Might Francis's "Adulterous Persons" receiving Communion be a Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit for Francis Catholics?
The sin of sodomy is built around sexual temptation. One chooses to
either engage in the act or to resist it. It’s that simple. To speak of
“homosexual persons” is to reduce the individual to identity with sin
and sinful tendencies. We may as well speak of “murderous persons,” or
“cannibalistic persons,” “or pedophilic persons,” or “necrophilic
persons” or “bestiphilic persons.” Would it be appropriate for prelates
of the Church to discuss whether or not men who notoriously engage in
sexual activities with their pets should be integrated into the Catholic
community, or if they should be permitted to receive Holy Communion
with their abused pet in their arms? - Lepanto Institute website
"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption.
One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion,
and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not
essential or not important for one's life. This is a state of spiritual
ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to
escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the
divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission
of sins." - Pope John Paul II in DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM On the Holy Spirit in the Life
Francis on January 13 said his synod's pastoral method of teaching has as his "main protagonist.. the Holy Spirit":
“Synodality is not even the search for majority consensus, this is done by a parliament, as is done in politics. It is not a plan, a program to be implemented.”
“No. It is a style to be adopted, in which the main protagonist is the Holy Spirit. [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250094/pope-francis-synodality-is-not-a-search-for-majority-consensus]
Vox explained that Francis's so-called "Holy Spirit" method appears to be a "disingenuous workaround":
Douthat characterizes Francis’s approach to divorced-and-remarried [adulterous] couples and the Eucharist as something of a disingenuous workaround. For Douthat, Francis is trying to have it both ways — offering conservatives “the formal teaching of the church” while giving liberals “a permission slip for pastoral experiments.”
[...]
one that essentially licensed a division between formal church teaching and parish practice. “[By] issuing such an ambiguous document,” Douthat writes, “Pope Francis had pushed Catholicism toward ... devolution, toward a geographical and cultural variation in what his church would teach.” [https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/5/17189564/ross-douthat-francis-pope-conservative-catholic-amoris-laetitita]
Fr. John Hunwicke seems to possibly imply that this Francis method may be associated with "Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit" in his "The Holy Spirit" post:
I was very glad to read the recent text delivered by PF in which he encouraged the disregarding of ancient traditions, as the Holy Spirit leads us on. I will not criticise his words, because, as you would expect, Father Zed has already done one of his own very thorough demolition job.
I welcomed PF's words because they provided yet more material for my thesis that this sort of talk, and these sorts of claims, are at the very heart of the Error of Begoglianism; already condemned as it is in the decrees about the Roman Pontificate in the documents of the First Vatican Council. And I am afraid that I might be betrayed into letting my weakness for satirical rhetoric so run away with me that I might make a joke which counted as Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit. [http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-holy-spirit.html]Might it be "Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit" for Francis and his synods to discuss or teach that Communion is for adulterers? This brings us to the Lepanto Institute website's question for Francis, If the "Synod Fathers Discuss Homosexuality. What about Necrophilia and Bestiality?":
Our prelates are playing an extremely dangerous game with the Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord.
Catholics around the world are sitting on pins and needles while bishops and cardinals in Rome play word games with Catholic moral teaching. The supreme irony here is that while the faithful are desperately looking for clearly defined teaching from the supreme authority of the Church, the faithful are being told in press conferences that authority should be deferred to local ordinaries to make decisions on how to deal with issues like homosexuality and divorce.
The most contentious issues being discussed at this synod, as indicated in last year’s Midterm Report, are:
- Positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation
- Caring for broken families (separated couples, the divorced who have not remarried, the divorced and remarried)
- Providing for homosexual persons
All of this is being discussed, of course, under the guise of “mercy.”
And on the one year anniversary of last year’s midterm report, Benedictine Jeremias Schröder, the archabbot president of the Congregation of Sant’Ottilia suggested that the social acceptance of homosexuality was culturally diverse, and so therefore bishops conferences should be allowed to “formulate pastoral responses that are in tune with what can be preached and announced and lived in a different context.”
Let’s try to put this all in perspective. Here, on the ground level, prelates and laity are all scratching their heads about how to molly-coddle adulterers and sodomites while simultaneously maintaining the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church. We’ll start with the question of “homosexual persons.”
First of all, there is no such thing as a “homosexual person.” The inerrant Word of God in the Book of Genesis says, “God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27). Again, Genesis says, “This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created human beings, he made them in the likeness of God; he created them male and female.” (Genesis 5:1-2) Our Blessed Lord, in the Gospel of Mark, quoted this line from Genesis, explaining the PURPOSE for which man was created male and female, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Mark 10:6-8) Matthew tells of this same account in the 19th chapter of his Gospel.
Mankind was created by God with two, and ONLY two genders. Male and female. These genders were created with the purpose of marriage. As such, homosexual acts and tendencies are completely contrary to the created order, so there is no such thing as a “homosexual person.”
The sin of sodomy is built around sexual temptation. One chooses to
either engage in the act or to resist it. It’s that simple. To speak of
“homosexual persons” is to reduce the individual to identity with sin
and sinful tendencies. We may as well speak of “murderous persons,” or
“cannibalistic persons,” “or pedophilic persons,” or “necrophilic
persons” or “bestiphilic persons.” Would it be appropriate for prelates
of the Church to discuss whether or not men who notoriously engage in
sexual activities with their pets should be integrated into the Catholic
community, or if they should be permitted to receive Holy Communion
with their abused pet in their arms? [https://lepantoin.org/synod-fathers-discuss-homosexuality-what-about-necrophilia-and-bestiality/]
If Francis is going to speak of "adulterous persons" receiving Communion, why shouldn't “murderous persons” or “cannibalistic persons” “or pedophilic persons” or “necrophilic persons” or “bestiphilic persons” receive Communion?
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.