jump to navigation

Uruguayan primate on abortion, sodo-marriage: “Let’s just move on…” February 21, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Tradition, Virtue.

I agree with Rorate, and have for a very, very long time.  Many viewpoints long held on Rorate but in the past dismissed by ostensibly “cooler minds” have not only been demonstrated to have been correct, but have come to be accepted by some who once held some hostility to those very beliefs posited on Rorate.  Such as this post, here, which I wish I could get to but do not have time today (plus, I always feel bad when I rip off another blog too much).

A case in point: Rorate has long maintained that the crisis in the Faith is, to a very large degree, a crisis of bishops.  I wholeheartedly agree. While we cannot just try to foist off all the problems in the Church on the bishops and do nothing ourselves to rectify matters, there is no other single area in the Church where the collapse in faith, duty, and zeal has been more apparent or more damaging.  That is one reason why this blog has long been willing to openly report on and question the actions of prelates around the world.

Some say that to do so invites scandal, or that pinning so much of the blame for the destruction in the Church could lead people to refuse the personal responsibility we all collectively bear for the crisis in the Faith (through our own hardness of heart and coldness of faith).  I say balderdash to both: it is not those who report on scandal who cause scandal – it is those who create the scandal in the first place!  On the other side of the coin, I have admitted on numerous occasions that we get the leadership we deserve, so we all bear some collective shame for the current dreary state of leadership.  If we want better leadership, we need to pray, fast, and do penance to that end and lead a truly sanctified life.

Having said that, there are men in high positions who simply refuse to cooperate with Grace, who have gone over to the world and its nightmarish errors, who are more concerned with being a political operative than a pastor of souls.  If this dire situation is to change, these men must be called to account.

A case in point.  The new Archbishop of Montevideo and, essentially, primate of Uruguay, was interviewed recently in a local newspaper, wherein he declared that abortion and sodo-marriage having been declared legal in Uruguay, the fight is over and it’s time to move on (interview question in italics, I add emphasis):

-The government approved last year the legalization of abortion. What is your opinion?
-I think we have to move on [mirar para adelantelit. “look ahead”] because the law is already approved.And here what is important is a Church that goes out to heal the wounds of society, that keeps defending the life of the unborn, from the first moment of conception until natural death. [In Uruguay, a realistic likelihood exists of being able to roll this law back.  And this is the response?  In spite of the words about “conception to natural death,” this bishop has just signaled total surrender on this issue.]
What do you think of the law that approved homosexual marriage?
The same, it has been approved, we have to move on  [mirar para adelantelit. “look ahead”]. I am against this law, but I believe that what matters is human dignity more than the sexual condition. [This is extremely easy to interpret as chucking doctrine in order to avoid having to take politically difficult stands.] I defend the family, formed by man and woman, defend that these families be generous in the transmission of life, and at the same time feel an enormous respect for the persons who form a homosexual couple. [So you “defend” one, but have “enormous respect” for the other, in situations of sin so dire it was viewed as a complete abomination for thousands of years?] It is an error to call it marriage, I believe it is an error for adoption to be allowed to them, but I understand that legal solutions be found[So, basically, you won’t oppose homosexualists raising children up to mimick them, as so much data indicates children raised by homosexuals tend to do]
What a nightmare.  I’m out of time, but this a total train wreck. Note the careful aping of the language of Pope Francis.  If abortion didn’t exist in the first place, there wouldn’t be so many wounds to heal, no?

This is a shepherd?  This is zeal for souls?  This man believes in eternal death or eternal life?  Has he ever heard it said “I will spit you out of my mouth?”

Thanks, Hans Urs.  You’ve created generations of complete indifferentists.


1. Scott W - February 21, 2014

The problem seems to be that many in the Church limit the Church’s calling to only that of a “field hospital for sinners”. That’s certainly a critical role, but it is also the “pillar and bulwark of truth”and the “City of God” amongst the living wherein they can find fellowship and a little society of believers to raise children and find relief from the City of Man. I’m sure there are other key functions and images of the Church that I am forgetting (a civilizer of nations and muse of the arts).

It just seems like madness to put people in a situation where they are sure to be harmed (amongst the false freedoms of the sexual revolution), do nothing about it, and then when they are wounded you rush in and tend to those who ask for it. How about an ounce of prevention since sin is more grievous than any of us can imagine?

2. Maggie - February 21, 2014

I like Scott’s comment.

And then there is this:

“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
St. Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, AD 325 attributed.

3. St. Benedict's Thistle - February 21, 2014

And this: the fact that it is mighty convenient to “respect” homosexual couples when those in power at the Vatican most likely include numerous of the ‘gay lobby’. Politics, politics, politics.

Excellent post. I especially liked the distinction between causing a scandal and reporting about it. So many Catholics do not understand the difference.

4. Baseballmom - February 22, 2014

I am unclear on his concept of “respect.” Does he also respect pedophiles? Adulterers? Fornicators? What happened to “love the sinner, hate the sin.” What is this ridiculous “respect” garbage?

5. c matt - February 24, 2014

I might have been ok with the “mirar para adelante” comment. As you point out, it means “to look ahead” not really “move on.” That could be interpreted as a call to form strategy in light of the new reality of the law being passed (fight it, reverse it, etc. – or as Capt. Taggart might say “never give up, never surrender”). But I have a more difficult time with the “human dignity matters more than sexual condition” as if the two are not inextricably intertwined, and “respect persons who form a homosexual couple” – not even sure what that means. I suppose charitable orthodox twist can be put on it, but I would have to be a master yogi contortionist to pull it off.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: