Translated From https://infovaticana.com/

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://infovaticana.com/2019/12/18/comision-biblica-no-se-deben-condenar-las-uniones-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖes/&xid=17259,1500004,15700022,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700271,15700283



[font=&quot,serif]by Carlos Esteban [/font][font=&quot,serif]|[/font] [font=&quot,serif]December 18, 2019[/font]

At the request of the Pope, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the highest technical ecclesial organism in interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, has issued a report on the anthropological vision in the Bible in which the subject of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is addressed.

[font=&quot,serif]“A new and more adequate understanding of the human person imposes a radical reservation on the exclusive valuation of the heterosɛҳuąƖ union in favor of an analogous reception of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions,” can be read in the study commissioned by His Holiness to Pontifical Biblical Commission on the anthropological vision of the Bible, which includes extensive attention to the issue of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, whose expression conceives as "a legitimate and dignified expression of the human being."[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]Will 2020 be the year of the great revision of the Catholic conception of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships? In principle, it does not seem necessary to be especially suspicious to see it probable. Although this report does not cease to be that, a report, without any doctrinal or pastoral value until the Pope makes any decision in this regard, the fact adds up to dozens of indications throughout the last year that persistently point in that direction.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]The issue is twofold: on the one hand, the very concept of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity that, although in no case would it have a moral assessment in itself, does determine the doctrinal response to its specific expressions. Until now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church considers ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ orientation as “objectively disorderly,” within the framework of a conception of sex aimed at both reproduction - co-creative cooperation with God by man - and a complementarity that will be image and figure of the relationship of Christ with his Church. If, on the other hand, a “new and more adequate understanding of the human person” is imposed, to cite the words of the report, and it is concluded, in the manner of some German bishops, that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a condition as 'adequate' as heterosɛҳuąƖity , the conclusions for moral doctrine are potentially seismic.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]Because that's the other 'leg': ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships. In the traditional doctrine, which dates back to before the Incarnation itself, the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship was not only categorically condemned, but also included the four types of sin that “claim Yahweh's revenge”. And to ask, as the Pontifical Commission seems to do, to "welcome" analogously to heterosɛҳuąƖ unions, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs seem to us absolutely incompatible with this vision.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]The 'brake' to a change in this regard, even from favorable and progressive positions, was the repeated and unequivocal condemnation of this type of relationship in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the Letters of St. Paul.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]Apparently, the Pontifical Commission hints at some kind of misunderstanding in this conception when it argues that "according to some", "the Bible says little or nothing about this type of erotic relationship, which therefore should not be condemned, also because often unduly It is confused with other aberrant sɛҳuąƖ behaviors. ”[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]And it concludes with a language that already sounds to us: “The exegetical examination conducted on texts of the Old and New Testaments has made appear elements that are considered by an assessment of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, in its ethical implications. Certain formulations of the biblical authors, such as the Levitical disciplinary directives, require an intelligent interpretation that safeguards the values that the sacred text tries to promote, therefore, literally repeating what also brings cultural traits of that time. Pastoral attention will be required, particularly with regard to individual persons, to carry out that service of good that the Church must assume in its mission for men. ”[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]It was all a matter of the "cultural features of that time", probably, and we have been in a tragic mistake for two thousand years.[/font][/color]

 

Devils.

Slouching towards sedevacantism yet?  

If these guys are Catholic, then I am a monkey's uncle.  Heck, very few Prots would recognize them as Christian.

German "Bishops" Conference declared ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relations to be "normal":
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/german-bishops-commit-to-newly-assessing-catholic-doctrine-on-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-and-sɛҳuąƖ-morality-82866

“The sɛҳuąƖ preference of man expresses itself in puberty and assumes a hetero- or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ orientation,” Berlin’s Archbishop Heiner Koch asserted in a statement released by the bishops’ conference.

“Both belong to the normal forms of sɛҳuąƖ predisposition, which cannot or should not be changed with the help of a specific socialization”.

Koch went on to say that “developments” made possible by Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis’ exhortation of marriage and the family, the Church must consider the latest scientific and theological insights on human sɛҳuąƖity.

We know why they're saying these things.  Upwards of 95% of the Novus Ordo hierarchy are likely themselves sodomites.

Serious question since I tried to find other sources for this story and didn't find any:  Are we sure infovaticana.com isn't a Spanish parody website?

Novus Ordo Watch says that the website in question is wrong:

https://novusordowatch.org/2019/12/post-that-disappeared-biblical-commission/

Apparently, the quotes from the Biblical Commission were summarizing what the dissenters say.

What I find disturbing is that this article is entirely credible!!!!

I heard a Man got 15 years for tearing down a gαy flag flying over a assembly of God church in Idaho was sentenced
to 15 years in Prison.
A Murderer would get less time.
Shows in a conservative state the gαy agenda is moving along in which all will be forced to accept or society will find
a way to punish you if you object.

Translated From https://infovaticana.com/

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://infovaticana.com/2019/12/18/comision-biblica-no-se-deben-condenar-las-uniones-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖes/&xid=17259,1500004,15700022,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700271,15700283



[font=&quot,serif]by Carlos Esteban [/font][font=&quot,serif]|[/font] [font=&quot,serif]December 18, 2019[/font]

At the request of the Pope, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the highest technical ecclesial organism in interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, has issued a report on the anthropological vision in the Bible in which the subject of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is addressed.

[font=&quot,serif]“A new and more adequate understanding of the human person imposes a radical reservation on the exclusive valuation of the heterosɛҳuąƖ union in favor of an analogous reception of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions,” can be read in the study commissioned by His Holiness to Pontifical Biblical Commission on the anthropological vision of the Bible, which includes extensive attention to the issue of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, whose expression conceives as "a legitimate and dignified expression of the human being."[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]Will 2020 be the year of the great revision of the Catholic conception of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships? In principle, it does not seem necessary to be especially suspicious to see it probable. Although this report does not cease to be that, a report, without any doctrinal or pastoral value until the Pope makes any decision in this regard, the fact adds up to dozens of indications throughout the last year that persistently point in that direction.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]The issue is twofold: on the one hand, the very concept of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity that, although in no case would it have a moral assessment in itself, does determine the doctrinal response to its specific expressions. Until now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church considers ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ orientation as “objectively disorderly,” within the framework of a conception of sex aimed at both reproduction - co-creative cooperation with God by man - and a complementarity that will be image and figure of the relationship of Christ with his Church. If, on the other hand, a “new and more adequate understanding of the human person” is imposed, to cite the words of the report, and it is concluded, in the manner of some German bishops, that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a condition as 'adequate' as heterosɛҳuąƖity , the conclusions for moral doctrine are potentially seismic.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]Because that's the other 'leg': ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships. In the traditional doctrine, which dates back to before the Incarnation itself, the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship was not only categorically condemned, but also included the four types of sin that “claim Yahweh's revenge”. And to ask, as the Pontifical Commission seems to do, to "welcome" analogously to heterosɛҳuąƖ unions, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs seem to us absolutely incompatible with this vision.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]The 'brake' to a change in this regard, even from favorable and progressive positions, was the repeated and unequivocal condemnation of this type of relationship in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the Letters of St. Paul.[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]Apparently, the Pontifical Commission hints at some kind of misunderstanding in this conception when it argues that "according to some", "the Bible says little or nothing about this type of erotic relationship, which therefore should not be condemned, also because often unduly It is confused with other aberrant sɛҳuąƖ behaviors. ”[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]And it concludes with a language that already sounds to us: “The exegetical examination conducted on texts of the Old and New Testaments has made appear elements that are considered by an assessment of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, in its ethical implications. Certain formulations of the biblical authors, such as the Levitical disciplinary directives, require an intelligent interpretation that safeguards the values that the sacred text tries to promote, therefore, literally repeating what also brings cultural traits of that time. Pastoral attention will be required, particularly with regard to individual persons, to carry out that service of good that the Church must assume in its mission for men. ”[/font][/color]

[font=&quot,serif]It was all a matter of the "cultural features of that time", probably, and we have been in a tragic mistake for two thousand years.[/font][/color]

 

What part of the word 'abomination" did they not understand?