Rorate Caeli

Portuguese Bishop: OK with men who "live" with other men;
for artificial contraception

"Progressive" Bishops attack again. Let the Belgian collapse be a warning: there is no innocence or naivety in anything that "Progressive" Bishops do or say. And, particularly when they are so nonchalant and shameless about certain matters, the signs of grave problems in their dioceses and nations are clear. Rome should act before grave things come out, and not express sympathy for the hierarchy when the result of their behavior leads to an inevitable humiliation of the hierarchy.

Honestly: is there anything more ridiculous than a shameless old man who thinks he is "hip"?

[Excerpts of the interview granted by the Bishop for the Armed Forces (Military Ordinariate) of Portugal, Januário Torgal Ferreira, to Portuguese website i-online and published yesterday. (Tip: JSarto)]

The Church is usually a little inflexible in such matters... [of culture]

What I do think, then, is that there is a group of people, and I say it respectfully, who have become perfectly illiterate, filled with guilt, malice, sensuality, almost castrated. Whoever knows the world, and loves it, looks at it in a clean and happy way. And I give thanks to life, and to the educators I had, for looking to the world in a guiltless and uninhibited way. It is as when people tell me: "Oh...[sic] you go to the beach and to the pool in trunks." And then? What is the problem? I am a citizen like everyone else!

But people have told you that?

Not directly. But people see me in the beach. Let us imagine the following situation: "So, you were there lying down, next to a topless lady?" And then? What is the matter? Only a pervert goes to the beach and thinks about these things. Malice is often in the way one faces the world. And there you see where this conversation has led...[sic] [laughter]

...
[On the recently-approved Portuguese law extending the concept of marriage to same-sex couples.]
...
To me, independently of the content - I do not agree with the notion of [same-sex] marriage -, I do agree with and accept a man who lives with a man, and a woman who lives with a woman.

And this does not shock you?

Obviously not. The attitude I must keep is one of respectability.
...

The Church welcomes homosexuals, in fact. As long as they do not practice their homosexuality...

It is certain that a homosexual couple is not theoretical, isn't it? And affections are translated through this practice, through this psycho-affective fusion of mysterious unity that is the human being.[*]

The Church must understand this?

She must understand it. But not sanctify it - because love is, for the Church, a sacrament, matrimony. This is a very complex matter, which must be very well understood. And no institution may say that it accepts it or does not accept it. Each case is a [particular] case.

...

But you must surely have received complaints for speaking about things you shouldn't have...

Yes. From people who disagree with my ideas. I receive so many nasty letters! One day, I will publish them all! I don't care, naturally, that there are positions different from my own. What upsets me is that people distort what I defend or decide to use insult and gratuitous aggression.

And from within the Church?

I have been warned once or twice.

Regarding what?

Family planning, for instance. But I still keep thinking what I thought before, and to say what I said before. Which proves that, from my part, that is not any hostility at all. There is a great communion, and love for the Church, and I am convinced, by my pastoral experience, that that which I defend will soon be a reality. I do not accept the dogmatism of natural methods. People often do not wish to be realistic. But what matters most is that there continues to be a great dialogue, because truth is never possessed in full.
[* RORATE note: one of the most euphemistic definitions of sodomy we have ever read.] Bishop J.T.Ferreira, 72, was named by Pope John Paul II Auxiliary Bishop for the Armed Forces, in 1989, and Bishop for the Armed Forces, in 2001.

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Forty years ago such interview would have been considered a very bad joke.

Prof. Basto said...

You highlighted the - trully sickening - answer in which this bishop says that he is ok with sodomy, but the last answer also contains several disturbing points. Endorsement of artificial family planning, rejection of the definitive pronouncements of the magisterium, rejection of Church authority, etc.

This is astonishing. The bishop is clearly a heretic. And he creates scandal. What is the appropriate penalty here: excomunication coupled with dismissal from the clerical state, right?

That's going to happen tomorrow, right? If it takes more than 48 hours to have this man thrown out of the clerical state than that will show, yet again, another gigantic failiure of discipline on the part of the Supreme Authority of the Church.

Anonymous said...

We'll see indeed the disciplinary measures taken by cardinal Re and cardinal Levada and if this openly dissenting bishop is summoned to Rome for an explanation.

My guess is that nothing will happen and the dissenter will continue to spread heresies without any reaction at all.

We can see how deeply corrupt is the episcopate after the end of John Paul II pontificate.
There are very few signs of significant changes since 2005 re the appointments in Europe, Asia and South America.

Alsaticus

RR said...

This bit about it being okay for people of the same sex to live together is going to be a gray area that liberals will exploit without holding back.

The Magisterium usually does a good job of erasing gray areas (this coming from a former Anglican for whom "Anglican fudge" was virtually a literary genre). This is going to be a tough one, because two straight guys who are roommates--no problem with that of course. That's how college is set up. But what about two celibate persons who have same-sex attractions who call themselves friends? And does the Church have to make ridiculous distinctions like living in separate rooms, no affectionate touching, sitting in separate chairs when watching TV? Ok if they are bisexual and promise not to do anything or categorically barred unless 100% straight?

At any rate, just be prepared. This full-bore theological assault is just getting started.

Gideon Ertner said...

"But I still keep thinking what I thought before, and to say what I said before. Which proves that, from my part, that is not any hostility at all."

Huh? So he's saying "I keep attacking the Church, which proves that I love her."

Reason, requiescat in pace.

Rick DeLano said...

To the catacombs? I think Professor Basto is about right. Forty eight hours should be quite adequate, if we still have a hierarchy committed to defending the sheep from wolves like this. Wait...better make it a week. Rome will be busy defending and expressing solidarity with that noble and great-hearted Daneels for a while.............

Gideon Ertner said...

"And does the Church have to make ridiculous distinctions like living in separate rooms, no affectionate touching, sitting in separate chairs when watching TV?"

Of course not. The Church does not regulate who can live with whom. In fact, the Church permits people who have conducted an invalid marriage to live together, though of course she exhorts them not to have sexual relations and not receive Communion in places where it would cause scandal.

Living together with another person is not in itself objectively sinful. It becomes so if one does it in order to perform illicit sexual acts with that person, or in spite of knowing that it presents a near and persistent occasion to sin. All Catholics must take care to avoid near occasions to sin; this goes for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and also for persons of the same sex who live together but are heterosexual (but who can potentially be carried away by inordinate passions notwithstanding).

Chaste live-in homosexual partnerships are a theoretical possibility, even if it would seldom work out in practice. But something tells me His Excellency is driving at more than that.

Anonymous said...

Addresses for denouncing heresy:
http://www.catholicparents.org/vaticanaddresses.html

William a sinner. Most unlearned. The Least of all the faithful… said...

The Church is to teach and lead men out of sin… not adapt to the sin and accept it and tolerate it... I am calling for Catholics to be Catholics fully and to not pick and choose. If they wish to pick and choose, there are over 40,000 protestant sects that will greet them and except their error and call it right… If a priest of God makes excuses for homosexuality or men and women living in sin or having sex outside the marriage bond and celebrates such things, then this Priest or Bishop has much to answer for when he sits in front of the Throne of Almighty God Where the Great Judge, the Lamb, who sits on the Throne of David in Glory This Day will Judge... They are charged with the care of men and women’s souls and if they lead them into heresy and sin, then I pray for God’s Mercy on them on that terrible and great day…

St. Michael, in the Holy Name of Jesus, Protect The Holy Church from the Wolves Who Wish To Destroy...

Anonymous said...

"Living together with another person is not in itself objectively sinful."

It is scandalous and therefore sinful. Particularily in modern times it will be interpreted in one way.

Anonymous said...

Lob/ volley. The ball is in Benedict's court (again). Will he return serve?

Anonymous said...

Well, the situation is not so different in Argentina. Look at this note in a leftist newspaper: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/suplementos/soy/1-1437-2010-06-18.html
The signants, inside that ecumenic group, include, for example, the entity that unites all the religious congregations in the country...

Knight of Malta said...

These modernist Rahnerians are the direct fruit of the Second Vatican Council, which allowed the "Smoke of Satan" (i.e. modernism) to come seeping into the Church. As Msgr. Gherardini so aptly put it:


"In all truth Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II's hermeneutic...The new rite of Holy Mass practically silenced the nature of sacrifice making of it an occasion for gathering together the people of God...the eucharistic gathering was given the mere sense of sharing a meal together...After having said all of this about Vatican II, if someone were to ask me if, in the final analysis, the modernist corruption had hidden itself within the Council documents themselves, and if the Fathers themselves were more or less infected, I would have to respond both yes and no...But yes as well, because not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism--this can be seen above all in GS." [Vatican Council II, A Much Needed Discussion, pg. 92]

http://hospitallers.blogspot.com/2010/06/ecumenical-vatican-council-ii-much.html

Joe B said...

If a better job of screening seminary applicants were done, this would not be a significant problem. The verifiably holier types would consistently enter before homosexuals and fill up the available positions. That's where the emphasis must go.
.
.
.
Scuse me. I have to exhale.

John McFarland said...

And there's no state of emergency, some say, since for the asking we can have our little Trad House in the Benedictine Zoological Gardens.

If we hang tough in the negotiations, I'm sure we can even get the Vatican to put the Trad House at the far end of the Gardens from the Flake House where Bishop Ferreira resides.

Of course, the only thing flakey about His Excellency is that he comes right out and says what a much larger part of the hierarchy practices -- and preaches.

We need to stop wringing our hands, and start joining them even more determinedly in prayer.

The Holy Father is not going to lift a finger about this or even worse things unless and until he begins to cooperate with his grace of state; and that this is a very tall order indeed.

But with God, all things are possible.

Anonymous said...

What an appalling, scandalous bishop. Defrock him now!

Jordanes said...

But people see me in the beach. Let us imagine the following situation: "So, you were there lying down, next to a topless lady?" And then? What is the matter? Only a pervert goes to the beach and thinks about these things.

Even if this man were not actively minimising and excusing homosexuality, these comments by themselves send up plenty of red flags. He claims that only a perverted man would notice and be affected by and/or disturbed by a naked woman. Those words show that he is himself a pervert, because he believes the normal response of a man to a woman's nudity is perverted. Only a homosexual man, or a man who was at any rate sexually perverted in some way, would say such a thing. That would explain his dismissal or downplaying of the Church's teaching on human sexuality -- his pernicious beliefs about homosexuality apparently are not disinterested, but would be a function of his own perversion.

Anonymous said...

How sad. We must pray for all of our bishops and priests.

Melchior Cano said...

Though we want desperately to see the light at the end of this long, painful Vatican II tunnel, the reality is that each day brings fresh justification for the stand of the Society of St. Pius X.

Anonymous said...

In cases such as this, what is needed is not to ask for a resignation or even to dismiss the Bishop. An old-fashioned deposition is required in order to show the public that this sort of thing is not to be tolerated or even contemplated. A deposition is a dismissal *with* an added condemnation of the subject. There is a ceremony (which will no doubt be omitted since this man would never attend it) in which the Bishop is stripped of his vestments one by one and then cast out of the Church.

That is the sort of signal that is needed in cases such as this. But such signals will only come when it is too late anyway--if they ever come.

P.K.T.P.

. said...

Don't think all portuguese bishops are like this one - well, I can't believe they are.

John L said...

I don't suppose that the Pope will do anything about this, althought I would be glad to be proved wrong. May I however make a point in defence or at least extenuation of his inactivity in cases of this sort? It is simply that he has one of the most stressful jobs in the world, and that he is 83 years old. There are actually physical limitations on the capacity of a man that age to act decisively and keep on top of things. It seems to me that the Holy Father does not aspire to be able to control the total chaos in the church by imposing his will on rebels, a task which would be beyond the capacities of most men in their prime. Instead he has a limited list of things he thinks essential and will exert himself to get done. So far these have been the motu proprio, lifting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, and acting against Maciel and the Legionaries. These have already surpassed the achievements of John Paul II, and he has shown great courage and determination in them. He also does not have any strong and competent supporters at all in the Vatican to do any of the heavy lifting for him, and the capacity of a ruler to rule without such supporters is very limited regardless of their forcefulness. I think he has one more big move to make, which is the reconciliation of the SSPX, and that he will do it.

Gideon Ertner said...

I like him saying he has been given a couple of "warnings". Well, what was said at these warnings? Was it demanded of him that he amend his ways and publicly renounce his error or be dismissed - or was he merely told to keep his convictions to himself and not rock the boat?

Gideon Ertner said...

Though we want desperately to see the light at the end of this long, painful Vatican II tunnel...

Of course there's light at the end of the tunnel. It's called the Beatific Vision, remember??

JSarto said...

The Catholic Church in Portugal is indeed in a dire state of necessity…
About Bishop Januário Torgal Ferreira, in this interview that he gave to the portuguese public television (RTP), those who understand Portuguese can listen him defending women ordination, too…

http://casadesarto.blogspot.com/2009/04/eu-respeito-o-magisterio-da-igreja.html

Gideon Ertner said...

'"Living together with another person is not in itself objectively sinful."

'It is scandalous and therefore sinful.'


Hence its not being sinful in itself, but only contingently.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, very perceptive post. I am amazed at how certain people seem to think that if one is a healthy male he must perforce be a pervert.

On the matter of living together: if they live together *as a couple* they are, AFAIK, excluded from communion *because they give scandal, irrespective of sexual intercourse happening*.

Mundabor

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, very perceptive post. I am amazed at how certain people seem to think that if one is a healthy male he must perforce be a pervert.

It should not be left unobserved, that strictly speaking this reaction is not "health" but a reflection of the concupiscence of lapsed human nature. Concupiscence is not in itself a sin, of course, but it is improper or irrational desire all the same. Formally, the Bishop's assertion is therefore correct - only a fallen man goes to the beach and thinks about these things.

AM

Anonymous said...

I would like to see the whole interview. I think the only way for the bishops to defend the sanctity of marriage is to open it to gay couples as well.

Anonymous said...

What ever happened to the "Dogma of the Faith always being preserved" in Portugal?

Cuise the Groove.

Jordanes said...

It should not be left unobserved, that strictly speaking this reaction is not "health" but a reflection of the concupiscence of lapsed human nature. Concupiscence is not in itself a sin, of course, but it is improper or irrational desire all the same. Formally, the Bishop's assertion is therefore correct - only a fallen man goes to the beach and thinks about these things.

Yes, the normal male's response to the sight of a naked woman is indeed affected by concupiscence. But no, this fellow's assertion is incorrect, and dreadfully so -- as of your equation of concupiscence with sexual perversion. He did not say "only a fallen man goes to the beach and thinks about these things," but "only a pervert." But concupiscence is not sexual perversion, and being fallen or having to struggle against concupiscence does not mean we are all sexual perverts. A normal, mentally and emotionally and spiritually healthy man will be concerned that a naked woman to whom he is not married not be near him (and not be seen near him). If you and the bishop are right, then male saints throughout history have all been sexual perverts.

Sexual perversions are psycho-sexual disorders (like men with fetishes, or those who experience sexual attraction to very young children, or to persons of their own sex, or who abuse animals). But contrary to what you and this fellow believe, a man experiencing, or being accessible to, sexual attraction to a woman is not a pervert. In the law of nature, the male and female are ordered by God towards the ends of mutual complementing their God-given strengths and gifts that are distinctive to their sex, and towards the potential ends of matrimony and conjugal union. Concupiscence is our tendency or inclination towards sin, but is not of itself inordinate or irrational desire or lust -- that is, however, how concupiscence manifests itself sexually.

It's extremely troubling that this fellow shows no concern for Christian virtue and the traditional spiritual disciplines and safeguards regarding human sexuality, but makes light of them.

Mundabor said...

AM,
this is not what the bishop said. He said a *pervert*, not a *fallen man*.
All men are fallen, only very few are perverts.

Anonymous said...

What is "AFAIK"?

Mundabor said...

"It's extremely troubling that this fellow shows no concern for Christian virtue and the traditional spiritual disciplines and safeguards regarding human sexuality, but makes light of them".

Like all liberals, he wants to make of every man a pervert in order to justify every perversion.

Jordanes said...

AFAIK = "As far as I know"

I think the only way for the bishops to defend the sanctity of marriage is to open it to gay couples as well.

It's not up to the bishops, or to any man -- no one has the authority, or even the ability, to "open" marriage to homosexual couples. You may as well attempt to "defend the sanctity of the human race" by "opening" it to dogs, or defend the sanctity of the female sex by opening it to males, or uphold the dignity of people having two arms by chopping off everyone's right arms.

Cola di Cola said...

All of this bishop's stupid comments will mean nothing when Sharia law is in effect.(Maybe it is God's will).

And you wonder why the Moslems hate the decadent West.

LeonG said...

We can thank the appointments of successive post-conciliar liberal modernist papacies for bishops such as these. There are hundreds of them.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes : you are right indeed that the bishop did not say "fallen man" but "pervert" and in so saying wrongly identified concupiscence with a corruption of human nature. Also I was wrong in equivocating the two and misquoting the Bishop.

But where pervert is certainly the wrong word, normal healthy male is also somewhat, having a distinct tone of self-congratulation. What you said is of course better, namely that a "spiritually healthy man will be concerned...", and that out of a humble recognition of concupiscence within himself.

That is all the point I wanted to make.

AM

Paul Haley said...

It is certain that a homosexual couple is not theoretical, isn't it? And affections are translated through this practice, through this psycho-affective fusion of mysterious unity that is the human being.[*]

From the modernist school of psychobabble we have this drivel. How in the world did this man ever become a bishop?

LeonG said...

"How in the world did this man ever become a bishop?"

Liberal modernist popes appointed him.

Anonymous said...

But remember, it's those radical Traditionalists and ESPECIALLY those SSPX crazies that we must be afraid of!