|
作者
|
內容
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/3 下午 01:20:44
|
|
|
今天的社會是有責任為人類的長遠未來作出合理的決定。在這方面﹐我們慶幸有羅馬教廷為我們作出屬於真理的指引。想想我們這一代(西方所說的Generation X)﹐在行為及價值觀上都與以往的很不相同﹐所以我們也特別需要天主的指引﹐否則這一代所帶來的一些行為及價值觀都可能給人類的長遠未來帶來負面的影響。
延續下一代的問題﹐不要說別的“先進”國家或地區﹐就是香港已是出現相關的難題。新一代的出生率明顯十分低落(這問題如何形成﹐及在將來會怎樣發展﹐也跟我們的價值觀大大有關)﹐將來在供養上一代方面會遇到很大的問題。所以“延續下一代”在社會上的確是一個複雜的課題﹐同性戀問題也與這問題有千絲萬縷的關係。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/3 下午 04:14:16
|
|
|
"回看美國聖公會按立同性戀主教一事，普世聖公宗最關心的不是「教會怎可以按立同性戀主教﹖」（是否因為那是地方教會的內部事務﹖還是因為不同地方教會意見紛紜，難有定論﹖），而是「怎樣可以維繫聖公宗的團結合一﹖」事實上，在性倫理上持開放態度的聖公會威廉斯大主教就任該會領袖後，聖公宗便在英國，在加拿大都因着同性戀爭議而出現過重大的爭論，在兩者爭論餘波未了之際，便出現了美國同性戀主教事件。"
Sooner or later, homosexuality, paedophilles, buggery, incest, beatiality, they will ALL be ironed out and treated as EQUAL under the colourful standard of "equality for all".
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2003/9/3 下午 04:19:23
|
|
|
"Under the colourful standard(banner) of equality for all" - this is a very attractive banner, mind you. When legislators like Cyd Ho who knows nothing about ethics and religion could so advocate equality, sooner or later the government will bow to their pressure.
Never mind, those Catholic legislators chose to dry up and stand by to reap the gain. They are so desperately clinging onto their seat in the LegCo to say anything at all on this issue (if they know anything in theology in the first place).
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/3 下午 04:27:48
|
|
|
這些不是會得彩頭的題目,這些自利份子又為何要為梵諦岡的立場出頭?那是真理又怎地?
慢下手,連同志的同情者(可以好多)的票也失去,豈不'偷雞不成掉把米"? 何況,那些同志團體是自家人來的?
今次事件,難道看不出,是天父在考驗這些公教政棍們嗎?
精彩得很呀!
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/3 下午 05:10:13
|
|
|
要天主教議員去維護梵帝崗的立場﹐在西方的民主國家已證明是行不通及失敗的。這些天主教議員們根本不會這樣做﹐有必要的話﹐他們還會為了選票而站出來反對梵帝崗的立場。這是已是見怪不怪。
加拿大總理Jean Chretein高調的聲稱自己是一個good Catholic﹐但卻贊成墮胎合法化﹐他說這是因為不將自己的religious beliefs加在其他人的身上。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/3 下午 05:59:03
|
|
|
非兄說得好!
在鄙人推薦的那本saints and sinner內,正正亦有一篇這樣的真人真事故事,那個美國議員是個italian,常說自己是頂虔誠的天主教徒，卻贊成墮胎．
話說回來，黑手黨員中也真有天主教徒也說不定．說起教父，才會人人想起古良年，而不是奧斯定，ａｑｕｉｎａｓ他們哩．
單看一個 ’公教ｘｘ’，代表不了那人的真正身分和立場．
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/9/3 下午 09:35:47
|
|
|
cecil，
請恕我直言，我覺得你討論此問題時，有「無限上綱」的傾向。
現在是討論同性戀，你把「同性戀」、「戀童僻」、「亂倫」等混在一起談論，對解決問題沒有太大幫助。
或許，你心裡已把上述三類事情定性為罪惡，那麼你要混在一起談論，是可理解的。
只是，對很多人來說，上述三種情況，是截然不同的東西，不能因為「乙」和「丙」不對，就引申到「甲」也不對。
我認為，同性戀的人，不應收養兒童，因為現有的證據，不足夠證明那些兒童的成長沒有受不良影響。
對於繼承遺產、納稅或分配房屋，我贊成透過一個法律手續，確認他們的「長期同伴關係」，讓他們享有異性戀者的權益。由於不能收養兒童，這個「長期同伴關係」不等同「婚姻」。
我這樣說，可能兩面不討好，有點「騎牆派」。但世事，本來就不是「非黑即白」。
Simon
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/4 上午 09:39:36
|
|
|
從務實的角度看,你的提議值得參考.
我的'上綱上線'其實很常見,也是很普遍,在討論好些controversies的時候,更是標準的'港式民主討論調'來了.
可幸教內還有看得見的人!
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/4 下午 01:45:19
|
|
|
「對於繼承遺產、納稅或分配房屋，我贊成透過一個法律手續，確認他們的「長期同伴關係」，讓他們享有異性戀者的權益。」
在這裡的問題是﹕夫婦的繼承遺產､納稅及分配房屋權利是屬於以婚姻為基礎的男女伴侶的。給予同性伴侶這些權利﹐在很大的程度上就等於給予de facto unions (包括homosexual unions)法律上的承認﹐這是羅馬教廷明確反對的。
「我這樣說，可能兩面不討好，有點「騎牆派」。但世事，本來就不是「非黑即白」。」
須知道﹐作為基督徒﹐我們在倫理方面的主張不是要討好任何人﹔而作為天主教徒﹐也不存在在這些問題上“討好”教廷方面的問題﹐因為我們相信天主啟示給我們的才是真理﹐而教宗則是天主在世的代表。
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2003/9/4 下午 03:30:30
|
|
|
"現在是討論同性戀，你把「同性戀」、「戀童僻」、「亂倫」等混在一起談論，對解決問題沒有太大幫助。"
If the discussion is to proceed on a theological, as contrasted with legal or sociological basis, then I DO find the listed acts analogous - they are all sexual disorders in the view of Catholic ethics.
So what is foremost in importance is to identify the issue, rather then pointing fingers without directions or prematurely jumping to criticisms.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/5 上午 10:40:55
|
|
|
"對於繼承遺產、納稅或分配房屋，我贊成透過一個法律手續，確認他們的「長期同伴關係」，讓他們享有異性戀者的權益".
Let us examine the sociological background for these 'arrangements'. The basis is obviously 'familial'. Where a family is comprised of parents and children, the society recognises that there are some automatic arrangements safeguarded by legal means to protect it in the event of bereavement, etc.
What is a 'family' of two homosexuals? Will it has children? Extended to include parents, grandparents, siblings?
I think we need not put the cart before the horse - when it comes to a point that the society "BY AND LARGE" are comprised of homosexuals, only then should we consider that the law be amended to cater for automatic succession, etc.
Otherwise, individual rights and rights pertaining to that individual by his "other" conventional members of his conventional family should still prevail according to exisiting law: like intestacy.
If the homosexual individual wants to name his partner as beneficiary, he can do so by making a will, which will be honoured to the full upon his decease. So I don't see any need to discuss such issue now, let alone amending any law to such effect.
The time just simply isn't ripe yet.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/5 上午 10:47:41
|
|
|
Furthermore, policies like housing are catered for families with children to bring up - the surviving spouses have young ones to take care (that's BY AND LARGE). The basis of the policy is for family upbringing rather than INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
Homosexual groups may be proceeding on a totally erroneous basis when attempting to fight for such - if I have a friend, I should succeed to his public housing - what rationale is this? Should you not earn for it in your own right in the first place?
There are many many sociologically unacceptable issues in this, let alone religious.
In Canada, young children have to receive sex education in homosexuality. Their society is very much different. They seldom have a married family of dad and mom with kids - either the couple are homo, or the parent is a single parent, mom and child only without dad.
Let us not discuss whether such a social model is desirable - this is religious.
As a matter of fact, such situation HASN"T ARISEN in Hong Kong.
Why waste time on such? There are too many other pressing issues already.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/5 上午 10:55:11
|
|
|
Also, there will be conflicting interests in the 'rights' of a homosexual person upon his decease. Under the exisitng order, if he has no children, his 'family members' succeed to his property if he leaves no will.
The recognition is for "FAMILY". If we now twist round to say that the "family" here is the homosexual couple, we need to clash head on with the conventional model of "family".
This is exactly where religion and ethics comes in. That's why, the Church's stance is crucial in matters like this. It goes to the root of humanity. Argument for homosexual families put much emphasis on the individual volition. But as I said already, the individual may choose to dispose of whatever he could in leaving a will. For the social policy to take care of such would involve the balancing of benefits - should the conventional family be favoured? Or the individual's own choice? And even so, when a person passes away, what he leaves behind without a will is some thing that has NOTHING TO DO with the deceased's own wishes already. So why should we bother? What in fact are these people fighting for?
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/5 下午 02:39:18
|
|
|
我會這樣說﹕
夫婦間的繼承遺產､納稅及分配房屋是以男女婚姻為基礎的家庭權利。要將這些權利給予非婚姻的伴侶﹐是衝擊一男一女婚姻制度的第一步——這只是第一步而已。在加拿大﹐有一種叫做common-law partner的玩意兒﹔在法律的定義上﹐common-law partners並不等同婚姻伴侶﹐但卻在很大程度上享有婚姻制度的家庭權利﹐包括領退休金､共同報稅､領養孩子等等。事實上﹐不少common-law partners的權利是被family law所賦予的。這其實是承認common-law partner是家庭組織的模式之一。最初﹐common-law partners只能是男跟女的﹔但其後這種定義受到衝擊﹐1999年上下﹐法院裁定了common-law partners只能是由男女組成是違反人權法﹐於是聯邦及各省政府都將相關法例變更為容許同性的common-law partners。現在﹐給予同性戀全部婚姻地位的法案已被提上了國會的議程——yes, again with the help of the court, as it ruled that restriction against same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
所以﹐我們可以看到給予非婚姻伴侶(包括同性伴侶)家庭權利——即承認他們是一種家庭組織——的本質及危機﹔家庭的定義先被變更為包含非婚姻伴侶﹐這本身已跟梵帝崗的訓導有極大的抵觸﹐也嚴重的改變了家庭的定義﹔然後﹐既然同性伴侶被認定是一種家庭組織﹐那遲早也要給予他們全部婚姻的地位。
梵帝崗在這方面的訓導有深厚的神學基礎。在今天﹐我很驚訝有教友在沒有深切了解下便會公開說不同意Doctrine of the faith的說話。他們竟忽視了﹕一､大公教會是一個的﹐我們要跟梵帝崗共融﹐尤其在faith方面﹔二､如果教友對doctrine有疑問﹐請以純神學的角度出發﹐而不是以平等､人權等世俗價值去批評doctrine.
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2003/9/5 下午 03:32:03
|
|
|
"梵帝崗在這方面的訓導有深厚的神學基礎。在今天﹐我很驚訝有教友在沒有深切了解下便會公開說不同意Doctrine of the faith的說話。他們竟忽視了﹕一､大公教會是一個的﹐我們要跟梵帝崗共融﹐尤其在faith方面﹔二､如果教友對doctrine有疑問﹐請以純神學的角度出發﹐而不是以平等､人權等世俗價值去批評doctrine. "
I have seen some individual pastors said in lay newspapers that the doctrine as set out in KKP in response was inappropriate - it has 'pre-judged' the issue.
Here, I would like to point out - for those who has not been baptised, I would say that there is a slight (but just very slight)possibility that their viewpoint would be pre-judged (even in so saying I have grave reservations. Otherwise, all catechumen classes could be said to 'pre-judge' the students' values on salvation!!!!). As for baptised Catholics, such 'pre-judment' or prejudice would hardly be said to be undesirable, since ALL baptised SHOULD know the doctrine. If they don't it IS THE FAILURE OF THE PASTOR, not the flock.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/5 下午 03:37:20
|
|
|
我對此的反應是 - 即使是牧者本身,有時對這些問題的反映也有著反省不足的地方和時候.
身為信友,每人均有責任成為地鹽世光,所以也不用謙遜了.
我這三年來,已將這分不合時宜的謙遜盡量收藏了.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/9/6 下午 05:19:04
|
|
|
Cecil,
你說：「policies like housing are catered for families with children to bring up - the surviving spouses have young ones to take care (that's BY AND LARGE). The basis of the policy is for family upbringing rather than INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.」
如果公屋政策只為下一代著想，那麼那些沒有生育能力而又沒有孩子的夫婦，應否被踢出公屋？
我猜想，那些同性戀人士其中一項想爭取的，是有被分配二人單位的資格。
Simon
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/9/6 下午 05:29:17
|
|
|
有一段文字，頗有意思，願與大家分享：
金象逵在《新世紀倫理研討》中說：「教會訓導權從來沒有用『不能錯的神恩』定斷倫理課題，這是聖座向記者宣示《人類生命》通諭的官方發言人F.Lambruschini蒙席親口說的，他也說《人類生命》並沒有有用那神恩。」
換句話說，教會對倫理課題的指引，只能說是「極可能」正確，不能說「完全確定」。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2003/9/6 下午 06:31:33
|
|
|
"... however, it will be worthwhile disposing of a commonly raised "red herring". The mere possibility of Humanae Vitae's being an ex cathedra statement is often scornfully dismissed by referring to the fact that Monsignor Ferdinando Lambruschini, the Vatican spokesman who announced the encyclical to the press and the world, said that it was not infallible. As a matter of fact Lambruschini was not authorized to say any such thing, as is evidenced by the fact that this remark was conspicuously omitted from the Osservatore Romano report of his statement the following day." (Living Tradition, No. 43)
西滿也許會對該篇文章感興趣吧？
The Ex-cathedra Status of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/9/6 下午 10:13:59
|
|
|
Edward,
那麼，你是否認為，教會對倫理問題的指導，絕對不會錯呢？
我的看法是，教會「很可能」正確，但不一定正確。
Simon
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/8 下午 12:25:45
|
|
|
那麼,也可以看看別的宗教立場罷.
我倒相信,絕對的真理,是存在的,雖然我們未必可以透視.而絕對的真理,是具普遍性的 - 當世人能看到的時候.
正因為絕大部份時候許多世人不能看到真理,宗教才具有'指標'的作用.
我想說的,是我們不應隨便將聖座的訓導來加上問號 - 先問自己,我是聖人?
即使你是,聖人也可能錯.
標榜跟聖座不同的價值,是
(1.)非常危險;
(2.)誤導成分很高;
(3.)容易浪費時間.
但不是說, 這就是'錯'.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/8 下午 12:34:16
|
|
|
當人以有限的生命和時間去追求真理,首要是發掘真理的面貌,當發現到時(即已相信了,受洗了),就要警醒,看守著真理,而不是隨便去懷疑.
我們的信仰不是xx主義,更不是yy哲學;研究神學,有句說話想大家必會知道的 - 信仰的奧蹟,是不用疑惑;如果疑惑,即不信 - If you do not believe, no one can answer your question. If you believe, no answer is necessary.
那些反其道而行的神學家其實已墮入魔道而不自覺,也未可知嘛.
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/8 下午 01:27:18
|
|
|
Simon君﹐我談不上對神學有什麼認識﹐但也讓我來嘗試答一下你的問題﹔如果說得不對﹐請對神學有研究的弟兄姊妹來指點。首先﹐跟你所說的恰恰相反﹐教會的“不能錯”之權只能用於doctrines of faith or morals。在符合一些特定的條件下﹐教宗或Ecumenical Council可以定義doctrine中的指導為infallible﹐包括倫理的指導方面。
有些人說前任教宗在Humanae vitae中沒有用上不能錯的權。但請看看教宗若望保祿二世在Evangelium vitae所說的這一段﹕
"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred on Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops …. I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of a human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."
一篇文章指出了教宗在這樣說的時候﹐符合應用Papal Infallibility的條件﹐所以“墮胎是grave moral disorder”這一倫理訓導是infallible的。
其次﹐當然並不是所有doctrine都是infallible的﹐但若要求doctrine是infallible我們才信的話﹐那根本
是不合理的。請再看看以下這兩段文字﹕
"...the Congregation’s statement was a very serious exercise of Church authority, and the logic of such criticism would be to demand extraordinary papal declarations on every doctrinal question submitted to the Congregation. This would ultimately reduce the Church to solemnly defining every point of doctrine before it could be taken seriously. It would force the Magisterium into a legalistic mode of operation which is the reverse of Christ’s way of teaching."
"Cardinal Ratzinger has warned that legalistic carping over the teachings of the Magisterium is a symptom of the kind of rationalism now rampant in the West, but which has still not infected the Eastern churches. More important than the concept of infallibility, Ratzinger writes, is that of auctoritatis—authority which is humbly accepted because of what it is, without a constant demand for legal credentials. Such auctoritatis has to be the basic assumption of any community of believers. And auctoritatis cannot be limited to ex cathedra decrees. The living organism of the faith would suffer if reduced to a skeleton of solemn and binding pronouncements."
我所引用的文字﹐全都可以在這篇文章中找到: "what is papal infallibility"
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/9/8 下午 04:19:03
|
|
|
不知大家有沒有去昨天在教區中心的講座﹖講座分別從神學､社會學､醫學及法律方面去解釋教廷的這篇訓導﹔我個人覺得這講座是辦得很成功的﹐很能幫助教友從各方面了解訓導的內容。希望教區會將此次的講座的過程錄製成VCD﹐讓沒有出席的弟兄姊妹也能分享。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2003/9/8 下午 05:03:57
|
|
|
讓我也湊湊熱鬧 - "authority which is humbly accepted because of what it is, without a constant demand for legal credentials. Such auctoritatis has to be the basic assumption of any community of believers. And auctoritatis cannot be limited to ex cathedra decrees. The living organism of the faith would suffer if reduced to a skeleton of solemn and binding pronouncements." -這一段所指,的確是針對了Hans Kelsen的純法律主義'pure theory of law'.這門子東西已經eat away 西方文化一大截，但仍普遍給奉為神明，凌駕耶穌基督之上。
不少信徒也不能分辨這主義下的思維跟信仰怎樣互不相容而囫圇將之吞下,應用到教會訓導上去。
這不又是撒殫的工夫來?
|
