|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ideological Christianity is an illness which pushes people away: pope
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think he's right: "Pope Francis called ideological Christianity “an illness” that doesn’t serve Jesus Christ. Instead, it “frightens” people and pushes them away from religion."
Link. I imagine there are other links.
quote:
Pope Francis attacked “savage capitalism” ... against a system that worships money.... Pope also criticized conservative Catholics for focusing so much on abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraception.... put the brakes on hating gay people, saying that we shouldn’t judge or marginalize them.
Do you find this leader's focus on people versus ideology attractive?
[ 10. January 2014, 21:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
I think the Pope may have something here .
Any religion whose ideology focus's on anything but the message of Christs, I write as a Christian , but I am sure adherents to other faiths could plug in their focus's as well. But to focus on capitalism, abortion, etc at the expense of focusing on the message of faith is preverting faith. And that is to be avoided at all case.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He can refuse me communion any time he likes.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
He's saying things that have been said around the dinner table in Catholic homes for a while, at least where I live.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
Ideological religion is the variety of religion so effectively demolished by Richard Dawkins and his fellow evangelical atheists.
A new focus on the uncertainty and doubt involved in the Christian faith is to be welcomed. Let us have the humility to admit that all of us really know or understand very little about God.
And perhaps we will hear less criticism of woolly minded Anglicans who, according to their critics, believe anything or nothing. It is good that at least one church does not ask you to believe three impossible things before breakfast before welcoming you as a member.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Yes! What Gwalchmai says.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Catholicism would be such a rich, positive, life-affirming force for change in the world if we could just get rid of the ideologists. Pope Francis's vision of Catholicism would require a huge change of life and outlook from most of us RC's (getting us out of our complacency), but that change would be dictated by the heart, not by doctrine.
That Pope is a Godsend.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I am skeptical about this. I suppose many Catholics will be heartened by the Pope's various pronouncements; and some disheartened. Will it actually appeal to anybody else? Well, yes, possibly, but it strikes me as trying to reverse an oil tanker which is heading for the rocks. You might manage it, but then what?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Francis certainly says some great things and is attracting positive comments from the non-Christian parts of the web I visit.
That said, I think he is above all PR-savvy in a way his predecessors weren't. That photo-op with the Renault 4 for instance. True humility would have been getting the car without it getting into the media.
If his contemporary approach is for real, then great. If it includes spin, not so good ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
He's right - and as mentioned above its a good sound-bite.
I think he is being genuine as far as he goes - but his cause would be served even better if he stopped nonsense such as non-churchgoing RCs promising to bring up children as catholics in a mixed marriage, refusal to recognise other orders, refusal of communion to such as confirmed CofEs, etc.
The sad thing is that the very people most guilty of what he talks about (a) either won't think it applies to them, or (b) will see it as weakness.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
And yet, at the same time Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, authoritatively reaffirms the Church's position on refusing communion to "remarried" Catholics. (It pleases me mightily, I must say, to see ++Müller explicitly stating that the false praxis of the Orthodox to allow remarriage is a major stumbling block for reunification. For a couple of years now I've stressed that this, rather than the position of the pope or the artificial bullcrap about the "filioque", is the main point of separation from the Orthodox.) And no, ++Müller can hardly be considered a "traditionalist".
I'm wondering if we are getting into a "good cop, bad cop" scenario with the Vatican here... For now, I will just wait for this pope to actually do something of significance, other than being the episcopal equivalent of an ad-libbing performance artist.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
He can refuse me communion any time he likes.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Thank you for that link, Ingo.
While having said above (and elsewhere) that we cannot be certain about God, I do still respect very much the stance of the Catholic Church (my cradle church) on so many matters. This statement from Archbishop Müller is beautiful, in a way. The picture of the ideal Christian marriage--and the concept that there is a promise that in the sacrament of marriage that God will be with you and help and support you--is an inspiring one. Similarly, I also admire the church's respect for the beauty of sexuality on which the prohibition on contraception is based. In an ideal world, the sexual act wouldn't be tampered with by pills or bits of rubber...
BUT. It's not an ideal world. We, and our marriages can't all handle the large families that nature--because we are biological animals as well as souls--provides us with when there's no contraception. (Or the strain of abstinence in the rhythm method). And we all know people who have sincerely married in a church with all the best intentions, who have really tried, and for whom it has gone irrevocably wrong despite all their efforts-- and their prayers. I cannot feel it's right that they should be made to feel they are sinners if they take another chance at happiness.
Also, the article says the church can only base itself upon "the clear teaching of Christ." In one place, Christ says no divorce. In another, He says, no divorce, except in cases of immorality/unchastity--actually the latter is in two different places in Matthew, as the article cites. The article says the exegesis of this second statement is controversial. But why does the Church consider this teaching of Christ any less clear than the first one?
It would seem valid to permit divorce where one partner has been unfaithful.
I'm not meaning to open an enormous can of worms here--we're talking about ideology in general, not in particular, so detailed debate on all this would be a tangent----just responding to Ingo's post.
And I think in itself the article shows that the intransigence
of the Church on this and other matters is just too inhuman, too unyielding, too much based on an ideal rather than the actual world.
The concept that a new couple in an invalid (for the Church) relationship or marriage should nonetheless be cared for pastorally, made to feel loved and welcomed and etc, while not being allowed communion because living in a state of sin, seems to muddy the waters further--if they are such dire sinners, how can they be loved, welcomed, encouraged to participate and all the rest of it? And how does that feel to them--"we're trying to love you pastorally, but of course your relationship is invalid and you are living in sin..."
When I hear the arguments of the Church for her rules, it all seems to make sense in the abstract--and yet.
Not in terms of real life and people I actually know!
Ideological Christianity does push people away. This is why figures like Mother Teresa have been so compelling--though she followed and believed the church, she didn't preach the ideology, but simply (if it were only simple!) acted out of deep love.
And yet, we do need to be reminded that marriage and sexuality are precious. The sexual bond has meaning. A marriage should not be lightly dissolved or easily thrown away.
It's just that surely circumstances do matter, do make a difference, although the Archbishop says the rules must obtain over and above any individual circumstances.
Isn't that where ideology becomes too rigid? Isn't that sort of what jesus meant when the Pharisees were trying to apply the Sabbath laws to him and his disciples who walked through fields picking corn, and he said, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath?
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
You're right. It sends a strong message to the RC clergy (although this might send a stronger one...).
I have come to realise that media-savviness is a part of contemporary life. The big challenge, though, is to make sure that there is substance as well as style. That's much less easily discerned.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
IngoB & Cara
Far from being "beautiful", the statement by Archbishop Muller - in particular the closing statement on Pastoral Care - sum up for many people the "ideological Christianity" that the pope was referring to.
And when the Archbishop refers to "recent documents of the Magisterium" one can safely assume he is referring - at least in part - to pronouncements by the current pope on gays and women priests.
This is not the place to go off on a tangent about the RC church, gays, women, etc, etc.
But it just brought to my mind a wedding I attended (in a professional capacity) some years ago: the groom had had 1 marriage annulled by the church and the bride two. Goodness only knows on what grounds these anulments were made - between them they had 11 children so non-consummation is definitely not in the frame.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Orthodox are just HONEST about allowing remarriage. Divorce under the guise of annulment is still divorce. The RCC is hypocritical as all hell on this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Please note:
Everyone thinks their form of religion is non-ideological including atheists
Everyone is wrong.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
IngoB & Cara
Far from being "beautiful", the statement by Archbishop Muller - in particular the closing statement on Pastoral Care - sum up for many people the "ideological Christianity" that the pope was referring to.
Well yes, that's what I was trying to say at the end of my post--beautiful in a way, when speaking about the ideal sacramental marriage, but demonstrating rigid ideology.
And yes, if it's true, as appears, that annulments are given rather easily, then certainly the Orthodox practice is more honest, and more merciful to human frailties and real situations.
Jengie--so right, we all have ideologies--I think what's at issue in this thread is whether people put the ideology on a pedestal as if it is more important than Christ himself, and his spirit, and the basic overriding commandment to love.
Problem is--if we start judging each other's ideologies, we can end up all pompous and holier-than-thou before we know it!
I do like this Pope's approach but will it mean anything concrete or just a change in emphasis? Even a change in emphasis would be helpful, though.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
BUT. It's not an ideal world.
In an ideal world, Jesus would not have been nailed to a cross, there would never have been any Christian martyrs and the sacrament of reconciliation would be superfluous. I have very little time for this sort of argument. One can validly discuss whether Church policy on the remarried should change. One cannot claim that the problem is that the Church is naively proposing an unachievable ideal. First, proposing ideals for life that can only be followed by bearing a cross, from barely noticeable to crushingly heavy, is the bread and butter of Christianity. Second, if there is one such ideal where the Church can look back on a near unfathomable wealth of experience from massive numbers of people in all places and through all ages trying to live up to tough (Christian) ideals, then it is marriage. There never ever was a time where the Church was naive about this. Heck, Matt 19:10 - the apostles were already struggling with the ideal at the very moment when it was being proposed by Christ, since of course the experience of "marriage" in a wider sense is simply a human universal and not a Christian invention. The idea that somehow the Church just hasn't noticed yet that people may struggle to live with this particular ideal is just complete nonsense.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
The article says the exegesis of this second statement is controversial. But why does the Church consider this teaching of Christ any less clear than the first one? It would seem valid to permit divorce where one partner has been unfaithful.
The exegesis is controversial in our days, because the Anglicans and Protestants mucked about with the orthopraxis. (The Orthodox did too, but they don't really count in this context - the exegetical battle largely has been between the different "Western" factions.) As ++Müller points out: "The Church of the Fathers rejected divorce and remarriage, and did so out of obedience to the Gospel. On this question, the Fathers’ testimony is unanimous." As far as RCism goes, that is really the end of the discussion. If the Church Fathers agree unanimously, then that is an infallible teaching of the Church.
I have defended RC teaching on marriage from scripture for example on this thread, it would be a distraction here. FWIW, I think John Piper's explanation of the "exception clause" makes great sense (he's not a Catholic, BTW).
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Ideological Christianity does push people away. This is why figures like Mother Teresa have been so compelling--though she followed and believed the church, she didn't preach the ideology, but simply (if it were only simple!) acted out of deep love.
Right. So when Mother Teresa condemned abortion in no uncertain terms in for example her Nobel Lecture (1979) and her National Prayer Breakfast Speech (1994), that was a simple act out of deep love. But if others do it, it is ideology that pushes away people.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
A marriage should not be lightly dissolved or easily thrown away.
That's not the point, really. The RC claim is that a sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved. Just like baptism and ordination cannot be undone. The matter simply has passed out of human control and competency into the Divine. The most sincere and best reasons for a dissolution of sacramental marriage and the establishment of another amount exactly to nothing, since they simply are contradicted by the facts of the matter. This is actually important. Nobody is saying that people who divorce and remarry are doing so at a whim, or just fake their love, or whatever. No, it is perfectly possible that their spouse is the devil in human form and that they escaped the hell of their marriage abused and destroyed, whereas their new relationship is of such deep, honest and fulfilling love that it would make Romeo and Juliet envious. And if you feel like adding a dozen children raised in the most exemplary manner, and a virtuous life full of prayer to that, fine. It changes nothing, because these rules are not about what you think, say or do now. They are about what you thought, said and did when you got married. This simply cannot be undone. That's not a comment on how terrible or great thing were and are. The only "quality" under discussion is whether it happened. If it did, then it did, no matter what else.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Isn't that where ideology becomes too rigid? Isn't that sort of what jesus meant when the Pharisees were trying to apply the Sabbath laws to him and his disciples who walked through fields picking corn, and he said, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath?
Jesus corrected Jewish practice in various ways. Some things He loosened, and some things He tightened. In the case of marriage, He explicitly contradicts the provisions for divorce established by Moses himself, not just of the Pharisees, something unheard of otherwise. So why do you celebrate Christ's modifications of Jewish practice in one case, and not in the other?
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Far from being "beautiful", the statement by Archbishop Muller - in particular the closing statement on Pastoral Care - sum up for many people the "ideological Christianity" that the pope was referring to.
True, but for me largely irrelevant. Let the dead bury their own dead. What I really wonder about is whether Pope Francis would agree with this judgement. I still do not really know how to place him.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Orthodox are just HONEST about allowing remarriage. Divorce under the guise of annulment is still divorce. The RCC is hypocritical as all hell on this.
That's an assertion lacking all evidence, of course. And no, I'm not convinced that even the currently catastrophically high numbers of annulments in the USA allows this judgement. First, this is a very recent anomaly, and the RCC cannot be validly judged on just what has occurred in the last few decades. There always have been transient glitches, and this is just a moment on ecclesiastic time scales. Second, these problems do not occur everywhere in the RCC, not even everywhere in the West. Local deviations are nothing new in the Church. Third, this has been in part triggered by the Code of Canon Law of 1983 which has on the subject of marriage traded juridical precision for pastoral inspiration. Basically in the new Canon 1057.2 we have "Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage." to be compared with the old Canon 1081.2 "Consensus matrimonialis est actus voluntatis quo utraque pars tradit et acceptat ius in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum, in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis generationem." ("Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which each party gives and accepts right over the body, perpetual and exclusive, ordered to acts which are themselves suitable for the generation of offspring.") Now, clearly the new canon sounds better. But vague law is invariably bad law. By the old definition, if you understood that marriage was fundamentally about having (baby-making-type) sex with each other, then proper matrimonial consent was juridically established. But who knows what the new definition even means? And how many couples have thought through their relationship in terms of a "covenant" before marrying? "We were madly in love and said yes to whatever the priest was going on about" - proper matrimonial consent, or not?
Final point, we are back to the old problem that "hypocritical" has a proper and a common meaning, and they are not the same. In the proper sense, saying things you do not believe in, I think the RCC cannot be accused of being hypocritical (though individual RC priests might be hypocritical in that way). In the common sense of not doing what you preach, this could be claimed (though see my points above). But of course, that tells us nothing about the truth of what is being preached.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Far from being "beautiful", the statement by Archbishop Muller - in particular the closing statement on Pastoral Care - sum up for many people the "ideological Christianity" that the pope was referring to.
I'm not sure how the RCC could have rules on divorce and re-marriage at all without being 'ideological'. Even if you say that every case is different, if you want some sort of non-arbitrary resolution of different cases, you need to have some sort of consistent principle to say whether a particular re-marriage is permissible in Christian ethics or not.
I don't agree with the RCC rule, but not because it is ideological. Any good rule is ideological - that is, an expression of a principle that has been properly thought through. The fact that the RCC position is ideological is the most defensible thing about it - because of the ideology, it is possible to know what one is signing up for when one marries in the Catholic Church, what the consequences are, and why those consequences follow.
It would be possible to have the
'rule' on re-marriage be "if you can find someone who'll marry you, and a priest happy to perform the ceremony, go for it" and leave it all the individual consciences. I'd be cool with that, personally*. But it would be a total abdication of the RCC's claims to be the ultimate authority on morals and the proper administration of sacraments, and therefore I think it something most unlikely to happen. I don't think the current Pope is proposing that his church should become an ultra-liberal protestant denomination without ideology - I just think he wants his priests and bishops to think a bit more before saying things that might make them sound like arseholes.
(*for reasons having to do with Christian liberty, the necessity of not enabling the abuse of one party to a marriage repudiating their vows while the other party to theirs , and my reading of scripture that there are at lease some cases where a divorced person is freed from a past marriage - all of which reasons, I'm proud to assert, are ideological)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Ideology can be turned into a slippery term. Clearly the Pope means something different to sound doctrine. I'm guessing he's targetting idealogues (classically defined as blindly partisan supporters of an ideology). Ideology in its classical meaning is a neutral term; a system of ideas and ideals. I think we all have at least one of these in our heads, worked out to some greater or lesser extent. Whether or not we are people of faith.
What bothers a lot of people today is blind partisanship. There are these key expressions in Jesus' woes addressed to religious leaders which touch on the distaste very well. These ones, from Matthew 23
quote:
2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."
<snip>
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
It is pretty savage stuff, Matthew 23. It suggests to me that the territory of ideologues is the letter rather than the Spirit, leading them up the garden path and encouraging them to lead others the same way. There is this sense of "missing the point" somehow.
I like this quote from Isaac Asimov which gets to the paradox quite nicely.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" (from "Foundation")
Does a letter-based application of sound doctrine ever get in the way of doing the right thing? Or is this just messy liberalism seeking an excuse to avoid a necessary obedience? YMMV on those questions. But I think this Pope seems willing to explore them.
[ 23. October 2013, 23:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And yet, at the same time Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, authoritatively reaffirms the Church's position on refusing communion to "remarried" Catholics.
The Archbishop is right in affirming the pricipal that the Church cannot , as opposed to will not, change its age old practice that remarried divorcees render themselves excommunicate, but it's perhaps a sign of the future of pastoral care, where he writes:
quote:
Today’s mentality is largely opposed to the Christian understanding of marriage, with regard to its indissolubility and its openness to children. Because many Christians are influenced by this, marriages nowadays are probably invalid more often than they were previously, because there is a lack of desire for marriage in accordance with Catholic teaching, and there is too little socialization within an environment of faith. Therefore assessment of the validity of marriage is important and can help to solve problems.
That many people today lack a Christian understanding of marriage is an understatement. If non-Catholics marry, or if a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, they may be indeed be influenced by today's mentality. From the 1960's, in Western culture, easily available contraception took care of the problem of unwanted pregnacy, antiobiotics took cate of most STD's, and the increasing ease and frequency of divorce meant that nobody had to be bound for life in an unhappy relationship. This has so permeated our culture, that there can be very few Catholic marriages out there.
If someone is betrayed by a spouse who didn't fully understand the vows, or if someone comes to faith later in life, a competant tribunal is likely to find that their original vows were defective. I think this is what the Archbishop was getting at here. Also Pope Francis has indicated that he sees the present system of tribunals as inadequate to deal with the enormous pastoral problem the Catholic Church faces with civil divorce. This must be what he wants to achieve at next year's synod. Some sort of streamlining of this long, drawn out process. This doesn't involve any watering down of doctrine.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The Orthodox are just HONEST about allowing remarriage. Divorce under the guise of annulment is still divorce. The RCC is hypocritical as all hell on this.
While I don't agree with mousethief that the Catholic Church is being hypocritical with its anulment procedure, I do agree that it's hypocritical to criticise the Orthodox Church on the subject of remarriage. If annulment were a stringent procedure, granted only in special cases, then perhaps. But the trend from the Holy Father, even hinted at by the CDF in the Archbishop's letter, is towards making it easier. So the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are both looking for ways to solve the same problem ie how can we sacramentally marry people whose first sacramental marriage went to the dogs?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
From the 1960's, in Western culture, easily available contraception took care of the problem of unwanted pregnacy, antiobiotics took cate of most STD's, and the increasing ease and frequency of divorce meant that nobody had to be bound for life in an unhappy relationship. This has so permeated our culture, that there can be very few Catholic marriages out there.
You are confusing issues here. Whether marriages are lived by proper Catholic standards is a different questions to whether they are (sacramental) marriages in the first place. Quite generally, a good many Catholics do not follow the teachings of the Church in their lives. That does not stop them from being Catholics though, it simply makes them sinful Catholics.
The key question, as I've pointed out above, is one of sufficient matrimonial consent. What must people sign up for minimally for the marriage to be valid? Again, as mentioned above the old (1917) canon was clear, and by its standard I reckon matrimonial consent would not be an issue today any more than it was yesterday: that married couples have sex with each other of the type that can lead to offspring should be obvious to practically all adults. The new (1983) canon sounds grand, but is wide open to interpretation. How do we tell if the couple was considering the establishment of a covenant and whatnot? So what the Church has done is through vague law make claims about lacking matrimonial consent easy. This is a procedural / legal issue, not primarily a sacramental one, and could be fixed by a simple amendment of the canon.
Of course, this would not by itself change behaviour patterns at odds with Catholic marriage among Catholic married couples. But it would basically remove the easy access route to annulment and restore the proper order of the procedural / legal setting to the sacramental reality: the former must serve the latter, not vice versa.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If someone is betrayed by a spouse who didn't fully understand the vows, or if someone comes to faith later in life, a competant tribunal is likely to find that their original vows were defective. ... This must be what he wants to achieve at next year's synod. Some sort of streamlining of this long, drawn out process. This doesn't involve any watering down of doctrine.
I think the first sentences describes the current realities with regrettable accuracy, but you then draw wrong conclusions. Of course it is a problem if "the vows" are not understood in their fullness. But do we require of Catholics to fully understand the Catholic faith in order to be considered Catholics? No, we do not. What has been lost here is a sense of proper perspective, we do not say clearly enough any longer what the fundamental purpose of marriage is in the order of a Catholic life, and hence we cannot say any longer how much understanding of marriage is enough. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Thus if one understands that by taking the marriage vows one grants each other the rights to the sort of activity - sex - that leads to procreation, then one has understood enough for the marriage to be valid. Is that all that can be said about marriage? Hardly! But canon law is not about the fullness of understanding and holiness, it is about setting appropriate boundaries.
Now, if the change will be to maintain the current confusion and merely to streamline the procedure so that annulments can be granted with even less difficulty, then that very much is against the spirit of the doctrine! For the old rule based on procreation made it very difficult indeed to claim that a marriage was just a delusion based on a misunderstanding, whereas this new streamlined procedure would make that very easy. How can that be what Christ intended? Christ did not at all talk about some super-special path to holiness "indissoluble marriage" that an elect few might attempt. He clearly was reforming the typical marriage of everyday people when he revoked the accommodation of Moses that governed them. It was clearly Christ's intention to challenge all potential couples with this. Canon law must not subvert Divine intentions, or it is in itself sinful.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are both looking for ways to solve the same problem ie how can we sacramentally marry people whose first sacramental marriage went to the dogs?
Nope. However, hypocritical - or let's be blunt - sinful the RCC may become in streamlining the annulment procedure, be it until Catholic marriage has all the stability of a soap bubble, this remains a qualitatively different failure to that of the Orthodox Churches. It is one thing to subvert a correct doctrine by sinful procedure, it is another thing to adopt wrong doctrine. There is nothing that stops the RCC from adopting the 1917 canon again, for example, at which point annulments would largely cease without any change of doctrine. The Orthodox simply do not have that option.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Makes me curious whether one who has gotten one of these annulments and has subsequently remarried in the Roman Catholic Church is actually remarried. If marriage is indissoluble, and the annulment was improperly given because of a wonky canon, then it would seem he or she did not validly contract marriage the second time, even if it was all licit.
[ 24. October 2013, 14:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Makes me curious whether one who has gotten one of these annulments and has subsequently remarried in the Roman Catholic Church is actually remarried. If marriage is indissoluble, and the annulment was improperly given because of a wonky canon, then it would seem he or she did not validly contract marriage the second time, even if it was all licit.
I've wondered the same, actually. I'm not a canon lawyer, so take the following musings with a shovelful of salt...
First, if it were the case that the new marriage was illicit, because the old one was not rightfully annulled, then this would make the new relationship sinful objectively speaking (a special case of adultery). However, the partners in that relationship would not be culpable for these sins, because they would operate under the reasonable and indeed faithful assumption that their new marriage is valid according to the law of the Church. Instead, these sins would fall back onto the tribunals, canon lawyers and in particular those who wrote the "wonky canon". At which point Christ's saying about millstones makes instant sense. (Can you imagine how much sin potentially could be attributed to the responsible canon law writers? God have mercy on them indeed!)
Second, the Church does have the power to bind and loosen. While that clearly does not extend to the sacrament of marriage as such, it certainly does allow the Church to determine the proper conditions of marriage. So for example, if I tried to marry a first cousin (unless at least three removed, I think...), that would be invalid, no matter how I feel about it. So the "wonky canon" more likely is in fact messing with the ability of people to contract valid marriages. They think they are doing the right thing, but by virtue of the "wonky canon" they are perhaps not, which forms the basis of the annulment later. Thus the sin of fornication would arise in consequence, again however not culpably for the couple, but adding millstones to the neck of the canon law makers.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It has long struck me that one of the most serious failings of the Roman Catholic doctrine on marriage is that it underplays the horror of both adultery and other actions that strike against the foundation rocks of a marriage. Saying that marriage is indissoluble - rather than should be indissoluble - encourages what one would traditionally have called the 'French' approach to marriage where people are supposed to tolerate one another's unfaithfulness, and 'be civilised' about it. It also punishes the victim rather than the aggressor who is unlikely to care.
It is a great deal more honest - and IMHO a morally better position - to recognises that there are some ways of behaving that do constitute apostacy against a marriage and should be viewed as such.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I dunno. If I had to choose between Roman Catholic marriage, and marriage as it tends to be taken among mainstream Protestants today, I would take the Roman Catholic view any time. In fact, Anglicans stood with Rome on the issue of divorce until very recently.
Believe it or not, Pope Benedict expanded the conditions for annulment. There used to be a canon which dispensed a Catholic from the necessity of marrying in the Church if he had "formally defected" from communion with Rome, which allowed converts to other faiths to contract marriage according to their own rites. Why condemn schismatics to fornication, after all? No more! Which is a real ecumenical pisser, if you ask me.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
It is always well to be reminded that our 33 year old marriage, which has been exclusive or, if you like, faithful, is utterly condemned by Christians since both of us had previous partners.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
agingjb
I'm in the same boat as you (or would be were my late-lamented still living).
And both of us case aside by our exes - they having being thrown out, me having been left.
Praise be our local PP was a deal more human(e) than either Rome or Canterbury: they asked no questions, they just married us.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Is that your expectation—that the Church will never question your behavior?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Why would "the church" (in the person of the Parish Priest) question my behaviour? I wasn't behaving badly, only wishing to get married and live in a faithful, exclusive partnership.
My spouse left me, not me them - and they weren't driven out at the end of a pitchfork.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Why would "the church" (in the person of the Parish Priest) question my behaviour? I wasn't behaving badly, only wishing to get married and live in a faithful, exclusive partnership.
My spouse left me, not me them - and they weren't driven out at the end of a pitchfork.
But you were married, and your spouse's lack of fidelity to you in no way prevented you from having fidelity to him/her.
Don't mistake my position here—the bible does grant that divorce is acceptable in some situations, but the goal is still marital fidelity, even when that fidelity is a cross rather than a joy.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
BUT. It's not an ideal world.
In an ideal world, Jesus would not have been nailed to a cross,
he comment you make begs the question "where would the world be without Jesus being killed this way?"
Which then leads to all the rest of the atonement discussion. I go to the idea that all can be made right, whatever happens. Which I suppose is ideology.
And then I think of evolution and lessons from science which tells us that our conceptions of the origins of the universe and of life and still, even with all our knowledge, rather primitive.
I do think this pope is on to something more human than several recent predecessors.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Saying that marriage is indissoluble - rather than should be indissoluble - encourages what one would traditionally have called the 'French' approach to marriage where people are supposed to tolerate one another's unfaithfulness, and 'be civilised' about it.
Nobody is required to "tolerate" adultery, it is perfectly acceptable in the RCC to separate over adultery or other grave abuses (and to put matters in order, to divorce civilly). This is tragic, but not sinful. What is not allowed is rather to remarry. So if you consider it to be evil to live in sexual continence (and thus usually as "single" as far as romance is concerned), then you have a choice between evils.
Where the "French" approach is a cultural norm imposed on the couple by social or economical pressure, I'll be the first to condemn it. However, where it is rather a free decision for what is perceived as the lesser evil, I think it is a valid choice under difficult circumstances. And it may in some cases indeed offer more opportunities for healing the marriage than the principled approach of walking out of the door.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It also punishes the victim rather than the aggressor who is unlikely to care.
This is attributing the sin to the sacrament, rather than to the sinner. Or possibly, it is attributing a bad choice of partner to the sacrament, rather than to the one who has chosen. What you can attribute to the sacrament fairly is that it requires full dedication of one's life to another person. In consequence, there is no escape from suffering if that person starts to sin. It is a risk you can decide to take, or not. And yes, most people will feel that a considerable price is attached to not taking that risk. There is no doubt that Christ is imposing here an extra cross on basically all of His followers. The apostles saw this as much as we do, and were stunned. Well, I guess Jesus can be demanding and maybe it is worthwhile thinking about why He was particularly demanding about this.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is a great deal more honest - and IMHO a morally better position - to recognises that there are some ways of behaving that do constitute apostacy against a marriage and should be viewed as such.
This assumes that a moral evaluation of potential options is possible here. It isn't. Facts are not moral matter. That we can change from unmarried to married by choice does not mean that we can change from married to unmarried by choice. That we can shatter a glass by pushing it off the table does not mean that we can reassemble the shards into a glass by pushing them around. Some changes are one way only, and marriage is such a change. Other examples are baptism, confirmation and ordination, i.e., all personal "state changes" through sacraments are once and for all.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
ingo, thank you for taking the time to answer all my -probably woolly--points. Your answers are, of course, well-argued, and I don't feel up to arguing them back.
Of course you're right about Mother Teresa, as well. But wouldn't you agree that the first thing you think of, when you think of her witness to the world, is not her statements about doctrine, but rather her ministering to dying Hindus in the slums of Calcutta?
Someone close in my family believes exactly as you do in following the rules of the Church faithfully and to the letter, even when it is very difficult or painful and might seem impossible. So this is a stance I very much respect. I have seen it in action--not just spoken beliefs, but in real action.
I admire it, but in the end it seems just too rigid and not taking individual circumstances into account.
i agree we shouldn't spend too much time on the divorce/remarriage issue, which is tangential to the discussion about "ideology" as a whole, but I've looked at the previous discussion you linked to about the scriptural basis etc and will read it in more detail later. Suffice it to say that in one place Jesus clearly says "no divorce" and in the other he clearly says "no divorce except in the case of unchastity/immorality." Both are clear statements by Jesus, it seems to me. I don't see why we can't follow the second one, which expands on the first. But I expect you explain why not, on the other thread. (Plus what you have said above about the Fathers' unanimous opinion).
Anyway, if you like, you win. And I admire any Catholic who is ready to follow all the rules through to the bitter end. We just have to agree to differ.
Maybe I'm just weaker. That's how I find myself feeling when confronted by these intransigent Catholic arguments--I'm weak, I'm lukewarm, I'm not up to the full faith path, I fall short. The old guilt.
This makes me far more conscious of the feeling of failure than of the love of God and the Good News about Jesus and all he did and meant.
(Which perhaps sort of illustrates what the Pope means by ideology driving people away?)
And you will say, I think, that my individual feelings don't matter. The church can bind and loosen things in heaven and on earth, and that is that.
Your question is interesting--does Pope Francis really agree with Archbishop Müller, despite his media-attention-catching way of talking as if he's going to change things?
Had to know at this point. Maybe he's just calling for a shift of emphasis. So that all Catholics are thought of more as who they are and what they do and give, rather than what doctrines they believe.
Do you believe the Holy Spirit was with the Church in electing this Pope? i mean, if "I am with you always, even to the end of the age,"
means anything, plus the doctrine of Papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, doesn't the faithful Catholic have to believe God is somewhere in the election of a Pope?
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Other examples are baptism, confirmation and ordination, i.e., all personal "state changes" through sacraments are once and for all.
I thought Catholics could remarry after their spouse dies?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Zach82
No doubt you'd tell a woman married to a wife-beater that she too should respect her marriage vows at all costs.
When you've added some years you may come to a more nuanced understanding of the world and of the need to interpret things with more love and charity.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Sometimes I wonder if the whole concept of 'marriage vows' isn't problematic in itself. Wouldn't it be more honest to promote 'marriage hopes'? In fact, do modern people really consider a marriage ceremony an appropriate occasion for vows? Vows are restrictive, but our culture clearly values personal freedom more highly, especially in matters of the heart.
I've heard that some churches hold ceremonies when marriages are dissolved. Perhaps this should happen more often. It seems strange to make such a song and dance about getting married in church, yet when marriages break down everything is entirely secular. It's as though religion (or perhaps mostly Protestantism) can only cope with the jolly, happy things; there's no workable and commonly accepted theology for the other side of life. It's a defective kind of religion.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Zach82
No doubt you'd tell a woman married to a wife-beater that she too should respect her marriage vows at all costs.
When you've added some years you may come to a more nuanced understanding of the world and of the need to interpret things with more love and charity.
Hopefully you will, one day, learn to read what a person actually said before viciously and ignorantly accusing them of saying horrible things.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Of course you're right about Mother Teresa, as well. But wouldn't you agree that the first thing you think of, when you think of her witness to the world, is not her statements about doctrine, but rather her ministering to dying Hindus in the slums of Calcutta?
Actually, I know next to nothing about her. And I have no particular desire to find out more. I'll take your word for it that she was an example of practical charity. Good on her then.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
But I expect you explain why not, on the other thread.
To briefly summarize Piper's position: The exception clause defends Joseph's original intention to "send away" Mary when she is found pregnant as licit, as can be see from only Matthew reporting both and by his choice of words. This was during their betrothal, and a divorce was required among Jews to get out of it. But you were not supposed to have sex during that time. So the closest match you get in today's terms is a sacramental marriage that has been contracted but not yet consummated. And it is still the case in RC canon law that for just reason (as adultery would be, I assume!) a marriage in that state can be dissolved (though these days you would have to appeal to the pope, but that's a procedural point, not a doctrinal one).
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Maybe I'm just weaker. That's how I find myself feeling when confronted by these intransigent Catholic arguments--I'm weak, I'm lukewarm, I'm not up to the full faith path, I fall short. The old guilt. This makes me far more conscious of the feeling of failure than of the love of God and the Good News about Jesus and all he did and meant. (Which perhaps sort of illustrates what the Pope means by ideology driving people away?)
I doubt that there is as much difference between us as you think. I'm above average informed about doctrines and theology because I am an academic. It's the sort of thing that comes natural to me. But that hardly makes me a saint. Yet when I see myself as weak and lukewarm - and often enough I do - then I do not go ahead and change the measure of faith until I can think of myself as fine. It would be nice if I could say that I change myself until I measure up, but usually that's not the case either. Rather, I simply live with being a failure, and in the case of sin, with the risk of damnation. After all, the only way God can be merciful is if we fall short. (Note though: mercy is not mercy if it is assured, then that's simply a change of rule.)
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Do you believe the Holy Spirit was with the Church in electing this Pope? i mean, if "I am with you always, even to the end of the age,"
means anything, plus the doctrine of Papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, doesn't the faithful Catholic have to believe God is somewhere in the election of a Pope?
Sure, but the Holy Spirit was also with the Church in electing Pope Alexander VI. There is no universal protection against bad popes to be had from the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit will protect us against irrevocable, bad doctrine. So Pope Francis will not be allowed to speak nonsense "ex cathedra".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Zach82
No doubt you'd tell a woman married to a wife-beater that she too should respect her marriage vows at all costs.
When you've added some years you may come to a more nuanced understanding of the world and of the need to interpret things with more love and charity.
I dunno Zach, this is what you posted:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But you were married, and your spouse's lack of fidelity to you in no way prevented you from having fidelity to him/her.
Don't mistake my position here—the bible does grant that divorce is acceptable in some situations, but the goal is still marital fidelity, even when that fidelity is a cross rather than a joy.
That does burden the victimized, and I think, is a misuse of ideology or the ideal as something to ideologically flog someone who might indeed be suffering from violence.
Better is to view marital fidelity as something we should aspire to, just like all the other good things we should aspire to. Does God really enjoy such suffering? Better to look to the goal, and try, acknowledging our sinful nature and difficulty making it, and if a marriage fails, to move along and try to find joy again.
It must be remembered that in antiquity until 1-200 years ago or so, people lived rather short lives, and few suffered through decades of awful marriages and the loneliness of decades of being alone like they do today. And of course, women weren't persons, rather were property, in most places until 80 or 90 years ago.
So I'm with L'organist on this one in calling it correctly.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
So I'm with L'organist on this one in calling it correctly.
You're with L'organist in viciously assuming the worst of someone who said, in that post you cited, "Don't mistake my position here—the bible does grant that divorce is acceptable in some situations."?
So, what is your basis assuming that I would advise abused people to remain in dangerous situations when I admitted there could be situations when divorce is acceptable? Oh, I know judging people is fun, but why even put in the effort if you aren't going to set out to be good at it? Sloppy.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If you are going to be personal, take it to hell. I am looking at you, l'organist & zach82
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
[ 25. October 2013, 06:58: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Of course you're right about Mother Teresa, as well. But wouldn't you agree that the first thing you think of, when you think of her witness to the world, is not her statements about doctrine, but rather her ministering to dying Hindus in the slums of Calcutta?
Actually, I know next to nothing about her. And I have no particular desire to find out more. I'll take your word for it that she was an example of practical charity. Good on her then.
She was far more than that. An example of giving up one's whole life to serving others with love--because she saw Christ in each one of them. Even though (as I gather, though I haven't read those writings of hers showing this) she often struggled with lack of faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
But I expect you explain why not, on the other thread.
To briefly summarize Piper's position: The exception clause defends Joseph's original intention to "send away" Mary when she is found pregnant as licit, as can be see from only Matthew reporting both and by his choice of words. This was during their betrothal, and a divorce was required among Jews to get out of it. But you were not supposed to have sex during that time. So the closest match you get in today's terms is a sacramental marriage that has been contracted but not yet consummated. And it is still the case in RC canon law that for just reason (as adultery would be, I assume!) a marriage in that state can be dissolved (though these days you would have to appeal to the pope, but that's a procedural point, not a doctrinal one). [/QUOTE]
I went back and read Piper's argument; I don't buy it--seems too much of a stretch to connect with the Joseph situation, since Jesus makes no reference to it or to the state of being betrothed, but only to marriage itself--but anyway, we've agreed that's a tangent.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Maybe I'm just weaker. That's how I find myself feeling when confronted by these intransigent Catholic arguments--I'm weak, I'm lukewarm, I'm not up to the full faith path, I fall short. The old guilt. This makes me far more conscious of the feeling of failure than of the love of God and the Good News about Jesus and all he did and meant. (Which perhaps sort of illustrates what the Pope means by ideology driving people away?)
I doubt that there is as much difference between us as you think. I'm above average informed about doctrines and theology because I am an academic. It's the sort of thing that comes natural to me. But that hardly makes me a saint. Yet when I see myself as weak and lukewarm - and often enough I do - then I do not go ahead and change the measure of faith until I can think of myself as fine. It would be nice if I could say that I change myself until I measure up, but usually that's not the case either. Rather, I simply live with being a failure, and in the case of sin, with the risk of damnation. After all, the only way God can be merciful is if we fall short. (Note though: mercy is not mercy if it is assured, then that's simply a change of rule.) [/QUOTE]
Of course, we always fall short. We are always sinners. We always need God's mercy. But in the RC church I was (by the church's lights) far MORE of a sinner, falling far MORE short, and always aware of it, unable to forget it, because the "rules" are given such prominence and held to so rigidly by the powers that be.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Do you believe the Holy Spirit was with the Church in electing this Pope? i mean, if "I am with you always, even to the end of the age,"
means anything, plus the doctrine of Papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, doesn't the faithful Catholic have to believe God is somewhere in the election of a Pope?
Sure, but the Holy Spirit was also with the Church in electing Pope Alexander VI. There is no universal protection against bad popes to be had from the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit will protect us against irrevocable, bad doctrine. So Pope Francis will not be allowed to speak nonsense "ex cathedra". [/QUOTE]
Well, we'll have to wait and see how he speaks about specific doctrines, on or off the Chair.
Barnabas: I like what you say, that the Pope seems to be targeting ideologues who follow the letter of the law and miss the whole spirit of it.
That's what I was thinking about with my reference to the man-not made-for-the-Sabbath thing, too.
As Ingo has pointed out, Jesus did loosen some OT laws and tighten others. Everywhere he is calling for high standards, yes, and sometimes higher than OT ones. BUT everywhere he is also calling for us to look at the spirit of a law and not to be blindly partisan ideologues.
He did tell the woman taken in adultery to sin no more, yes; BUT he also showed compassion for her as an individual, and he showed the dangers of setting ourselves in judgement over our fellow humans..."Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...."
It's as if he is calling us to look at the meaning behind the "rules" and to always be governed by love and compassion--which, it appears from his words and behaviour, can sometimes overrule the rules.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
She was far more than that. An example of giving up one's whole life to serving others with love--because she saw Christ in each one of them. Even though (as I gather, though I haven't read those writings of hers showing this) she often struggled with lack of faith.
How wonderful. Good on her. Glad it inspires you. Etc. Is there any particular point why you go on about her in this context? Do you perhaps believe that there is only one way of being a saint, and Mother Teresa shows us how? Well, you are wrong, as demonstrated by all those many saints whose lives in faith centred on other matters.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I went back and read Piper's argument; I don't buy it--seems too much of a stretch to connect with the Joseph situation, since Jesus makes no reference to it or to the state of being betrothed, but only to marriage itself--but anyway, we've agreed that's a tangent.
Is it a stretch that Jesus made a "legal" side comment that showed that He was not condemning His foster father's treatment of His mother as sinful, but without mentioning His parents by name? That seems perfectly believable to me. Is it a stretch that the gospel most clearly targeted at Jews records a "legal" side comment of high relevance only to those under Jewish law, but the other gospels do not? That seems perfectly believable to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Of course, we always fall short. We are always sinners. We always need God's mercy. But in the RC church I was (by the church's lights) far MORE of a sinner, falling far MORE short, and always aware of it, unable to forget it, because the "rules" are given such prominence and held to so rigidly by the powers that be.
This comment makes little sense to me. Either the Church is communicating the will of God, or she isn't. If she is, then "the powers that be" are simply acting as messengers of God, and whatever problems you may have cannot be addressed by ignoring these judgements. For in the end you then will face that same judgement by God. Is she isn't communicating the will of God, then that is the real problem, not that you feel particularly bad about what she says.
You may have had your reasons to switch to a different Church, but "I will be considered less of a sinner there" is simply not a good reason at all. Try "that church says what I do is a sin, but based on XYZ I disagree, therefore I should find a church that better represents God's will," that makes some sense. Hopefully you can defend XYZ against the charge that you are merely rationalising your sins.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Well, we'll have to wait and see how he speaks about specific doctrines, on or off the Chair.
It is rather unlikely that Pope Francis will speak "ex cathedra" during his pontificate. Papal pronouncements are not usually "ex cathedra", and throughout the entire history of the Church we have had only perhaps a dozen "ex cathedra" declarations.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
It's as if he is calling us to look at the meaning behind the "rules" and to always be governed by love and compassion--which, it appears from his words and behaviour, can sometimes overrule the rules.
Except of course it didn't, since the woman was not told that she could go on with her life as before. The rule against adultery remained firmly in place. What was avoided by Jesus' intervention was killing her over her adultery, which would have made it impossible for her to reform her life before her death. And indeed, the Church never must block all paths to repentance in this life for anyone, no matter who they are and what they have done. That would stand against what Christ does here.
Hence you can use this scripture to condemn for example Arnaud Amalric, or perhaps to argue that even the current critical stance of the RCC against the death penalty is not sufficient yet. But you cannot use it to motivate "bending the rules", if those rules do allow for repentance and reforming one's life.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Other examples are baptism, confirmation and ordination, i.e., all personal "state changes" through sacraments are once and for all.
I thought Catholics could remarry after their spouse dies?
Indeed. This sacrament is by its nature tied to "natural" contingencies (it is about becoming one flesh after all), and hence can be dissolved by the natural process death (which destroys the association of a person to their flesh). In that way this sacrament is more like the consecration of the Eucharist. There it is also true that nothing can "un-consecrate" the Eucharist again once it has been consecrated, but nevertheless the body and blood of Christ do disappear when natural processes destroy the "natural" contingencies of the species of bread and wine (be it stomach acids or the elements).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
She was far more than that. An example of giving up one's whole life to serving others with love--because she saw Christ in each one of them. Even though (as I gather, though I haven't read those writings of hers showing this) she often struggled with lack of faith.
How wonderful. Good on her. Glad it inspires you. Etc. Is there any particular point why you go on about her in this context? Do you perhaps believe that there is only one way of being a saint, and Mother Teresa shows us how? Well, you are wrong, as demonstrated by all those many saints whose lives in faith centred on other matters.
Of course I don't think there's only one way of being a saint! The wonderful thing is that all sorts of people, temperaments, approaches etc qualify! I just mentioned Mother T as someone whose approach seemed to be about the love rather than the "ideology." I didn't mean to "go on" about her, was just responding to your comments.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I went back and read Piper's argument; I don't buy it--seems too much of a stretch to connect with the Joseph situation, since Jesus makes no reference to it or to the state of being betrothed, but only to marriage itself--but anyway, we've agreed that's a tangent.
Is it a stretch that Jesus made a "legal" side comment that showed that He was not condemning His foster father's treatment of His mother as sinful, but without mentioning His parents by name? That seems perfectly believable to me. Is it a stretch that the gospel most clearly targeted at Jews records a "legal" side comment of high relevance only to those under Jewish law, but the other gospels do not? That seems perfectly believable to me. [/QUOTE]
Well, we must agree to differ.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Of course, we always fall short. We are always sinners. We always need God's mercy. But in the RC church I was (by the church's lights) far MORE of a sinner, falling far MORE short, and always aware of it, unable to forget it, because the "rules" are given such prominence and held to so rigidly by the powers that be.
This comment makes little sense to me. Either the Church is communicating the will of God, or she isn't. If she is, then "the powers that be" are simply acting as messengers of God, and whatever problems you may have cannot be addressed by ignoring these judgements. For in the end you then will face that same judgement by God. Is she isn't communicating the will of God, then that is the real problem, not that you feel particularly bad about what she says.
You may have had your reasons to switch to a different Church, but "I will be considered less of a sinner there" is simply not a good reason at all. Try "that church says what I do is a sin, but based on XYZ I disagree, therefore I should find a church that better represents God's will," that makes some sense. Hopefully you can defend XYZ against the charge that you are merely rationalising your sins.[/QUOTE]
Well, good point, and of course I did disagree that those things were sins, and felt the RC did not fully represent God's will, hence a switch of church. Maybe at bottom I'm rationalising my sins, maybe I just didn't like feeling like an unworthy sinner all the time, maybe I'm just too feeble and lazy to be a Catholic....who knows? I feel I was called to a different path...anyway, all this is by the by.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
It's as if he is calling us to look at the meaning behind the "rules" and to always be governed by love and compassion--which, it appears from his words and behaviour, can sometimes overrule the rules.
Except of course it didn't, since the woman was not told that she could go on with her life as before. The rule against adultery remained firmly in place. What was avoided by Jesus' intervention was killing her over her adultery, which would have made it impossible for her to reform her life before her death. And indeed, the Church never must block all paths to repentance in this life for anyone, no matter who they are and what they have done. That would stand against what Christ does here. [/QUOTE]
Exactly. But "the rule" allowed them to kill her. Jesus was showing that this rule could be over-ruled by compassion, by giving her another chance to repent, etc.
I'm feeling a bit bludgeoned! Which may mean your arguments are superior, Ingo, or it may not....if I can't stand the heat I should get out of the kitchen, I suppose!
Anyway, I hope it hasn't all been too tangential to the general discussion of what the Pope means by "ideological Christianity" as an "illness which pushes people away."
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Well, good point, and of course I did disagree that those things were sins, and felt the RC did not fully represent God's will, hence a switch of church. Maybe at bottom I'm rationalising my sins, maybe I just didn't like feeling like an unworthy sinner all the time, maybe I'm just too feeble and lazy to be a Catholic....who knows? I feel I was called to a different path...anyway, all this is by the by.
Well, actually it is sort of on topic, if what drove you away is indeed "ideology". I don't know. I really think that there are two possible errors here: either beating people up too much with the truth, or confronting them too little with it. And who can tell what is the "right" amount? As usual, I feel that the pope is too simplistic and is going on only about one side of the issue. Though perhaps that is fair enough if we can say that the previous popes were simplistic and went on only about the other side of the issue. But I'm not sure that one can say that, really…
(I guess I'm morally obliged to point out that the RCC considers ex-RCs to be in a particularly precarious situation as far as salvation is concerned. You probably don't need to hear that from me, but I'm happy to go PM if I am mistaken…)
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Exactly. But "the rule" allowed them to kill her. Jesus was showing that this rule could be over-ruled by compassion, by giving her another chance to repent, etc.
If anyone is suggesting to stone the illicitly remarried, I promise to fight them, if need be physically.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I'm feeling a bit bludgeoned! Which may mean your arguments are superior, Ingo, or it may not....if I can't stand the heat I should get out of the kitchen, I suppose!
Actually, I think you are commendably open to listening to what is intended as fairly sharp criticism. And for the record, I happily admit to playing the "ideologue" on the Ship, and a fairly no holds barred one at that. I think that that is appropriate to this place. It is not how I approach my everyday interactions with other people, including on matters of faith.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Please note:
Everyone thinks their form of religion is non-ideological including atheists
Everyone is wrong.
Jengie
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
