Rom 15:5 “God grant you to think in harmony with one another”
    Jn 17: 17-23 “I pray that they may be one, as we are one”
    1 Cor 12:13 – “in one spirit we are baptized into one body”
    Rom 12:5 – “we, though many, are one body in Christ”
    Eph 4:4 – “one body, one Spirit, called to one hope”
    Col 3:15 – “the peace into which you were called in one body”

    Some early Church writers:
    St. Cyprian (c.250 AD) “God is one and Christ is one, and one is His Church, and the faith is one, and His people welded together by the glue of concord into a solid unity of body. Unity cannot be rent asunder, nor can be the one body of the Church, through the division of its structure, be divided into separate pieces.” On the Unity of the Church, 23

    Tertullian (197 AD) “We are a society with a single religious feeling, a single unity of discipline, a single bond of hope.” Apology 39,1.

    St. Hillary (4th c.) “In the Scriptures our people are shown to be made one; so that just as many grains collected into one and ground and mingled together, make one loaf, so in Christ, who is the heavenly Bread, we know there is one body, in which our whole company joined and united” Treastise, 62,13.

    Now while the speaker and question may have not been intending that we should split (which I don’t think they were), we should always re-enforce unity using just some of the passages above. The hierarchical structure of our church is the only way to maintain unity that I know of unless someone can show me otherwise.

    There is a good review of the state of the Anglican church here from Fr. Longenecker who is an Anglican convert so he frequently writes on them.
    http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/07/muddle.html

    Peace be to you!

  9. avatar Richard says:

    The BID deficiency with their “theology” is that they rely on the experience and emotions of people to determine what’s right. Nowhere is there any thought of reason guiding the emotions. What they are implying is an anything goes philosophy for our emotions concerning life’s experiences can run the gauntlet. If you want to use your emorions and past experiences to guid you, you better discern what experiences and what emor=tions can help of hurt.

  10. avatar Richard says:

    She says a source of human reference is the human experience. But she NEVER says which human experience. She is implying anything goes and we are like God.

  11. avatar Eliza10 says:

    Ben, good for you for questioning her, and persisting with what you were saying so as not to be interrupted. EWxcellent.

    Am I mistaken or did more than once, while answering an uncomfortable question, did Shoelles make diverting comments about food or patrons?

    Shoelles “technique” is to say what the church teaches, in a perfunctory, quiet monotone way, and then get drama/interest/variety/volume in her voice when asking her dissident QUESTIONS, implying with her tone that this is where all the intelligent thought is.

    Whoever this James Hanigan is, his books don’t seem to be read! Check Amazon. Four books and only ONE REVIEW! And that apparently written by a grade school child… The books on Theology of the Body (many of them) have some intelligent reviews that give you an idea of what it in the books. There is even a book about lives transformed by Theology of the Body [Freedom:… by Pinto, et al]. (I have that book and its excellent).


-Return to main page-