Is Archbishop Burke directing his Archdiocese towards tradition?

[AndreasAngelopolitanus]

I have the distinct impression that you have misinterpreted me...

The St Louis Riverfront Times is the type of rag with ads in the back of it for erotic services with pornographic pictures to go with the ads. It has a very strong bias against anything Catholic. This so-called newspaper is hardly a source I would rely upon when discussing a Catholic Archbishop.

 

Although I have never held this newspaper in my hands, I have read similar descriptions about it.  I did see a link on their website for something of an "adult" nature, so I'm not surprised.  Nevertheless, I put forth the notion that the newspaper has an anti-Catholic bias.  At least, that's what I was intimating with:

 

An "agenda" maybe?  

 

...perhaps you didn't grasp my meaning?

 

 

I direct your attention to other threads of fisheaters.com to see how reliable wikipedia is.

 

Again, I don't think you grasped my meaning.

 

That source of sound information (i.e., Wikipedia )

 

I know full-well how Wikipedia's credibility has gone down the tubes... hence the "rolling eyes" emoticon; i.e., sarcasm.  Clear now?

 

Nevertheless, after reading that Wiki entry I tried to ascertain the status of the Franciscan Servants of Jesus.  So far, the only thing I found was the Vocations page link I posted... which has a dead link for the FSJ.

 

Feel free to search on your own...

 

 

Can you cite a credible unbiased news source?

 

A credible and unbiased news source? Hmmm... I don't know if such a thing exists.

 

But I'll play along... a source for "what," exactly?  I'm not sure what you're asking me for? 

[Dilexisti]

Quote:

 

It's like a man who undergoes vacectomy (a mutiliation) and until he has it reversed, he is in the state of sin

That's nonsense. He should try to get it medically fixed again, but if it cannot be reversed in any way, he is in no state of sin at all after he has received absolution for the mortal sin of contraception by vasectomy. I do not know exact moral teachings...

Neither do I know the exact moral teachings, but before you cry out Nonsense! you should have first sought out information about this surgical procedure.

Vasectomy should not be considered contraception - it is sterilization, and should be regarded as permanent. If you think you might change your mind later, or are not totally sure you want to be sterilized, you should think about different methods of birth control. Reversal with restoration of fertility is possible, but becomes less likely as the years go on.

Q. What factors affect the success rates of a vasectomy reversal?  What if I change my mind in years to come? Is it reversible?

A. Success of a vasectomy reversal depends upon several factors:

    * Surgeon experience
    * Length of time since the vasectomy
    * Anatomical factors

      Since microsurgical skills are different than those utilized during other surgical procedures, the surgeon performing the vasectomy reversal should have considerable experience with these techniques.

      In general, success rates following vasectomy reversal depend upon the time interval since vasectomy.

As for the moral consequences, the priest can retain the sin and withhold absolution -- or demand that, since the procedure is not reversible (if it's that the case), then he should live a life of the celibate.  Perhaps he should go to a N.O. priest?

[Dilexisti]

Nevertheless, this transsexual does not and cannot be part of the religious life.  

This was the statement I was referring to when I asked whether you were a canon lawyer or how you can sit in judgment of Archbishop Burke when you dont know the full story.

Wait a minute, I already stated that I haven't referred to the archbishop at all (read what I wrote).  You don't have to be a canonist to determine a moral question such as changing one's sex, or attaching to a transvestite lifestyle.  If that's considered judging this person who prefers to be what he/she is or isn't, then so be it.  If you think I'm judging him as to where he is going, I'm not.  Please try not to read between the lines.

[JLeigh]

As for the moral consequences, the priest can retain the sin and withhold absolution -- or demand that, since the procedure is not reversible (if it's that the case), then he should live a life of the celibate. Perhaps he should go to a N.O. priest?

You are wrong.
 
From the SSPX.org:
 

The question of reversal frequently arises, especially in the cases of couples who have become traditional after having had such a sterilization procedure performed. Fortunately, it is frequently possible to reverse such sterilization procedures. The success of such procedures will depend upon the methods originally used, and upon the time that has passed since the original operation. A simple ligation (e.g., of the fallopian tube or of the vas deferens) can be repaired. However, the tubes can be destroyed in the procedure, so that reversal is much more difficult. The passage of ten or more years makes the success rate markedly lower, particular with vasectomy reversal, on account of the slow down in sperm production which is the consequence of the vasectomy, and of the build up of antibodies against the sperm, due to blowout of the epididymis.

Clearly, however, there is only one way to remedy the defect caused by sterilization, only one means to make restitution for the offense caused to Almighty God; it is the reversal of the procedure. Any Catholic couple that is still of child-bearing age, who would maintain that they are sorry for having the procedure done, but would refuse to have it reversed, would be manifestly guilty of hypocrisy, and would have no firm purpose of amendment. This is why the confessor will necessarily impose as a condition to the granting of absolution that the penitent accept to have the reversal of the sterilization performed, if it is at all possible. If the urologist or the gynecologist insists that it is not possible to reverse the sterilization, or if he maintains that the chances of success in this particular case are extremely low, then the couple is no longer bound in conscience to have the reversal done. Since reversal procedures are expensive and generally not covered by health insurance, it often happens that a couple does not have the funds for a reversal procedure. They should do all in their power to borrow or save up the funds to have the reversal done, but if this truly is not possible and for as long as it is not possible, then they are not bound to do what they cannot do.

Can a couple, of whom one is sterilized, request and render the marriage debt? If it is through no fault of their own that the reversal cannot be done, or if they have the intention to have the reversal performed as soon as it is possible, then it is permissible for both parties to request and render the marriage debt, after having accomplished a suitable penance and made reparation for any scandal that they have caused. A guilty party who would refuse to have the reversal procedure performed (presuming that it is possible), would lose his right to request the marriage debt, and would have to be refused absolution if he did.

However, it often happens that an innocent party never consented to his or her spouse’s sterilization procedure. Again Pope Pius XI gives us the principle to know what to do:

"Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin" (ibid, p. 30).

Consequently, it is permissible for the innocent party to request or render the marriage debt to his or her sterilized spouse, in order that the secondary purposes of marriage be fulfilled, namely mutual help and affection and the calming of the concupiscence.

A further objection is made that the vasectomized man is technically permanently impotent, being unable to provide sperm, and that consequently he cannot enter marriage and has no right to the marriage act if he is married, since he will never be able to fully accomplish it. This was the opinion of the older moral theologians, but theologians from the first half of the 20th century taught that the marriage act is substantially complete even without true sperm, since the other seminal fluids are present and suffice for the accomplishment of the secondary end of marriage (Bouscaren & Ellis, Canon Law, 1946, p.470). This opinion was confirmed by decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith dated May 13, 1977. Consequently, if a reversal procedure should prove impossible, the vasectomized man does not lose the right to the marriage debt. 

[Dilexisti]

You are wrong.
 
From the SSPX.org:
 

Does this apply to the "transgendered," since that is actually the issue or topic discussed.  I brought up the paradigm of vasectomy (perhaps a case of apples and oranges but it still falls under morality) since I presumed the far fetched ability for reversal applies.  Can a man transgendered to a woman reverse the procedure, and if not, what would be the disposition of this person being reconciled to the Church?  

[HMiS]

Vasectomy and the will to amend it and restore genital functions, are enough to have marital intercourse again, Dilexisti. I was right, even according to strict traditional theology standards! Deo gratias.
 
This does not apply to transgender mutilation. Someone who is mutilated to resemble another sex will never become that other sex and he (she in case of a woman becoming "male") must live a life of chastity (or in a normal marital situation which might prove impossible due to the psychological disease of transsexualism which probably also produced an affectional disorder towards the opposite sex in sexual feeling). They certainly cannot live in a nuns' house. And they have to be denied entrance into a male monastery due to scandal given and the fact that they have the danger of being homosexuals and thus seducing male monks.

[batteddy]

And they have to be denied entrance into a male monastery due to scandal given and the fact that they have the danger of being homosexuals and thus seducing male monks.

 
I agree. But it begs the question; are monks who are attracted enough to transexuals to let themselves be seduced by one, healthy enough for religious life either?
 
I think out of the two (male religious life or female religious life)...female is probably safer for Male-to-Female transexuals. As you said, they probably aren't attracted to women, and its not like they can rape anyone anymore (whereas in a house of men, they could BE raped). Though I agree we probably shouldn't allow either.
 

(or in a normal marital situation which might prove impossible due to the psychological disease of transsexualism which probably also produced an affectional disorder towards the opposite sex in sexual feeling).

 
Hmm...
 
How about this: Would you be okay with a male-to-female transexual marrying a female-to-male transexual? They'd be a sterile couple, but obviously their intent is not contraceptive. Then we'd know that we had one female and one male no matter how you look at it, and each could potentially be attracted to the other. What if we even said they couldn't adopt kids (and obviously they couldnt have their own)?

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

How did this thread get so derailed?

[Robert]

 How did this thread get so derailed? Easy; at the mention of Abp. Burke, some one comes running in (perhaps unwittingly) with article from a left-wing liberal pro-homo rag so that the Archbishop's good judgement may be placed in doubt.

Whoever reads the full story of this sorrowful situation will understand Burke's decision was correct. There are a handful of traditionalists of extreme bent (Fr. Moderator) who cannot recognize a good man and faithful shepherd, so it would seem.

[Dilexisti]

Vasectomy and the will to amend it and restore genital functions, are enough to have marital intercourse again, Dilexisti. I was right, even according to strict traditional theology standards! Deo gratias.
 
This does not apply to transgender mutilation. Someone who is mutilated to resemble another sex will never become that other sex and he (she in case of a woman becoming "male") must live a life of chastity (or in a normal marital situation which might prove impossible due to the psychological disease of transsexualism which probably also produced an affectional disorder towards the opposite sex in sexual feeling). They certainly cannot live in a nuns' house. And they have to be denied entrance into a male monastery due to scandal given and the fact that they have the danger of being homosexuals and thus seducing male monks.

HMiS, I concede.   I can always take it when I am told I am wrong.  But Charity first.  We are all equal in our wisdom -- especially the lack of it. I have always and will always abide by Church teaching.  There many things taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium that I and all of us are not well versed in and perhaps will take a lifetime to undertake if we try to do it on my own.  Having said that, I therefore rely on the keen wisdom and perspective of others -- as well I hope to be able as well to impart whatever knowledge I have.  Christ told the Apostles (John 16:12)  I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.  All that has to be known is with us now, but we have to be shown by those more learned (those who uphold the true Faith and impart it to us -- SSPX, FSSP, ICK, et al.).

I have always wondered therefore how incomplete must be the faith of those who are not Catholic, or even those Catholics who do not have the traditional faith.

How did this thread get so derailed?

That seems to be part and parcel of all types of discussion -- every ground tends to be covered  under one umbrella.  We probably just have to live with it.  As we see in the discussions, every logical fallacy in the book is committed (non sequitors, begging the question, strawmen, especially ad hominems, etc.).  Only a few can say they are not guilty of these.