homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014 (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  15  16  17 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A Catholic doesn't have to put that "CANNOT" in all caps, just to make sure that everybody knows that one is really, really serious this time.

You should say the Roman Catholic Church, and not "a Catholic." I know divorced and remarried Catholics. A good number of them in fact. So they would disagree with you on this. I'm discussing the teachings of the RCC which differ significantly from the reality that Catholics experience in their own lives and marriages.


[
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
God does bless neither abuse and marital rape nor adultery. But whatever the heck people get up to in their relationships and intimacy simply does not change whether they are married to each other or not.

The RCC says that God intends the abuse victim to remain with her abuser or to be alone for the rest of her life. Those are the actions that the church says He condones. Therefore He must approve. We tend to refer to God's approval as a blessing or grace, do we not?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I don't know about "incapable", that would be an interesting theological discussion. But God sure as heck is utterly unwilling to redeem a situation caused solely by human sin.

Andy you know this how exactly? You speak quite authoritatively here and I wonder what makes you think you are capable of doing so. When a child is born of rape, Catholics tends to say even though the child was conceived in sin they are a blessing and through baptism will be received as God's child. Isn't that redemption of a situation caused solely by human sin?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
WTF? No it isn't. And nobody has said anything that would suggest that it is.

Someone has - the RCC. I have mentioned elsewhere, I did work in a Catholic part of Africa with high HIV rates. Faithful Catholic women married to cheating Catholic husbands ended up HIV-positive and having HIV positive children. They remain in that situation upon the church's guidance and teachings. They are poor and cannot afford to separate from their husbands. Is this God's plan for marriage, in your view?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's the deal. You don't get to tell God when He has to swing into action and use His amazingness to save the day. Hence you cannot tell whether this or that relationship has been super-awesomed by Him.

Umm...have you not heard of the Holy Spirit? Or do you think He only speaks to the RCC leadership? You actually don't think a Christian can know if their choices or actions are in line with God's expectations or plans for them?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Barnabas, it seems to me that in the quote you give us from Pope Francis what he is suggesting is precisely compatable with the existing theology and doctrine of marriage - inculding the whole teaching of indissolubility. Another reason to conclude that the Synod will not change a jot or tittle of the teaching on marriage.

Now, suggesting that perhaps half the marriages contracted these days are automaticaly null - using the existing criteria for assessing that - points to a very big problem for the Church. First, a practical one of how to handle the sheer number of potential annulment cases that might result; second, a difficulty in sending out the right message about marriage being indissoluble whilst admitting so many marriages to be soluble because of defects.

It seems to me that the real solution to this is better catechesis and preparation so that Catholics are not ignorant of what they are contracting when they marry. But what will precisely not help with that would be a more relaxed and "pastoral" attitude towards the sacredness of the marriage bond, such as the Orthodox concession towards human weakness, which in fact exacerbates the problem by giving the impression that you get two or three strikes at marriage before you're out.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You actually don't think a Christian can know if their choices or actions are in line with God's expectations or plans for them?

Depressingly seldom are we given such certainty, and even then usually in negative ways (i.e., we know we do what God wants when we do not do such things as murder, cheat and blaspheme).

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It seems to me that the real solution to this is better catechesis and preparation so that Catholics are not ignorant of what they are contracting when they marry. But what will precisely not help with that would be a more relaxed and "pastoral" attitude towards the sacredness of the marriage bond, such as the Orthodox concession towards human weakness, which in fact exacerbates the problem by giving the impression that you get two or three strikes at marriage before you're out.

But ignorance isn't the problem. Many marriages that break down, do not do so because one or both parties didn't understand properly that what they were committing to. It's because one or both becomes unable or unwilling to do so.

If anything the church needs to do more post-marriage pastoral care, not more pre-Cana.

Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But they do show that there has been at least an argument over this for over a thousand years, predating the schism and the rise of Protestantism.

No, it doesn't, unless you know more than I do. I never have been able to determine when the Orthodox teaching on marriage arose in roughly its present form. But I see no particular reason to believe that it arose at the Great Schism. For all I know, this may have been the practice of the East centuries before and contributed to the Great Schism. Or indeed it could have arisen much later, like other changes to Orthodox teaching (e.g., Palamite theology).

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IngoB asserts that the argument is closed for Catholics. There are some signs that the Pope may wish to re-open it, at least to a limited extent.

This pope talks too much and too loosely. This constant building up of hype has to end in disaster one way or the other.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is another quotation, this time from Pope Francis, which suggests that annulment is in the eye, as well as "economy"

The Orthodox "economy" makes no sense. No only is it clearly sophistry to maintain that marriage bond is unbreakable, but that it nevertheless can die. Die by what precisely? Cholera? It is human action that kills the relationship, and that just is breaking the marriage bond by human means. But then the Orthodox do not even believe their own sophistry and turn remarriages into penitential affairs, and I think even allow only a couple of them. Say what? If my marriage can die on me, without me being ultimately responsible for it (since, we remember, human means cannot break it), then what precisely do I have to be sorry about? And why can't I remarry as many times as I want, just as someone whose spouses keep on dying (of natural causes...) is free to remarry as often as they dare? The whole Orthodox "economy" setup actually requires that it is human fault which broke the marriage. But then there is no need for talking about the marriage "dying", as if that was something separate to the spouses breaking it. I truly think that the only coherent alternative to the RC position is the liberal Protestant position, which declares life-long marriage as an ideal, which in practice is often not realised. That's sad, but not something to be particularly hung up about. If we fall, we get up, dust ourselves off and keep on going.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is complex, the pastoral care of marriage. Too right it is. Defending the age old principle, the age old ideal, yet showing mercy to those who suffer through its practice, who fail in the process. The church has to ride both horses somehow. Intransigence just doesn't cut it.

Nice try. But "ideal" is not the same as "principle". We can fail to live up to an ideal, and yet that ideal remains our ideal. But we cannot fail a principle without de facto abandoning it. Our principles just are what we will not compromise, come what may.

There is a real difference there. A principle comes first, with any and all accommodation only possible if it is in fact being maintained. Yes, you heard me right, a principle comes before people. And no, that is not "inhumane" as such. In fact, I would argue that this is one key difference between humans and animals: the ability to have principles that are stronger than the present demands, no matter how pressing. Principles of course can be good, bad, or ugly - like anything. That something is a principle does not make it good automatically. But pretending that ideals and principles are the same is what does not cut it. I'm fine with people going for the "ideal" line of thought. They are wrong in my opinion, but at least their nay is a nay to my yea. Where it all becomes unsavoury is precisely where one pretends to be guarding principle but actually is just proposing an ideal.

(Just to be precise: I do not think that the indissolubility of sacramental marriage is a principle. I think that is fact, an objective part of reality quite independent of what anybody thinks about it. The principle is rather to acknowledge this fact as fact, and to turn it into practice.)

--------------------
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      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
While there can be little doubt that the number of annulments in the West is too high, these numbers are misleading.

The thing that strikes me about this concession is the surely this means that you think that the Church is declaring marriages which are in fact valid, indissoluable, sacraments to be nullities. And therefore those acting as though free from those putative marriages are in fact committing adultery with the sanction of the Church.

Is that right? I can see that no issues of strict infallibility are raised here, but all the same, from my Protestant viewpoint, that would caution me not to go 'all-in' in relying on the Church's authority, if her official acts can be badly wrong.

I can also see that where the Church's tribunal simply called it wrong, moral culpability for the sin of adultery must be reduced (and possibly extinguished) for those acting on the decision in good faith. I also see that where the applicant lies to get an annulment, the Church is not at fault, nor can the perjurer claim the annulment as extenuating circumstances. But all the same, if I were a Catholic, the fact that my Church is formally and officially declaring marriages to be void which in reality are valid would bother me.

--------------------
"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
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And why can't I remarry as many times as I want, just as someone whose spouses keep on dying (of natural causes...) is free to remarry as often as they dare?

I was under the impression that in the Orthodox Church re-marriage after one's spouse's death is also limited, in the same way as re-marriage after divorce.

--------------------
"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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I know divorced and remarried Catholics. A good number of them in fact. So they would disagree with you on this.

And I should respect their opinion, why?

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The RCC says that God intends the abuse victim to remain with her abuser or to be alone for the rest of her life. Those are the actions that the church says He condones. Therefore He must approve. We tend to refer to God's approval as a blessing or grace, do we not?

First, being sexually continent is not identical with being alone. People have relationships and emotions apart from sex. Second, to sort throughout your confusion about words seems besides the point, but no, these are not synonyms. Third, God may well approve, bless and give grace to someone's attempt to live in a sexual continent manner away from their abusive spouse. My list of things God does nor approve, bless or give grace to was "abuse, marital rape, adultery".

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
When a child is born of rape, Catholics tends to say even though the child was conceived in sin they are a blessing and through baptism will be received as God's child. Isn't that redemption of a situation caused solely by human sin?

The child does not get magically baptised. Somebody is bringing that child to be baptised by the Church. And the Church is baptising that child. These are human acts in this situation, and they are not sinful but good.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I have mentioned elsewhere, I did work in a Catholic part of Africa with high HIV rates. Faithful Catholic women married to cheating Catholic husbands ended up HIV-positive and having HIV positive children. They remain in that situation upon the church's guidance and teachings. They are poor and cannot afford to separate from their husbands. Is this God's plan for marriage, in your view?

Since when is cheating part of God's plan for marriage? There is no general rule on whether one should separate over adultery or not, that's really up to the couple. Certainly an emphasis would be on forgiveness, as in all Christian life, but being inflicted with a deadly disease, and having one's child inflicted with a deadly disease, is sufficient reason to seek separation. However, if these women "are poor and cannot afford to separate from their husbands", then this is apparently is not due to "the church's guidance and teachings", but simply due to economic realities.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You actually don't think a Christian can know if their choices or actions are in line with God's expectations or plans for them?

If your discernment of spirits speaks against the official teachings of the Church, then 99 times out of 100 you err. The 1 remaining case is interesting in many ways, but hardly as an excuse for very common sin.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The thing that strikes me about this concession is the surely this means that you think that the Church is declaring marriages which are in fact valid, indissoluable, sacraments to be nullities. And therefore those acting as though free from those putative marriages are in fact committing adultery with the sanction of the Church. Is that right? I can see that no issues of strict infallibility are raised here, but all the same, from my Protestant viewpoint, that would caution me not to go 'all-in' in relying on the Church's authority, if her official acts can be badly wrong.

Yes, you are correct - I do assume that a large fraction of "annulled" marriages in places like the USA in fact were sacramental and hence remain in place. The ensuing adultery is sinful, but the Catholics proceeding in good faith on the Church's false judgement will not be culpable for it (unless they consciously misled the Church in arriving at that judgement, of course).

The Church is not some kind of undifferentiated chunk of infallible operations. I really and honestly have no idea why this would worry you as far as the authority of the Church is concerned. That authority is of course on full display here, it is precisely what most people here are bitching about! To insist on the indissolubility of marriage across the ages against relentless social and libidinal pressure just is that Holy Spirit supported infallible Church authority in all its glory. The other crap, from Pope Francis talking too much over the US bishops not closing down their annulment mills to individual Catholics lying through their teeth about how naive they were when they got married ... that is just humans being human, or perhaps more accurately fallen humans being fallen. Some of that is saintly, some sinful, all is part of the Church Militant tottering in a drunken stupor towards a dimly seen light.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I was under the impression that in the Orthodox Church re-marriage after one's spouse's death is also limited, in the same way as re-marriage after divorce.

Is that so? And are the marriage ceremonies for the widowed also "penitential"? I have no idea, and worse, I have no idea where I could look to find an authoritative answer. If so, on what grounds? 1 Cor 7:39 "A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." (Followed by St Paul's suggestion that remaining a widow would be better, which is however clearly marked as not contradicting this statement.)

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB
quote:
You are doing exactly what St Peter did there. Well, no, that's not really fair to St Peter. He cared about the life of the Lord, you care about intimate relationships, ... well, sex, really.

We care about sex in intimate relationships in the life of the Lord.

Not Platonic forms serving patriarchy.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB

I think you mistake a principle for a universal. Your late replacement of principle by fact shows, I guess, that you recognise this. Principles differ from universals in having zones of applicability. We say, without subterfuge, that this principle which is good in general does not apply in this case.

And that is the nub of the argument.

Chesterbelloc

I do not think Pope Francis speaks too loosely. I think he is "on the money", theologically and pastorally. He may in the end have to accept that the most that can be done falls under these categories.

1. A much greater priority to be given in marriage preparation for Catholics. Not just on the meaning of vows but the realities of marriage as lived, it's real life challenges. Catholicism has made some adapted use of HTB Alpha Courses. You could with profit look at Nicky and Sila Lee's material on marriage preparation and marriage courses, also from the HTB stable. Frankly, I think the Lee's courses, which are much less well known, are much better than the Alpha Course.

2. A root and branch revision of the application of the annulment principles, both in terms of Canon Law application and pastoral application. The Pope is spot on. Far too many people enter marriage as a lifetime commitment without any real idea of what they are getting into and what they are saying and I suspect his predecessor is also right in asserting that a very high percentage of marriages are entered into invalidly as a result. Even though one may not be able to prove that.

3. Some merciful reconsideration of the communion restrictions on the casualties of the past and present administrative imperfections.

To lay all this misery at the door of human imperfection without doing something about the imperfect administration of present principles (or facts if you like) strikes me as an avoidance of real responsibilities.

In principle, I side with the Orthodox in their "economia" view of remarriage, but I can appreciate why Catholics cannot make that journey. That does not mean that there is not a heck of lot that could be done to improve the present sorry state of affairs across the Christian rainbow. Including Catholicism.

I suspect that Pope Francis may not be able to achieve all he would see as necessary, in one go. But there is room for, and need for, constructive improvement. That seems glaringly obvious. The survey results, about what Catholics actually do, and actually believe, as opposed to what they are supposed to do and supposed to believe, should make eye-opening reading.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Brief personal note: should have said before, but I won't be on board much for the next three days; routine medical procedure which includes some time in hospital and a bit of convalescence. Good thread this one, but I'll be missing for a little while).

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think one would discover huge discrepancies in every religious community between what the believers are invited to commit to and what they actually believe - similarly a huge discrepancy between the way they are expected to act and how they do act.
There are reckoned to be over one billion baptised Catholics.How many of them know or care much about the teachings of the Church,except in the vaguest of ways ?
Now some Catholics will say - only those who understand and follow every jot and tittle of the centuries old teaching of the Church are those who can be called 'Catholics'
Others will say: Jesus came to save the human race.His mystical body is seen within the Catholic Church (and administratively and organisationally most visible within that community linked in communion with the Roman Pontiff)He (and we) want all mankind to come to the Church.The Church teaches (or tries to teach)
about God's love and how we should respond to it.We wish to keep in touch and make as welcome as possible all those who claim a link of some sort with the Church. For what it is worth that is my viewpoint and I believe it to be the viewpoint of Pope Francis also.
And if it's not,it doesn't really matter to me !

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692

 - Posted      Profile for Anyuta   Email Anyuta   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
yes, in the Orthodox church a second (or third) wedding ceremony is indeed more "penetential" than a first. This is because the "ideal" is one spouse per person per life (and afterlife). however, the economia simply means that we acknowledge that as fallen humans, we find it hard to live up to the ideal, and therefore some leeway to our human weaknesses is allowed. but it's not unlimited: hence the three chances thing... human weakness is one thing, but eventually you have to say "suck it up" (obviously not the official wording :-)). Priests, however, are held to a higher standard, therefore they are not allowed to re-marry, nor are they allowed to be re-married even before they become a priest (in most cases.. I don't know if there is any leeway in that at all), and even their WIFE is not allowed to be re-married. meaning if my husband decided to become a priest, he couldn't, because he is my second husband. in effect, yes, there is a certain acknowledgement that any second marriage is to some extent adultery.

Our view regarding sin is in general is one of setting (or more like acknowledging) a high standard, and then recognizing that while you may not be able to reach that standard, you do your best and God's grace/mercy makes up for the rest. it's not a matter of sin vs no sin. it's a matter of degree (I'm sure I'm wording that badly and that any Orthodox theologian could describe it much better, but this is my understanding). we are all sinners, even the saints.

Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB:

Question for you back to the topic of the Extraordinary Synod - how would you react if the outcome is that remarried Catholics are allowed to participate in Holy Communion?

I assume you would accept the church's teaching, but what would your opinion on it be? That if the church says so it's right? Or would you privately think they'd made a mistake and caved into worldly pressures?

Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
While there can be little doubt that the number of annulments in the West is too high, these numbers are misleading.

The thing that strikes me about this concession is the surely this means that you think that the Church is declaring marriages which are in fact valid, indissoluable, sacraments to be nullities. And therefore those acting as though free from those putative marriages are in fact committing adultery with the sanction of the Church. ...
A hit, a hit, a palpable hit.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
This pope talks too much and too loosely. This constant building up of hype has to end in disaster one way or the other.

Forgive my asking but are you claiming to know better than the Holy Father what he should say and not say?
quote:
And I should respect their opinion, why?
Even without any other reasons, that you are presumably expecting us to respect yours should be sufficient.
quote:
Originally posted by Anuta
Our view regarding sin is in general is one of setting (or more like acknowledging) a high standard, and then recognizing that while you may not be able to reach that standard, you do your best and God's grace/mercy makes up for the rest. it's not a matter of sin vs no sin. it's a matter of degree (I'm sure I'm wording that badly and that any Orthodox theologian could describe it much better, but this is my understanding). we are all sinners, even the saints.

[Overused] [Overused]
That makes a huge amount of sense to me. ISTM that's a major part of what Incarnation is about.

It certainly makes a lot more sense than proclaiming a logically pure ideal and then breaking those poor unfortunates who fall short of impeccable perfection over its wheels.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's interesting that no one on this thread has predicted that the result of the Synod will be A Committee To Investigate And Report Back Much Later.
Are people expecting any definitive action at the conclusion of the Synod?

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think you mistake a principle for a universal.

[Roll Eyes] No, I mean this (OED Mac):

principle
1 a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning: the basic principles of justice.
• a rule or belief governing one's behaviour: struggling to be true to their own principles | she resigned over a matter of principle.
• morally correct behaviour and attitudes: a man of principle.

I certainly did not mean this (OED Mac)

universal
a thing having universal effect, currency, or application, in particular:
• Logic a universal proposition.
• Philosophy a term or concept of general application.

But you call this (OED Mac)

ideal
a person or thing regarded as perfect: you're my ideal of how a man should be.
• a standard or principle to be aimed at: tolerance and freedom, the liberal ideals.

a "principle", even though an ideal is only the aiming at, but not the application of, a principle.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Your late replacement of principle by fact shows, I guess, that you recognise this.

The only thing I recognised there is that sacramental marriage does not depend on opinions, ideals, principles, or whatever. It is basically a piece of personal history. WWII either happened, or it did not. If we have determined as part of general history that it did in fact happen, then it is utterly irrelevant for that fact of history what you may think about WWII. You might judge it bad or good, you may love the Axis or the Allies, you might believe that it was all a secret ploy of aliens. But if you say that there was no WWII, then you are primarily and fundamentally one thing: wrong.

Consequently, I can be principled about sacramental marriage, but sacramental marriage itself is not really a principle or an universal or an ideal. It is simply a personal historical reality. My principles rather come into play when I say that.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Principles differ from universals in having zones of applicability. We say, without subterfuge, that this principle which is good in general does not apply in this case.

[Killing me] Yes, a principle of marriage does not apply to marriage, because marriage clearly is not in the zone of applicability for a principle about marriage.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And that is the nub of the argument.

You are not arguing anything there. You could argue that Christ did not actually declare marriage to be indissoluble. That would support your position. But what you are doing now is mere sophistry, frankly bordering on Dada. That you are so incredibly desperate to create some backdoor to my plain and simple principle suggests to me that you know that the argument for Christ not declaring marriage to be indissoluble is feeble.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
IngoB: Question for you back to the topic of the Extraordinary Synod - how would you react if the outcome is that remarried Catholics are allowed to participate in Holy Communion? I assume you would accept the church's teaching, but what would your opinion on it be? That if the church says so it's right? Or would you privately think they'd made a mistake and caved into worldly pressures?

It would depend entirely on what they say about that. I could imagine a statement that would completely satisfy me that this is the right decision. Heck, I can write one myself:

"While it remains true that a sexually active remarriage is ongoing adultery, we have been too chicken-shit to confront any number of ongoing grave violations of God's law. All those co-habitating fornicators that attend our masses, do we refuse them communion? No, we celebrate them for being young and yet coming to church. All those politicians who have been pushing abortion and contraception in the public sphere, are we systematically refusing them communion? No, we cozy up to them to share a bit of the limelight. The robber barons that impoverish our communities and destroy our environment, have we withheld communion from them given our newly declared preferential option for the poor? No, we try hard to catch the pecuniary morsels that drop off their tables. Given then that we are cowards ashamed of Christ, who are we to single out this particular group of sinners for special treatment? Let them eat the host to their spiritual sickness and death, it is the pastoral thing to do."

Such honesty and realism is of course not to be expected. If there is some generalised waffle about how spiritually wonderful laissez faire will be for all, then I will indeed grudgingly accept this as another instance of a grand tradition of Church SNAFU. And I end up in hell for my sins, then at least I will have the consolation that there is no room for me in the deepest circles of hell, given that they are overflowing with bishops. But if they change the teaching on marriage itself, if they attack the doctrine to justify their deed, then I will leave the RCC. It would be the Catholic thing to do. It may be the last thing I do as a Christian, but you will never catch me selling out the pearl of great price.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Forgive my asking but are you claiming to know better than the Holy Father what he should say and not say?

As far as his spoken / written interaction with the public goes - sure. I generally loathe the use of this saying attributed to St Francis "Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words." But Pope Francis really should take this to heart.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even without any other reasons, that you are presumably expecting us to respect yours should be sufficient.

I do not expect respect for what I say. I expect having to earn it.

--------------------
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
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ingo, I kmow you find Catholic apologetics a worthy intellectual challenge. However, won't you have egg on your face should the Holy Father ultimately determine to apply a principle of ekonomia to provide merciful dispensations to some of the divorced and re-partnered faithful of your communion?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's like Sharia mortgage charges. Interest by another name.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(Brief personal note: should have said before, but I won't be on board much for the next three days; routine medical procedure which includes some time in hospital and a bit of convalescence. Good thread this one, but I'll be missing for a little while).

(Brief personal response: all the best with that, Barnabas - we'll probably all still be here when you come back. [Biased] )

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
While there can be little doubt that the number of annulments in the West is too high, these numbers are misleading.

The thing that strikes me about this concession is the surely this means that you think that the Church is declaring marriages which are in fact valid, indissoluable, sacraments to be nullities. And therefore those acting as though free from those putative marriages are in fact committing adultery with the sanction of the Church. ...
A hit, a hit, a palpable hit.
How so, exactly? Did you miss IngoB's response (with which I would agree)?:
quote:
Yes, you are correct - I do assume that a large fraction of "annulled" marriages in places like the USA in fact were sacramental and hence remain in place. The ensuing adultery is sinful, but the Catholics proceeding in good faith on the Church's false judgement will not be culpable for it (unless they consciously misled the Church in arriving at that judgement, of course).



--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Chesterbelloc.

I'm not desperate to win this or any other argument, IngoB. You are just hard to engage with in discussion. What you find laughable makes me sad. Principles clash with one another sometimes.

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Will you be able to bring it home in a jar? My son was most miffed they wouldn't let him keep his benign bone tumour. The pictures are unbelievable though.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ditching our principles purely because of consequences brings us into the dodgy moral malleability of pragmatism. Sometimes that may seem best, sometimes it may indeed be the best bad choice around, but we'd better be aware of the cost of it.

Indissolubility of marriage isn't a moral principle - it's a metaphysical proposition.

There are indeed moral dilemmas about setting aside principles - such as the one about lying to he Nazis about where the Jews are hiding - but this only falls into that category once a moral principle - in this case the principle that one should remain celibate after a failed marriage - has been established.

I suspect there's some dodgy philosophy here to do with confusing is and ought. If Jesus gave us a moral imperative about how a man ought to treat his wife (a principle which admits of some exceptions even if we're not totally sure what they are), how does one deduce from that this metaphysical proposition, and then deduce from that a different moral imperative (without exception) about how an abandoned wife should spend the rest of her life ?

It seems to me quite possible to believe in a sentimental way that there is an ineradicable bond between oneself and someone one was married to (even though he's now living in Australia with a girl half his age) without that bond having much in the way of moral consequences - the is does not of itself imply an ought.

Marriage has a number of elements and sexual exclusiveness is only one of them - not the whole thing.

Or maybe it's a reification error - turning "bond" as a description of an aspect of relationship between two people into a metaphysical Thing.

You refer elsewhere to keeping promises, and that is a moral principle. But we've agreed that it's not an absolute principle - a promise to do wrong should not be kept.

And in the case of a civilly-remarried person, they have made promises to their second spouse. If keeping the original promise of no sex outside the first marriage means breaking the second promise to have and to hold etc, then it's very hard to see how the principle of promise-keeping can itself provide the moral imperative to underpin the Catholic position.

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And in the case of a civilly-remarried person, they have made promises to their second spouse. If keeping the original promise of no sex outside the first marriage means breaking the second promise to have and to hold etc, then it's very hard to see how the principle of promise-keeping can itself provide the moral imperative to underpin the Catholic position.

It's not hard at all. It just shows what is perfectly obvious: that making certain promises means that one has no business making certain other ones thereafter. It is in fact part of the obligation I enter into when I promise you that I will spend all next Thursday helping you to move house in Birmingham that I will not undertake Barnabas that I will help him to do the same thing on the same in Dundee. I have no business making such a subsequent promise, and if I do my obligation remains to you, not to Barnabas. I wrong you both by such behaviour.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's just inhuman, inhumane, unreal. Platonic. People change. Against their will. Love that never fails fails. Mutual love that never fails. Fails. Isn't enough. And can converge again. And not.

A contract broken on Earth is broken in Heaven. In the one reality. Not super-positioned, broken on Earth and perfect in Heaven.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's what the Orthodox recognise.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In other words that Christ never abrogated the principle of mercy, of humaneness, of rights, of freedom that even a Bronze Age Jew's gentile slave wife could expect?

Marriages are not made in or under an iron heaven.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Will you be able to bring it home in a jar? My son was most miffed they wouldn't let him keep his benign bone tumour. The pictures are unbelievable though.

[Killing me]
Despite certain present discomforts, that really made me laugh! Thanks, Martin. You are not the Messiah, you are a very naughty boy!

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Ingo, I kmow you find Catholic apologetics a worthy intellectual challenge. However, won't you have egg on your face should the Holy Father ultimately determine to apply a principle of ekonomia to provide merciful dispensations to some of the divorced and re-partnered faithful of your communion?

I think Catholic apologetics is largely a waste of time, at least as far as making an impact on others goes. I just like to argue, and talking about my faith helps me to sort it out for myself.

Next, why would I have egg on my face? The pope would have egg on his face. Deviled egg. And if you read my little rant above, then you will notice that I do think that withholding communion from the remarried is "unfair". Just not in the way that everybody here is concerned about...

Actually, the whole thing is stir-crazy, again as mentioned in my little rant above. De facto the remarried demand that they be allowed to poison themselves. There's a whole chunk of Catholic - and scriptural - understanding missing there. Namely that you better present yourself worthily for communion, at your peril. The only way the remarried could possibly benefit from communion is if remarriage were allowed. And I doubt that even this pope will go that far. And if he did, then he would be an anti-pope to me, and simply another spiritual enemy, if a particularly large and nasty one. The only question then would be whether the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, in which case Christianity would have been proven wrong and I would seek for true religion again. Or if there is somebody who can still reasonably claim to have filled the shoes of the apostles and St Peter. The latter is frankly rather unlikely...

In my time in the Church, we've so far had three mediocre to bad popes. A decent Polish philosopher who couldn't be arsed to bring his house into order and who was terrible at judging character, but who turned the papacy into a world-wide popular event. A good German theologian, who had little idea how to deal with the media, was basically dysfunctional at the administrative level and who bailed out of the papacy. Both were modernist to the core, being judged "conservative" merely against the standards set by the Spirit of Vatican II. Now we have a sort-of-liberal fast-waffling Jesuit, whose only saving grace appears to be that South Americans are so "backwards" as to actually believe in some Catholic teaching long abandoned by the majority in the West. Catholic hopes in the matter at hand rest on the shoulders of ++Müller, latest leader of the emasculated Holy Inquisition, who has been ... misunderstandable ... on the perpetual virginity and real presence. Meanwhile close to my lived reality as Catholic, the "novus ordo" masses I've attended regularly in several countries rarely are celebrated to the "novus ordo" standards that even I know about (and I do not even care about liturgy much) and if the sermons I hear are trite rather than crypto-heretic I count myself lucky.

Just for the record, I'm not writing this from a position of holiness either. And no, not from a "I am a saint but therefore I need to beat my breast over the smallest matters" lack of holiness either. I am a pretty sucky Catholic, indeed, Christian. But hell's bells, this clusterfuck of a Church doesn't make it easy to become a better Catholic Christian. I do shill a bit for the Catholic faith though. Because by my best guesstimate, it is true. I like truth. Particularly in the abstract...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not desperate to win this or any other argument, IngoB. You are just hard to engage with in discussion. What you find laughable makes me sad. Principles clash with one another sometimes.

Unlike Martin "progressive revelation means I get to make up shit about scripture" Biohazard, I think you are genuinely troubled by the obvious pressure of scripture on this matter. Me beating on you may well distract you from your own principles biting you hard. So hey, think about it in your own sweet time...

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And you don't? Bless.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Unlike Martin "progressive revelation means I get to make up shit about scripture" Biohazard

/hosting

Stop now or take it to Hell. This applies, as ever, to everyone else too.

--------------------
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
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:


Marriage has a number of elements and sexual exclusiveness is only one of them - not the whole thing.


I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm married. I sincerely believe that I can never be married to anyone other than my husband while my husband is alive. I sincerely believe that any sexual relationship I have with another man while my husband is alive would be adultery.

But I don't think it is necessarily harder for God to forgive me on a Saturday evening for committing adultery than it would be for him to forgive me any other breach of the ten commandments.

I'm not sure I understand why a person in an adulterous relationship is singled out by the church as having chosen a life of unrepentant sin when a person who breaks another of the marriage vows (or of the ten commandments) routinely, every day, is not.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555

 - Posted      Profile for agingjb   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not a Catholic and my wife is not a Christian. We have been married for 33 years, "faithfully". Our previous history, and marriages, would not have led anyone to consider this probable.

Of course pastoral care from the local CofE is out of the question for us (well, me); at least there is no evidence of it being offered.

It could be argued that we have something to say on lasting relationships. but who would listen?

This is a roundabout way of saying that it is, in a sense, reassuring to know that we find no favour - no false hope of reconciliation or acceptance.

--------------------
Refraction Villanelles

Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I keep trying to steer this conversation in the direction of what might actually happen at this Synod. No Catholic would dispute the insolubility of marriage, especially Pope Francis. The question is what to do about it when peoples lives have been less than perfect. For many years, exclusion was the only answer. Then came the era of Pope John Paul II who encoraged pastoral sensitivity rather than total exclusion. It only seems to me that Pope Francis wants to improve on that.

Three suggestions have been made about possible changes.
1. Look to the East.
2. Rely more on personal conscience(the Internal Forum solution).
3. Overhaul the anulment process.

Of these, I see 1 as the least likely because the Catholic understanding of marriage is different from that of the East. 2 would be my preferred option, provided it was carried out in full consultation with a priest. It wouldn't require the Church to change any of its principles it just allows people to make their own peace with God. 3 has possibilities, especially as the Holy Father has called the present arrangements insufficient. Perhaps it could be taken away from bureaucratic, legalistic diocesan tribunals and put into the hands of the parish.

Even if the Synod turns out to be just a talking shop with decisions put on the back burner for another 20 years, I hope that certain things will be emphsised. The Mass, as a sacrifice for the living and the dead, is efficacious even when we don't receive communion. In Italy in the 70's, I knew old women wh went to Mass every day, but only took communion once a year. Again many Orthodox Christians will attend the Divine Liturgy without rceiving communion if they haven't fasted and confessed beforehand.

I just hope the Holy Father means what he says that the time for mercy has come. I want a very different Church from that wanted by IngoB.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The pope would have egg on his face. Deviled egg .

I reckon the SSPX would welcome you with open arms! Salvation only for the tine remnant of a remnant. Extra SSPX, nulla salus and all that!

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm not sure I understand why a person in an adulterous relationship is singled out by the church as having chosen a life of unrepentant sin when a person who breaks another of the marriage vows (or of the ten commandments) routinely, every day, is not.

I agree in principle, see rants above. However, there is a convenient Church-internal paper trail in the case of the remarried. The Church knows who is married to whom, and so if it is clear (for the parish priest, I suppose) that one of those registered sacramentally married people now is civilly married to someone else, then there is sufficiently clear evidence to act upon. Whereas for most breaches of the Ten Commandments the Church knows nothing definite except by self-reporting... What I consider as the main consistency problem of the RCC is the lack of similar hassle for the sacramentally unmarried who are either in a civil marriage or simply co-habitating. Last time I checked fornication was just as bad as adultery, and these couples can be identified just as readily (by the absence of a Church-internal paper trail). And likewise the parish priest would be the one who would have to identify the irregular couple, unless they make a point of their status themselves.

--------------------
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      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I reckon the SSPX would welcome you with open arms! Salvation only for the tine remnant of a remnant. Extra SSPX, nulla salus and all that!

The SSPX has its own set of severe problems, as does the rad-trad scene in general. But it is sad that one cannot stand up for traditional Catholicism without being sorted into their bin. Sad for the RCC, that is, not for the SSPX. The SSPX must love this... it affirms their self-understanding.

Our of morbid interest, what do you believe happens if one partakes of Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin? Is that good, bad or neutral for one's spiritual and bodily health?

--------------------
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
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hasn't traditional teaching been that there are valid marriages under natural law and that these would hence not constitute fornication even though not solemnised by the Church? And as we've seen, ecclesiastical solemnisation is no guarantee of a true sacramental marriage being contracted.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm not sure I understand why a person in an adulterous relationship is singled out by the church as having chosen a life of unrepentant sin when a person who breaks another of the marriage vows (or of the ten commandments) routinely, every day, is not.

I agree in principle, see rants above. However, there is a convenient Church-internal paper trail in the case of the remarried. The Church knows who is married to whom, and so if it is clear (for the parish priest, I suppose) that one of those registered sacramentally married people now is civilly married to someone else, then there is sufficiently clear evidence to act upon. Whereas for most breaches of the Ten Commandments the Church knows nothing definite except by self-reporting... What I consider as the main consistency problem of the RCC is the lack of similar hassle for the sacramentally unmarried who are either in a civil marriage or simply co-habitating. Last time I checked fornication was just as bad as adultery, and these couples can be identified just as readily (by the absence of a Church-internal paper trail). And likewise the parish priest would be the one who would have to identify the irregular couple, unless they make a point of their status themselves.
My son and class mates are preparing for first Holy Communion. It is a happy time for the parish and school.

One of the children has parents who are civilly married. Dad is sacramentally married and divorced, and now has three children with his second wife. Mum (second wife) is baptised Catholic, but never made her first reconciliation or received communion and now she cannot, unless either her husband agrees to go through an annulment process (unlikely, as he is lapsed) or she breaks up her family.

She accepts this, but nonetheless it seems terribly sad. I don't see how it could be a good thing for her and her civil husband to separate, but at the same time it doesn't make sense to say that the best life she can live is one where she is unreconciled with God and never receives Holy Communion.

I think that PaulTH's second solution might be appropriate in cases like this (and that of my mother, who is civilly married to my father).

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Hasn't traditional teaching been that there are valid marriages under natural law and that these would hence not constitute fornication even though not solemnised by the Church? And as we've seen, ecclesiastical solemnisation is no guarantee of a true sacramental marriage being contracted.

Indeed. But Catholics have a canonical obligation to marry within the Church. For Catholics, that is a necessary - but, as you point out, not sufficient - condition for having their marriage recognised as such by the Church.

PaulTH*, you said:
quote:
No Catholic would dispute the insolubility of marriage.
Alas, plenty do. In fact, you seemed to suggest that you yourself did. When you say your favoured solution to the supposed problem is to:
quote:
Rely more on personal conscience (the Internal Forum solution) [...] provided it was carried out in full consultation with a priest. It wouldn't require the Church to change any of its principles it just allows people to make their own peace with God.
I'm not sure what you mean, unless it is that the Church should let divorced and remarried Catholics confess to this sin and then go on to receive Holy Communion even if still intending to live as husband and wife (with full conjugal relations) with their most recent spouse, so long as they can square that with their own consciences. If this is what you are suggesting it would certainly be a massive change of "principles" for the Church. It would also imply that either you thought the previous marriage had effectually disolved itself, or that it still bound but the consequent adultery was no sin.

I would be glad to be put right on any or all of that.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If Mum (second wife) never managed to receive any of the Sacraments apart from baptism,even although she may have contracted also a Catholic marriage,it is possible that she was not well catechised about what constitutes a Catholic marriage.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Mum (second wife) is baptised Catholic, but never made her first reconciliation or received communion and now she cannot, unless either her husband agrees to go through an annulment process (unlikely, as he is lapsed) or she breaks up her family.

Not so. The Church will examine a case for nullity even in the absence of evidence from the other spouse if that cannot be had because said spouse refuses to co-operate.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
<multi-crosspost, including Chesterbelloc already answering LSK>

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Hasn't traditional teaching been that there are valid marriages under natural law and that these would hence not constitute fornication even though not solemnised by the Church?

Sure, sorry for the imprecision. Marriages between the unbaptised are recognised as "natural", and those between baptised non-Catholics even as "sacramental". In both cases indeed sex between the married would be no fornication. But I was thinking about Catholics, and unless they have a dispensation, Catholics must marry by Catholic rites. So they cannot establish a natural or sacramental marriage by marrying civilly. Unless they have dispensation, that marriage would be invalid and hence sexual intercourse would remain illicit. Convalidation or radical sanation would be needed to turn that a civil marriage of a Catholic into a "real" one.

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
She accepts this, but nonetheless it seems terribly sad. I don't see how it could be a good thing for her and her civil husband to separate, but at the same time it doesn't make sense to say that the best life she can live is one where she is unreconciled with God and never receives Holy Communion.

First, I note that according to you the husband is unlikely to attempt an annulment of his first marriage because he is lapsed. Well, I'm sorry, but that in my opinion really lets the Church off the hook in this case anyhow. Primarily to blame for the woman's hardships in that situation is her husband, as far as I'm concerned. And no, I don't think that it matters for that that he is lapsed. If this is important to his wife, he should just do it. It's not like he has to confess a faith he does not have in order to get an annulment. Actually, it's possibly helpful to the annulment if he is not a faithful Catholic...

Second, I continue to be weirded out by these two assumptions that stand behind this pressure to admit these people to communion: 1. That it is always good to receive communion. No, it bloody well isn't. It is always good to partake in mass, but not to receive communion. To receive communion unworthily is detrimental, certainly to one's spiritual health and possibly to one's physical health. Now, remarriage is an odd business as far as culpability is concerned, since one can well question the impact of habit and desire, etc. So I wouldn't be confident to claim that all remarried are in perpetual mortal sin (which would make it easy to delineate consequences). But by the same uncertainty I wouldn't be confident to claim that they can partake in communion worthily either. The Eucharist is medicine to the sinful, but poison to the unrepentant and spiritually dead, and I for one would suggest that fear of the latter is as important as desire of the former. 2. That every difficulty has to be resolved in this life. Life can hand out crosses that will not be taken away till death. There is no particular reason why the conflict between genuine love to someone and the rules governing marriage should not be on occasion the cause of such a cross. If one says that the Church must step back from her rules so that a cross disappears, then one is basically saying that the Church is making arbitrary rules. It is unjust to impose a cross on someone for no good reason. But the Church is not arbitrary at all, and has very good reasons for her rules. That for some people this becomes a cross is not as such a proof that the rules are wrong. In this world there rarely is any good that does not cause some bad.

[ 05. February 2014, 17:53: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
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
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems also that Mum (second wife) would now like to receive the Sacraments.That is good.If what EM says is correct,and I am not doubting it,the unbeliever father is happy for his children to receive the Sacraments.If he is prepared to do this,might he not also be prepared to seek an annulment of his first marriage ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Not so. The Church will examine a case for nullity even in the absence of evidence from the other spouse if that cannot be had because said spouse refuses to co-operate.

And since there was not enough time left to edit, after I've actually read through all the cross-posts, I just want to acknowledge that this answer by Chesterbelloc is better than mine above in a practical sense. (Though I stand by my judgement that the husband should accommodate the religious issues of his wife where this is possible rather easily, and that he would be at fault here even if the Church wasn't as sensible as she is according to Chesterbelloc.)

--------------------
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
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[x-post with IngoB: my misreading still happened, though!]

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Mum (second wife) is baptised Catholic, but never made her first reconciliation or received communion and now she cannot, unless either her husband agrees to go through an annulment process (unlikely, as he is lapsed) or she breaks up her family.

Not so. The Church will examine a case for nullity even in the absence of evidence from the other spouse if that cannot be had because said spouse refuses to co-operate.
Having just read IngoB's response, I see I have misread the post in question. My assumption was that the husband referred to was her first husband, but I see upon rereading Erroneous Monk's original post that there was no suggestion that she had been married before - just that her current husband has been. Apologies for the confusion.

[ 05. February 2014, 18:04: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So when people and circumstances change and a contract cannot be sustained, where is the 'sin'? Who 'sinned'?

Or when a contract is doomed from the weakness and ignorance of at least one of the parties, how is it still in force?

And what is the difference between a sacramental marriage and a marriage? What does my present and final bogus marriage lack? How does it detract from my partaking of bogus communion? How much more damned could I possibly be?

How do I unmake up, make down, the postmodern narrative that makes overwhelming faithful sense with the continuing progressive revelation in Christ and make up one that ignores His cultural context? Must I go back to believing that God the Killer forbids divorce except for adultery? The two do go together after all, except in the God of grace incarnate.

I vastly admire those Roman Catholics who loyally submit to the restrictions of the church and to the imperative to love. God bless them. And those who damn them.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A 'sacramental' marriage is one which has been blessed by the Catholic church,where at least one of the contracting parties is a Catholic.
Those who claim the name Catholic,if they wish to have a sacramental marriage ,have to be married in the eyes of the Church.
Those who are not Catholic can marry,if they wish, without the blessing of the Catholic church.
It's as simple as that.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I don't see how it could be a good thing for her and her civil husband to separate, but at the same time it doesn't make sense to say that the best life she can live is one where she is unreconciled with God and never receives Holy Communion.

If I understand the Catholic position, there is a third option - live with her husband and care for her children with him as a mutually loving and supportive parenting team, and refrain from having sex with him on the grounds that that part of his life is promised to someone else.

Not the most attractive of lifestyle choices, and possibly not one that he would accept even if she chose it, but it is an option, and it's only fair to the RCC side to include it in the analysis.

--------------------
"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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  15  16  17 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools