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 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  15  16  17 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Which principle predominates. Erroneus Monk?


I'm an auditor, so when I think of compliance versus principle, I'm thinking of an approach that is all to do with ticking off a checklist, rather than taking substantial actions that change behaviour/outcomes.

it seems to me that in relation to questions such as what is grave sin against a marriage, what is an adequate level of repentance, what is the required outward sign of that repentance, we and the Church tend to use a compliance checklist - because we *can* - see references above to the evidence trail created by marriage, divorce, remarriage etc.

But one could comply with the checklist in full and live an unloving life in substance - e.g. make life hell for one's spouse while remaining physically faithful and constantly present.

And - continuing to talk in the language of the office, forgive me - the fact that one can remain in communion by complying with the checklist, and without making the effort in substance to live out a marriage of love (and no, I don't mean romantic love, or great sex, but compassion and care) seems to me to be a perverse incentive.

Yes yes, yes, yes. Four ticks, one for each paragraph.

Effort in substance is a good phrase. In spirit and in truth also come to mind. Make every effort to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. If possible. In so far as it depends on you.

Some wider principles of being in loving relationship seem to apply. These most difficult questions arise when relationships break down. Humpy Dumpty had such a great fall that all the kings horses and men couldn't mend the brokenness.

Seen that. It breaks your heart.

--------------------
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 
Aye. It does.

--------------------
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 Erroneous Monk:
it seems to me that in relation to questions such as what is grave sin against a marriage, what is an adequate level of repentance, what is the required outward sign of that repentance, we and the Church tend to use a compliance checklist - because we *can* - see references above to the evidence trail created by marriage, divorce, remarriage etc.

But one could comply with the checklist in full and live an unloving life in substance - e.g. make life hell for one's spouse while remaining physically faithful and constantly present.

And - continuing to talk in the language of the office, forgive me - the fact that one can remain in communion by complying with the checklist, and without making the effort in substance to live out a marriage of love (and no, I don't mean romantic love, or great sex, but compassion and care) seems to me to be a perverse incentive.

It would be if that is what the Church were furnisnhing folk with - but it isn't. "The checklist" as you call it is at best a list of necessary but not sufficient conditions for not excommunicating oneself.

I can assure you that intentionally "making life hell for one's spouse" is also the sort of thing that the Church looks on dimly and which can certainly make one unfit to receive the Sacrament - as any competent confessor could tell you.

--------------------
"[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 
How do we get from the unique a-contextual Lucan hand grenade of "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (echoed with a context in Mark) to the Pauline "But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace." unless the words of Jesus like many others including the beatitudes (which include similar words to those above with an exception) are hyperbolic, exaggerated for rhetorical effect, not the final dogmatic universal unalterable law for all situations, but part of a meta-discussion starting from a particular cultural context, one where divorce was an institutionalized arbitrary abuse of patriarchy.

There is, of course, no mention of the reasonable and humane grounds from Bronze Age Exodus 21:10 that even a wife had the rights to: to walk free when unloved. Except in type, obviously, implicit in Paul. They aren't mentioned in Jesus' discussions on the abuse of divorce. They didn't have to be.

[ 11. February 2014, 22:50: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 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 Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How do we get from the unique a-contextual Lucan hand grenade of "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (echoed with a context in Mark) to the Pauline "But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace." unless the words of Jesus like many others including the beatitudes (which include similar words to those above with an exception) are hyperbolic, exaggerated for rhetorical effect, not the final dogmatic universal unalterable law for all situations, but part of a meta-discussion starting from a particular cultural context, one where divorce was an institutionalized arbitrary abuse of patriarchy.

I continue to be fascinated by the ability of people to read one verse and just utterly ignore the rest of the very chapter that verse comes from. The "Pauline privilege" is established in 1 Cor 7:12-15, of which you quote the last verse. Just prior in 1 Cor 7:10-11 St Paul says: "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) - and that the husband should not divorce his wife." That seems abundantly clear to me, and the "Lucan hand grenade" is actually the "gospel hand grenade", repeated here and everywhere in the NT where the topic arises. St Paul's testimony here is of particular value, since it makes explicit that the apostles did not see any sort of "hyperbole" in this - small wonder, after Christ's smack-down of their (and your) worldly reaction in Matt 19:10-12. Rather, they saw it as a clear instruction of the Lord, a commandment, to be passed on. And it is this "interpretation" which is affirmed unanimously by the Church Fathers. What we have here from St Paul is the establishment of the difference between a natural and a sacramental marriage. Whether St Paul had a theology that could articulate this difference I do not know. The evidence is simply that he established the orthopraxis which we today capture in this theological distinction.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There is, of course, no mention of the reasonable and humane grounds from Bronze Age Exodus 21:10 that even a wife had the rights to: to walk free when unloved. Except in type, obviously, implicit in Paul. They aren't mentioned in Jesus' discussions on the abuse of divorce. They didn't have to be.

One can perhaps use this against Barnabas62's attempt to question the Divine authority granted to Mark as evangelist in order to introduce doubt about the indissolubility of marriage against his utterly unequivocal words in scripture. For in your verse we have evidence of some kind of "divorce" initiated by women among the Jews (though mainly one can simply point to Mark - and Jesus - being well acquainted with the Greek and Roman culture of their time, and Mark addressing his gospel to the gentiles...). However, for people capable of reading more than one verse at a time, it is clear from context that what is being talked about in Exodus there is how to deal with slaves. In this particular instance, sexual slaves, namely women sold by their father to some master for sexual pleasure, procreation and presumably housekeeping. In this context then, what Exodus 21:10 actually is saying is that if such a sexual slave falls into disfavour, because the master has found/bought a new plaything, and he stops feeding, clothing and fucking her, then she can leave without having to pay her way out of slavery. That's what she is free of then, to pay off her master's ownership. The actual teaching here is hence that if you own a human being, then you have a basic duty of care for their needs (they need to be fed, clothed and fucked...) or you forfeit that ownership. Good luck with turning that sort of thing into a justification for modern divorce. Personally, I think it was a good thing that Jesus rejected all this mess outright and re-established what was God's will from the beginning as normative rule for his followers. That would include you.

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

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...Barnabas62's attempt to question the Divine authority granted to Mark as evangelist in order to introduce doubt about the indissolubility of marriage against his utterly unequivocal words in scripture ...

Well, it isn't my personal attempt, is it? Unless you regard reporting of a finding by a very well known and respected Protestant theologian as some kind of personal attack by me, or him, on the authority of and inspiration of scripture. It is a finding based on content within scripture. There is something to be considered there.

By all means kick it out on dogmatic grounds if you want to. I've acknowledged the internal coherence of Catholic understanding a lot of times on this thread. Why take pot shots when I've already withdrawn from that part of the discussion here?

--------------------
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
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Personally, I think it was a good thing that Jesus rejected all this mess outright and re-established what was God's will from the beginning as normative rule for his followers. That would include you.

And this is why I feel sometimes we are talking at cross purposes.

Most of us are agreeing that it is right for Christians to marry once and remain faithful to that spouse until death. We are clearly called to this if we choose to marry.

This is different from saying that remarrying puts a Christian in a state of sustained sinfulness and disobedience, which is what the RCC says and most other churches generally reject.

Don't you think it's interesting that the requirements for elders given in the NT are "the husband of one wife." Now, I'm no Biblical scholar but that suggests rather strongly to me that there were men in the church who did NOT meet this qualification. Otherwise no need to mention it specifically. This is the same Paul who you say elsewhere is making a statement that the remarried are commanded to remain single. Perhaps that's an issue of church discipline rather than a command from God. Similar to many other things Paul wrote authoritatively in one place but contradicted in another (but these are DH issues so won't elaborate).

[ 12. February 2014, 10:26: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which people are they IngoB?

There's no good news in the institutionalization of patriarchy which is what Jesus was attacking. Not the freedom in Him to walk away from it and other unfixable broken abuse clean.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aye seekingsister. Celibate priests certainly don't.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 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 Barnabas62:
Unless you regard reporting of a finding by a very well known and respected Protestant theologian as some kind of personal attack by me, or him, on the authority of and inspiration of scripture.

Both. He said it, you repeated it, and it is what it is.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why take pot shots when I've already withdrawn from that part of the discussion here?

Merely because it was fun to see Martin dig up a "divorce" initiated by women in the OT, as argument against the Catholic position, after you had tried to get around Mark supporting the Catholic position because of his talk about divorce initiated by women in the NT.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Most of us are agreeing that it is right for Christians to marry once and remain faithful to that spouse until death. We are clearly called to this if we choose to marry. This is different from saying that remarrying puts a Christian in a state of sustained sinfulness and disobedience, which is what the RCC says and most other churches generally reject.

So what do you call the sustained deviation from what Christ has clearly called you to do, if not sin and disobedience? Hopscotch?

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Don't you think it's interesting that the requirements for elders given in the NT are "the husband of one wife." Now, I'm no Biblical scholar but that suggests rather strongly to me that there were men in the church who did NOT meet this qualification. Otherwise no need to mention it specifically.

Well, yeah. Sure there were. People tended to die a lot more in those days, and women in particular were in an unusual danger in the prime of their life as compared to men - due to childbirth. What would a widower do in these days, you reckon, in particular if blessed with several children and of reasonably high social status (as an elder of a church might well be)? Right, he would remarry. Except, an elder was not allowed to remarry even as widower. That's the point St Paul is making there, and that is the continuous tradition where the clergy does not have to celibate (i.e., in the East). You can become a priest if you are married, but you cannot marry if you are a priest (even if you were married, but your wife died). And you cannot become a priest if you were married more than once. Ask the Orthodox...

--------------------
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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What we cannot say with similar clarity is who will receive how much condemnation for this before God.

But thank God that God is more merciful than the Roman Catholic Church.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 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 IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Unless you regard reporting of a finding by a very well known and respected Protestant theologian as some kind of personal attack by me, or him, on the authority of and inspiration of scripture.

Both. He said it, you repeated it, and it is what it is.
No it isn't. You are elevating an opinion on a particular approach to exegetics (sometimes called higher criticism) to the level of a factual statement about the beliefs of others.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why take pot shots when I've already withdrawn from that part of the discussion here?

Merely because it was fun to see Martin dig up a "divorce" initiated by women in the OT, as argument against the Catholic position, after you had tried to get around Mark supporting the Catholic position because of his talk about divorce initiated by women in the NT.
I'm not trying to get around anything. Neither is Jimmy Dunn. He is not a lone voice either. He has spent decades in researching the sayings of Jesus, as, for example, has Richard Bauckham (in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). Dunn is a minister of the Church of Scotland as well as, for many years, Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham. Bauckham grew up as an Anglican and remains an Anglican; he was for many years Professor of NT Studies at St Andrews and is a senior scholar at Ridlley College which trains C of E ordinands. Their in-depth knowledge of the New Testament is impressive, as are their understandings of and commitments to the Christian faith. Neither of them would be in any way strangers to Catholic theology.

I said earlier in the the thread that I was trying to illuminate why some Protestants might have a different view to Catholicism. A role I have withdrawn from, because discussion of Protestant theology has proved to be too tangential to the purposes of this thread. I understand that you do not wish even to agree to disagree, so I'm going to leave it there. I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What we cannot say with similar clarity is who will receive how much condemnation for this before God.

But thank God that God is more merciful than the Roman Catholic Church.
[Overused] [Overused]

I suspect there are some people, though, who would not just disagree with you, but would tell us that such a concept is impossible.

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

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cannot, cannot, cannot.

Sad isn't it?

The defence of arbitrary, unreasoned patriarchy dressed up as ... grace?

Some more examples of Jesus' insouciant, relentless use of hyperbole:

Luke.14:26 If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Mark 10:27 “all things are possible with God”

Matt. 6:3 “When you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”

Matt. 19:24 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God”

Luke 13:19 The kingdom of God “is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches”

Matt. 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

As Paul was able to work it out on his own recognizance, in Brian's footsteps, so are we.

It's funny, whatever doubts I have had - over the ordination of women, the full inclusion of other than statistically 'normal' sexuality and its expression in love, pacifism in all images of God, name it - are removed in polarization by their opponents who are traditionally united in opposing all of them.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 IngoB:
Well, yeah. Sure there were. People tended to die a lot more in those days, and women in particular were in an unusual danger in the prime of their life as compared to men - due to childbirth. What would a widower do in these days, you reckon, in particular if blessed with several children and of reasonably high social status (as an elder of a church might well be)? Right, he would remarry. Except, an elder was not allowed to remarry even as widower. That's the point St Paul is making there, and that is the continuous tradition where the clergy does not have to celibate (i.e., in the East). You can become a priest if you are married, but you cannot marry if you are a priest (even if you were married, but your wife died). And you cannot become a priest if you were married more than once. Ask the Orthodox...

None of this contradicts my suggestion that limiting bishops to those married only once and never remarried, is a clear indication that there were members of the church who did not meet those standards. As a currently monogamous man who has had more than one wife must either be divorced or widowed, that means both categories are excluded from being bishops.

If one takes the rest of the verse, it means that the remarried, those with disobedient children, those who had temptations with money and wine, could be Christians, but not bishops. If those things excluded one from Christianity in general, they would not be listed here as exclusions to high leadership.

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:
No it isn't. You are elevating an opinion on a particular approach to exegetics (sometimes called higher criticism) to the level of a factual statement about the beliefs of others.

You were not just randomly quoting some interesting analysis of scripture. You were using this to justify your position on remarriage. And the only way that can work is precisely if those exegetical comments on Mark mean - in your mind - that the words of Mark are of questionable authority on the subject of divorce and remarriage. Otherwise, what is even the point of mentioning any of this? Indeed, for me there is no point to it at all. Because to me it matters not one bit whether Jesus really said what Mark reports him to have said, or whether that was (partly) Mark putting words into Jesus' mouth. Because to me in the latter case that would simply be the Holy Spirit putting words into Mark's head so that Mark puts them into Jesus' mouth. The authority of the resulting words is one and the same: Divine. Exegesis is of value only as far as it helps us to understand what God is trying to tell us, but there is no problem with understanding what Mark is saying here. Or at least there is no problem here that would have anything to do with the question whether Jesus could have been talking about women divorcing. If you have that same attitude, then stop talking about this particular exegesis, because it contributes nothing to the discussion we are having. It is entirely without any relevance. If you do not have that same attitude, then stop complaining that I have called you out on that.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not trying to get around anything. Neither is Jimmy Dunn.

That's good to hear. I expect then that you will follow Mark 10:11-12 to the letter in your Christian practice: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." I look forward to hearing your condemnation of all remarriages as ongoing adultery, and am pleased that you have joined the Catholic faith on this matter. But that's not going to happen, is it? At least do a Martin and tell us that this is just hyperbole, or something similar. That's a lot more informative about where you are coming from than going on about various academic studies.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He has spent decades in researching the sayings of Jesus, as, for example, has Richard Bauckham (in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). Dunn is a minister of the Church of Scotland as well as, for many years, Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham. Bauckham grew up as an Anglican and remains an Anglican; he was for many years Professor of NT Studies at St Andrews and is a senior scholar at Ridlley College which trains C of E ordinands. Their in-depth knowledge of the New Testament is impressive, as are their understandings of and commitments to the Christian faith. Neither of them would be in any way strangers to Catholic theology.

Seriously? An argument from authority? Involving academics? In matters of scripture interpretation? Concerning a key issue of the Protestant heresy, from Protestants? Involving intimate relationships?

Your position is untenable because the texts are clear, what you do in practice is clear, but how you go from one to the other remains a mystery. You've been beaten in clarity and straightforwardness by Martin. At that point, waving about the academic titles of others does nothing for you.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

The world, and people, so often disappoint.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
As a currently monogamous man who has had more than one wife must either be divorced or widowed, that means both categories are excluded from being bishops.

For sure. But only for one of them this may come as a surprise, and is hence worth mentioning by St Paul here, namely for the widower who has remarried. According to St Paul's other teachings, we could have assumed that the widower is doing perfectly fine in remarrying and that no impediment to him becoming an elder arises from that. But St Paul corrects this idea here. Whereas of course it was already perfectly clear from St Paul's other teaching that the person who remarries after a divorce is an adulterer and nobody would be in the slightest surprised that an unrepentant sinner is not made elder.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If one takes the rest of the verse, it means that the remarried, those with disobedient children, those who had temptations with money and wine, could be Christians, but not bishops. If those things excluded one from Christianity in general, they would not be listed here as exclusions to high leadership.

Indeed. Remarried widowers are even Christians in good standing, even though they cannot become elders. Remarried divorcees are also still Christians, of course. Just Christians that are in impaired standing. Perhaps you don't understand this whole withholding communion thing. It's not even an excommunication, much less a de-Christianisation (which is basically impossible). It is simply a measure to protect the Holy Eucharist from the participation of people who publicly sin gravely, to uphold its sacredness, to ward off scandal to the faithful and indeed to protect those sinners from eating and drinking Divine judgement onto 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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The disappointment is mutual.

--------------------
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 
Well I'll be damned.

In excellent company.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Last October, in L'Osservatore Romano, Archbishop Mueller, in defense of the Church's position of excluding remarried divorcees from communion wrote:

quote:
Clearly, the care of remarried divorcees must not be reduced to the question of receiving the Eucharist. It involves a much more wide-ranging pastoral approach, which seeks to do justice to to the different situations. It is important to realize that there are other ways, apart from sacramental communion, of being in fellowship with God. One can draw close to God by turning to him in faith, hope and charity, in repentance and prayer. God can grant his closeness and his salvation to people on different paths, even if they find themselves in a contradictory life situation.
Even if the net result of the Synods of 2014 and 2015 is just to reiterate this pastoral care, it leaves an imortant question unanswered, which I hope those knowledgeable students of canon law such as IngoB or Chesterbelloc may be able to clarify. Certainly he's saying that such people aren't excluded from the Church altogether. The sacrificial nature of the Mass may be efficacious even for people who can't receive communion. Eucharistic adoration is another way in which Christ can be approached. But whether the ongoing adultery of a second union is considered a grave sin or a mortal sin, there are also the other sins people commit in life that need to be taken into consideration.

To my mind, being excluded from confession is even more serious than being excluded from the Eucharist. The inability to receive absolution for any sin, even those which could, in normal circumstances,be taken to the confessional, must leave many in a state of mortal sin, for which damnation could be the result. Perhaps some of these people could live long enough for ammendment of life. Perhaps the sexual side of their illicit union will come to a natural end, as it does with many older couples. Perhaps they will split with their second partner. In such cases, they could confess and be reconciled to God and the Church.

But others, because of their ongoing state, are in practice excommunicated, even if they aren't physically ejected from the church building! No amount of pastoral care, or kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament can help someone who is unable to receive sacramental absolution, because they know that they will die in their state of moratl sin! So how can God "grant his closeness and salvation to people on different paths" if the path they're on is objectively one of damnation?

--------------------
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 
PaulTH*, first, God is not limited by the sacraments. But our knowledge of what He may do apart from the sacraments is limited. Second, perfect contrition absolves you from sin even prior to the sacrament of confession. For contrition to be perfect, it must contain a desire to confess - contra the Protestants, it is not enough to simply forgive oneself before God. However, where this desire cannot be realized due to circumstance, the absolution is not hindered. This is usually applied to circumstances like someone having an accident on the way to confession and dying before a priest can get to them. There is reasonable hope that their sins were forgiven already by "perfect contrition". However, if we assume that it is psychologically possible that one is "perfectly contrite" about all one's (mortal) sins, except for one's remarriage, and that that includes a strong desire to go to confession, then I think there is reasonable hope that at least those other sins are forgiven in spite of the "technicality" that the sacrament cannot be provided unless one is ready to repent of all (mortal) sin.

That's my personal speculation based on some basic knowledge, by the way. It is neither learned opinion nor official teaching.

--------------------
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 
Who needs Hell?

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 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:
PaulTH*, first, God is not limited by the sacraments. But our knowledge of what He may do apart from the sacraments is limited. Second, perfect contrition absolves you from sin even prior to the sacrament of confession. For contrition to be perfect, it must contain a desire to confess - contra the Protestants, it is not enough to simply forgive oneself before God. However, where this desire cannot be realized due to circumstance, the absolution is not hindered. This is usually applied to circumstances like someone having an accident on the way to confession and dying before a priest can get to them. There is reasonable hope that their sins were forgiven already by "perfect contrition". However, if we assume that it is psychologically possible that one is "perfectly contrite" about all one's (mortal) sins, except for one's remarriage, and that that includes a strong desire to go to confession, then I think there is reasonable hope that at least those other sins are forgiven in spite of the "technicality" that the sacrament cannot be provided unless one is ready to repent of all (mortal) sin.

Perhaps we've finally reached a point where I can agree with you!!!!! Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and even Cardinal elect Mueller have all emphasised the need for a pastoral ministry to remarried divorcees, which Pope Francis is going to consider, among other issues, at the October Synod. As he's on record as saying that he considers the annulment process to be inadequate, it's likely that he will make some changes to it. But assuming that he's unable to change the rules on permitting those in irregular unions to receive the sacraments, I hope that the renewed pastoral initiative to such people will emphasise strongly that they don't live outside the possibility of receiving God's mercy. The Holy Father has said that the time for mercy has come. He needs to show it here.

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

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Remarried widowers are even Christians in good standing, even though they cannot become elders.

This is a very odd interpretation of what Paul meant about a presbyter being 'the husband of one wife'.

Surely he was ruling out polygamy.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To me it means that the bishop may not have more than one wife at a time.( Solomon had several wives).
Also that the bishop should not marry again after he has been ordained.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why?

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
God bless THIS wonderful, Godly Roman Catholic priest, Father Xavier, 1m 25s in.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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:
The whole problem here is that people think of marriage as a voluntary arrangement between two people, and then parse everything as demands and duties of those people in that arrangement. It is that, of course, naturally. The whole point of Catholic teaching is however that Christ turned marriage into a sacramental state that can be built up between two people. […] So what binds your suffering wife is not that she has any remaining duties to you. Obviously you have forfeit all rights by your actions as a person. What binds her is simply that she is, and will always remain, married to you. She is in a state that she cannot get out of, except for the death of one of you. And her own actions are measured against that state, not against you.

That's what I don't get about the Catholic emphasis on re-marriage.

Suppose I agree that marriage is a 'one chance only' deal as the RCC teaches. Marriage is the only good, safe, acceptable way to obtain the worldly goods that most people most value: sex, romantic love and one's own children. So a human being gets basically one chance in their life to achieve these desires. Then I find that astonishingly there is a woman in the world who is prepared to trust me enough to take her one chance at this with me. Wouldn't it be the greatest, most heartless betrayal of trust for me to leave her when she had done nothing to deserve that? Wouldn't divorcing her be about the worst sin I'm likely to commit?

Which is why I can't comprehend how it isn't divorce that's the problem for Catholics, given that it is so obviously wrong and damaging, and so obviously the thing Jesus was telling his followers not to do (with a possible exception where one party repudiates the marriage by conduct), but the question of what happens after this monumental betrayal is of such importance. The rule seems to be that letting one's horses bolt merits mild disapproval, but failing to bolt the stable door once they've gone is a matter of life-long condemnation. Why isn't it the injustice that you care about?

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The only practical way to get people to make that sort of extravagent promise is to encourage them to approve and desire it as something good and worthy.

Nope. That's a losing because idealistic proposition. People want romantic relationships, sex and offspring. Very much. They need to be convinced that there is only one safe way of getting those. That's all. Of course it will be a horrible muddle, and always has been, but that's just how people are. The idea that one can sell "sacramental marriage" as an ideal to the masses is just batshit. It's never going to work. First, only a small fraction of population is driven by idealism. Idealism gets big only in waves of mild insanity - you can base revolutions on that, but not steady governance. Second, mostly it's the young who get caught up in idealism easily. And it's rather problematic to play their naivety towards getting them married. Third, nothing kills idealism faster than living together day by day. Except perhaps for having kids. I'm not quite sure what to call the engine of stable families, but it sure as heck isn't idealism. More something like loving just-do-it-ism.
I can't agree. I think in almost every area of life people are motivated more by feeling good about something than feeling bad. I work harder at jobs I can take pride in. I am nicer to people who appear to appreciate me. I am more scrupulous about rules which I think admirable.

Fear can be a motivator, but I don't think it is much good at making people want to obey. And a bad marriage can hurt so much, and the temptation of a better relationship can be so strong, that without some real desire to stay committed, not just fear of the consequences of failure, is likely going to be needed to keep a salvageable marriage going long enough for things to begin to change. I'm still married because “I said the words”, and that matters to me. Fear of Hell was never a factor in keeping me faithful. In the first place, I could very easily convince myself I am was in no danger of Hell (possibly easier for a Protestant than a Catholic, but not by much, as far as I can tell), and in the second place, because the possibility of Hell is the rest of my life-time away, and it looks a lot smaller because of the distance than my unhappiness now. That is, I admit, a rather short-sighted perspective, but, I think, a common one.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I also think (as a liberal) that it is unfair to impose that level of commitment on people who have not freely chosen it.

Since marriages not freely chosen are invalid, I don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are complaining about not being able to freely chose what the word and Christian life is like. That's a common complaint, see the endless bitching in the bible, which however has never changed anything (except the person bitching, who might get it out of their system at some point).
What I mean is that someone who freely consents to a marriage ceremony, but does not intend to make the “this is my only chance for a sexual/loving/procreative relationship ever, no matter what, even if my partner abandons me without reason” commitment, cannot be said to have chosen that commitment. If that commitment is reckoned to be an indispensible part of marriage, then the RC Cardinal cited on this thread is probably under-estimating when he says that about half of Catholic marriages were not entered into with both parties understanding and consenting to what the Church says they were ostensibly doing. I strongly doubt that anything like as many as half the marriages outside the RCC are undertaken with both partners having that standard of irrevocability in mind.

The problem for the RCC, as I see it, is that it sees 'no remarriage' as an unalterable standard, for which no concession to human weakness is allowed, when this is something that probably the majority even of its own faithful probably can't and certainly won't consciously and whole-heartedly consent to.

I think that people who sign up for marriage should, in fairness, know what they are promising, and actually want to promise it. I doubt that the strict 'no re-marriage' rule will ever fulfil those criteria for most Christians.

--------------------
"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 Erroneous Monk:
But surely nobodies lives and marriages are such simple hypotheticals, nor that posited by Eliab ("it only takes one to walk out").

Surely a person who refuses physical and emotional intimacy with their spouse while continuing to live in the same house as them commits as serious a sin as the person who walks away. Though in both cases (the physically present, spiritually withdrawn, and the physical abandoner) we would still wonder what has led to that pass, rather than simply say that one is the guilty party?

Are you saying that with our imperfect knowledge we can't judge in a particular case that one person only is guilty? (If so, yes, mostly) Or that it is in principle impossible that only one person could be guilty? (In which case, no).

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

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eliab - the probability that a good number of couples who have been married with rc rites have not signed up completely to the promises is where,at least to my mind, there is room for greater use of the annulment procedure,which gives the possibility of a fresh start.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aye leo, that's all he meant. Concurrency. Obviously. But no, we must read something narrower in to it. Seriality: One wife ever is your lot.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Obviously?

Despite the fact that Jewish polygamy had pretty well died out and was disapproved of by the Rabbis? Despite the fact that Greco-Roman society was monogamous? Where were these polygamists all coming from?

Despite the fact that the text actually says "a one-woman man" in Greek? (I would have thought that the text actually eliminated both categories of aspirants at the technical level.)

Please explain why it is obvious!

Anyway, isn't this just another example of the "me and my bible" tendency? What did the early church interpret this as meaning?

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
According to its narrow minded, legalistic, superstitious, uninspired, self-serving, patriarchal disposition?

[ 15. February 2014, 21:23: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Despite the fact that Jewish polygamy had pretty well died out and was disapproved of by the Rabbis? Despite the fact that Greco-Roman society was monogamous? Where were these polygamists all coming from?

Josephus notes that the then* reigning Herod had a couple of wives, some concubines, and a catamite. When the Herod fell into some disgrace, the catamite suicided anther than leave his fate to the successors.

*I think the then is right, but without the book handy I can't be sure. He may have been referring to one in the past.

[ 16. February 2014, 03:36: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Never let the [SPIRIT of] truth get in the way of disposition Gee D. Especially of 'the learn-ed'.

--------------------
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 
/Herod tangent

I think Josephus was not referring to Herod Antipas, but Herod the Great. He's the one notorious in scripture for the Massacre of the Innocents.

Certainly a self-proclaimed Jew and self-proclaimed King of the Jews. But not exactly a model Jew, to put it mildly. More of a "right bastard". I'm pretty sure Josephus describes him as a tyrant, not least for the measures he used to suppress discontent about him as a ruler. Seems clear that most contemporary Jews were pretty contemptuous of his behaviour. He followed Jewish Law when it suited him.

Not exactly a poster boy for contemporary Jewish understandings of marriage, divorce, monogamy, polygamy, but perhaps an illustrator of those laws by his breaking of them!

I think you'll find these things, Gee D, when you look back. This from memory too. I haven't got a copy of Josephus to hand, though I think the Antiquities may be available online.

[Late Edit: It is here. I've set the link at Book 15; chapter 8 shows the contemporary Jewish attitudes to Herod and chapter 9 shows him taking another wife. The whole book, and 16 which follows, hardly describe a model Jewish citizen]

[ 16. February 2014, 10:06: 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
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
According to its narrow minded, legalistic, superstitious, uninspired, self-serving, patriarchal disposition?

You are telling me that as compared to these heroes of the faith, that you are now more broad-minded, non-legalistic, unsuperstitious, more inspired, not at all self-serving and unpatriarchal?
[Paranoid]
That's quite some claim.

Anyway - what about 1 Tim 5:9, about consecrated widows (who as I'm sure you know were an order in the early church)

quote:
9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,[a] 10 and having a reputation for good works: (ESV)
or
quote:
9 No widow should be put on the list unless she is at least sixty years old, was the wife of one husband, 10 and has a reputation for good works: (NET)
The deal is the same for women as it is for men. Not, of course, that you would know this if your bible is the NIV, whose translators have reworded this passage to suit themselves. But the underlying Greek is the same construction as it is for men.

Frankly, if you want to believe this refers to women who have been polygamously married to multiple men, then knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to believe you.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe I will enter the discussion on this relatively narrow point? But with some care.

Of course you are right, Honest Ron. The Nearly Infallible Version is very fallible in its translation of 1 Tim 5:9. But there is a moral implication in its correct translation which might be worth looking at.

Given that remarriage by widows and widowers is not excluded, why exclude them from eldership? Does this point to a first century view that abstinence from sexual activity was a superior state in one sense, that it demonstrated self-control in a way in which the married state did not?

Is continuing obedience to the exclusion simply a matter of obedience to a Traditional rule, or does it also represent a continued view that a return to abstinence shows something which marriage after bereavement does not?

I thought that celibate singleness and matrimony were both chaste within Catholicism, if properly observed as Catholics understand proper observance. A married couple having sex does not devalue the chastity of marriage, again in accordance with proper Catholic understanding about allowable sex within marriage.

So I'm puzzled. Are there still "degrees of chastity" which look on the married who are chaste and the single who are chaste in different ways?

I can see the argument from obedience, of course.

--------------------
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 leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Remarried widowers are even Christians in good standing, even though they cannot become elders.

This is a very odd interpretation of what Paul meant about a presbyter being 'the husband of one wife'. Surely he was ruling out polygamy.
No, this interpretation of 1 Tim 3:2 is basically ruled out by the entirely parallel construction (in the Greek wording) in 1 Tim 5:9. The most common interpretation these days would probably be that "one-woman-man" simply means "faithful husband". However, this interpretation is a bit strange, since the other qualities listed for the elder are demands above and beyond simply avoiding mortal sin. Nobody was allowed to have multiple wives or commit adultery in the Christian community anyhow, so what's the point of mentioning such basic requirements for the elder here? Again, the parallel in 1 Tim 5:9 of the "one-man-woman" speaks against this as well, since this is talking about a widow. Finally, we do know what else this could mean, since we have a living tradition of rules for married clergy, which perfectly fits the requirement for an elder to be a "one-woman-man" in the straightforward sense of not being married more than once. It makes sense to mention such an "above and beyond the ordinary" requirement in the context.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Which is why I can't comprehend how it isn't divorce that's the problem for Catholics, given that it is so obviously wrong and damaging, and so obviously the thing Jesus was telling his followers not to do (with a possible exception where one party repudiates the marriage by conduct), but the question of what happens after this monumental betrayal is of such importance. The rule seems to be that letting one's horses bolt merits mild disapproval, but failing to bolt the stable door once they've gone is a matter of life-long condemnation. Why isn't it the injustice that you care about?

You have very strange notions there. Of course destroying one's marriage is sinful, potentially mortally so. Look at the relevant canons:
quote:
Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery. ...

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.
§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise. ...

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

There isn't a word there that would condone simply divorcing without serious cause. However, say you commit adultery, and your wife throws you out. Can you confess your sin and achieve absolution? Yes, you may well be repentant now of that grave sin. Does this force your wife to accept you back into her bed? No, it doesn't. It would be laudable if she did so, but it isn't sinful if she doesn't. So it is entirely possible to have separated spouses who are both not in a state of mortal sin (any longer). If you both go to Church, on what grounds should you not both receive communion? And since the public does not usually know the ins and outs of a relationship, the rule against "manifest and obstinate grave sin" does not grip. I do not know whether you have reconciled with God over your adultery, so even if I know about your adultery and see that you are still separate from your wife, this does not tell me that you are receiving communion unworthily.

Now, as I have stated above several times, I do think that the Church is inconsistent in applying the "withholding communion over public sin" rule. The remarried are an easy target there, because their sin is documented, but that does not make singling them out any fairer. Furthermore, many "obvious" sins should be tolerated as far as withholding communion is concerned, not because one tolerates the sin but because reasonable doubt should protect the accused and the Church should not become a pillory. Finally, in the context of modern "anonymous" cities, often enough people simply do not know what is going on in other people's lives. One cannot be scandalised about what one doesn't know. All that said, I think there is scope for the Church withholding communion over behaviour that is unacceptable and public.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Fear can be a motivator, but I don't think it is much good at making people want to obey.

Not if it merely is supposed to hold the individual back against a backdrop of a community which by and large doesn't care. The situation is rather different though if such fear shapes the rules and expectations of the community. People like to talk about the support of a community, but usually only in the sense of supplying good cheer to the individual if they happen to be struggling in their personal journey. But a community can also supply boundaries to bump against, it can systemically shape the journey one can take. We have had many decades of elevating the individual above the community. Now we find that this self-reliant and free construct somehow fails to follow the ideals of good and beauty, and pretty much behaves like a greedy jerk most of the time. Surprise, surprise, ...

The key problem for the RCC is wonderfully demonstrated in the fact that we are discussing canon law as if it was listing ideals. That was of course never the intention. Like all law, also canon law lists minimum standards of behaviour. It is the rock bottom, not the mountain top.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think that people who sign up for marriage should, in fairness, know what they are promising, and actually want to promise it. I doubt that the strict 'no re-marriage' rule will ever fulfil those criteria for most Christians.

Neither you, nor most Christians, nor indeed the RCC has any say in this. The Lord has spoken, and that's it. Period. We can still discuss things like "How culpable are those systematically ignoring and breaking the Lord's word on marriage, given that they were brought up in this moral corruption and do not fully realise what they are doing?" or "How culpable are those who as RCs pay lip-service to RC teaching on marriage but wouldn't know a dogma if it bit them in their butt?" Yet that we may find it hard to answer such things does not mean that there is the slightest doubt about what we ought to do. Namely, obey the Lord.

--------------------
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
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 IngoB:
I do think that the Church is inconsistent in applying the "withholding communion over public sin" rule. The remarried are an easy target there, because their sin is documented, but that does not make singling them out any fairer. Furthermore, many "obvious" sins should be tolerated as far as withholding communion is concerned, not because one tolerates the sin but because reasonable doubt should protect the accused and the Church should not become a pillory. Finally, in the context of modern "anonymous" cities, often enough people simply do not know what is going on in other people's lives. One cannot be scandalised about what one doesn't know. All that said, I think there is scope for the Church withholding communion over behaviour that is unacceptable and public.

I think you're halfway there, IngoB. You're agreeing here that current practice is unjust. As you said on another thread, justice is proportionality.

This seems like something that the Synod could reasonably be asked to address.

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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Remarried widowers are even Christians in good standing, even though they cannot become elders.

This is a very odd interpretation of what Paul meant about a presbyter being 'the husband of one wife'. Surely he was ruling out polygamy.
No, this interpretation of 1 Tim 3:2 is basically ruled out by the entirely parallel construction (in the Greek wording) in 1 Tim 5:9. The most common interpretation these days would probably be that "one-woman-man" simply means "faithful husband". However, this interpretation is a bit strange, since the other qualities listed for the elder are demands above and beyond simply avoiding mortal sin. Nobody was allowed to have multiple wives or commit adultery in the Christian community anyhow, so what's the point of mentioning such basic requirements for the elder here? Again, the parallel in 1 Tim 5:9 of the "one-man-woman" speaks against this as well, since this is talking about a widow. Finally, we do know what else this could mean, since we have a living tradition of rules for married clergy, which perfectly fits the requirement for an elder to be a "one-woman-man" in the straightforward sense of not being married more than once. It makes sense to mention such an "above and beyond the ordinary" requirement in the context.
Thank you - I never knew that and i find it interesting and, not a little, disturbing.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sigh. HRB. Which heroes of faith? And yes WE are, and that doesn't make us nicer, better in any regard, especially me. I'm a nasty, conflicted mess HRB. A right Gollum. We OBVIOUSLY are, nonetheless, as well as just as bad and worse, in the same person (e.g. me), depending on what I've just read and encountered in a day.

But yes, we are. Our civilization is, on the shoulders of those remarkable, flawed, struggling, retrogressive men and some women.

God bless you in embracing your traditions. And in embracing me. Despite them.

--------------------
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 Planeta Plicata:
the Catholic theory that the remarried couple are sinning anew every time they sleep together appears to miss the forest for the trees. Which, I think, suggests that the Catholic position depends on a broader theory of Catholic sexual ethics, which in turn is why these biblical proof-texts aren't convincing anyone.

Would you care to elaborate on this ? What is the broader theory that you think underlies the Catholic position ?

'Cos some of us are struggling to see the logical basis for it.

It's not based in a strong adherence to the recorded words of Jesus, because of it were then divorce would be allowed in the case of porneia whatever that is interpreted to be.

It's not based in the moral imperative to keep promises, because it seems to utterly ignore any promises made as part of a remarriage.

It's clearly not based on any concern for the welfare of others when experience seems to show significant numbers of sadder-but-wiser second unions.

My own suspicion is that the root of the Catholic position is Satan, which is to say the desire for power - in this case the desire that Church officials should be the ones to decide who counts as married and who doesn't. What else can explain the determination to view such a remarriage through the lens of an extra-marital affair ?

To a disinterested observer, the relationship between a civilly-remarried couple is a marriage in all respects save the absence of sacramental blessing. (Which in many cases the couple wish to undertake but are denied by the Church. Not arguing that because they want it they should necessarily have it, just that if there are reasons for the Church to deny it then it seems a little unfair to blame them for its absence).

Denying the existence of the remarriage is the religious equivalent of a legal fiction.

Time to take the blinkers off, to see the sacramental alongside rather than instead of everyday reality - it doesn't have to be either-or.

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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Roman and post-Roman. Two religions divided by a common Christianity. To paraphrase Churchill.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Maybe I will enter the discussion on this relatively narrow point? But with some care.

Of course you are right, Honest Ron. The Nearly Infallible Version is very fallible in its translation of 1 Tim 5:9. But there is a moral implication in its correct translation which might be worth looking at.

Given that remarriage by widows and widowers is not excluded, why exclude them from eldership? Does this point to a first century view that abstinence from sexual activity was a superior state in one sense, that it demonstrated self-control in a way in which the married state did not?

It is of course possible that individuals held such views. One can find early writings recommending one or the other as the superior course. And of course both Jesus and Paul - though definitely positive about the institution of marriage - also commended celibacy. Perhaps the view of an imminent eschaton was a determinant, perhaps not. I don't know.

But in the case of elders/bishops and consecrated widows, I suspect the guiding principle may have been that the need was iconic. It pointed to some other reality, and in the case of the church it would have to include the eternal commitment of God to his chosen people, and how that was reflected in the lives of the faithful. It is a very Jewish notion after all, and "Love is Stronger Than Death" as the Song of Songs says.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard wrote:
quote:
God bless you in embracing your traditions. And in embracing me. Despite them.

Martin! Why ever would I not wish to embrace you?! I have been almost exclusively reading this thread rather than debating on it. I'm interested in what most people have to say and that certainly includes you. I've only ducked in on minor points and I've only had a few 5 or 10 minute windows over these last few days so my time has been limited - apologies in case this may have made me appear a bit brusque.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | 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 Russ:
It's not based in a strong adherence to the recorded words of Jesus, because of it were then divorce would be allowed in the case of porneia whatever that is interpreted to be.

Then you have not been listening. You have not been listening to what Catholics say about this in general, and you have not been following this thread. I will simply repeat what I said about this up-thread, on the previous page, about the Catholic position: It derives from Jesus words, and one common interpretation of the porneia (sexual immorality) clause is precisely that Jesus was talking there about what we would call invalid marriages now. For example, take the case of a brother marrying a sister. That would clearly be a case of "porneia" for the ancient Jews, and this marriage could (and should!) be divorced so as to free both to marry someone else. It was not a licit union of one flesh. One interesting point here is that Matthew does know and use the word "moicheia", which means adultery in a more specific sense, but uses here a word that is more general.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's not based in the moral imperative to keep promises, because it seems to utterly ignore any promises made as part of a remarriage.

If you are not free to make a promise, but make the promise anyway, then you are certainly at fault. But this fault does not magically grant you the freedom to make the promise. As far as the RCC is concerned, remarriage after a civil divorce is simply a special case of bigamy. I assume that in a more regular case of bigamy, where the bigamist hides their prior marriage which has not been civilly divorced, you will agree that the first marriage is true and the second is not, simply because the bigamist was not in fact free to marry again. We may well discuss what damages the bigamist may have to pay to the person whom he has misled into believing that they were married. He certainly is guilty of deceiving that person. But he has not actually made that person his wife. False promises establish rights to reparation, but they do not establish the deception as truth. Since the RCC does not believe that a sacramental marriage can be dissolved, those so married simply are not free to make promises of marriage to someone else.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's clearly not based on any concern for the welfare of others when experience seems to show significant numbers of sadder-but-wiser second unions.

I do not believe that anyone, including you, can truly do the proper sums on marital heartbreak there. These are general rules that have systemic impact throughout society. Against those who in your eyes have made a mistake and corrected it stands the number of those whose relationships could have been saved, but wasn't, and importantly also the children of such unions. Against the number of those who succeed the second time stand the number of those who are broken by the first time, or find it much harder to compete in the "market" the second time around, or fail multiple times in a row.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
My own suspicion is that the root of the Catholic position is Satan, which is to say the desire for power - in this case the desire that Church officials should be the ones to decide who counts as married and who doesn't. What else can explain the determination to view such a remarriage through the lens of an extra-marital affair ?

Having first tried to put the eminently scriptural and thoroughly traditional Catholic position in question over the porneia clause, now you turn to making the rules of marriage a matter of individual judgement. It is an old game plan, please do consult Genesis 3. Satan there first questions whether God really did say what He said, and then He speaks of empowering the individual to make their own decisions concerning what is good and evil.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
To a disinterested observer, the relationship between a civilly-remarried couple is a marriage in all respects save the absence of sacramental blessing.

And indeed, this is the teaching of the interested observer that is the RCC.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Denying the existence of the remarriage is the religious equivalent of a legal fiction.

I'm not aware that anybody has denied the existence of remarriage. What has been denied is its validity in the case of a prior sacramental marriage. Just as nobody is denying the existence of bigamy, but it is no legal fiction that a second attempt at marriage is invalidated there by the existence of the first marriage.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Time to take the blinkers off, to see the sacramental alongside rather than instead of everyday reality - it doesn't have to be either-or.

Indeed, in the case of marriage it is obvious that the natural has been elevated to the supernatural. Grace perfects nature, it does not destroy it. However, for the baptised marriage is now elevated, and this cannot be undone any more than a baptism can be undone.

--------------------
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      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Then you have not been listening. You have not been listening to what Catholics say about this in general, and you have not been following this thread. I will simply repeat what I said about this up-thread, on the previous page, about the Catholic position: It derives from Jesus words, and one common interpretation of the porneia (sexual immorality) clause is precisely that Jesus was talking there about what we would call invalid marriages now. For example, take the case of a brother marrying a sister. That would clearly be a case of "porneia" for the ancient Jews, and this marriage could (and should!) be divorced so as to free both to marry someone else. It was not a licit union of one flesh. One interesting point here is that Matthew does know and use the word "moicheia", which means adultery in a more specific sense, but uses here a word that is more general.

It may be that some of us haven't been listening, but I don't think that's true of most of us. What most of us are saying, either expressly or by implication, is that we don't accept the RCC take on porneia. We just aren't persuaded by it. We think the RCC has selected an improbable interpretation of that word, so as to avoid the conflict that the more likely meaning creates between that verse and the teaching the RCC wishes to impose on its own faithful and tell the rest of us we should be following too.

[ 17. February 2014, 08:36: Message edited by: Enoch ]

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

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Honest Ron Bacardi. Eeeee. I don't know Ron. What's to become of us all?

There's no reason on Earth or above why Roman Catholics should change a thing except by internal dialectic, if at all.

OK, so, seriously, stepping away from ANY mixing of my desire like mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria's (an Austrian friend told me that he ran after his terrified subjects saying 'Love me you scum!') with the issue, how CAN the situation change?

That's semi-rhetorical. If half of Roman Catholic marriages aren't sacramental, then they are annullable? And therefore a sacramental marriage can be entered in to? How is a marriage which happened in a Roman Catholic church determined not to have been sacramental? By one or both parties saying that they had reservations at the time, had their fingers crossed behind their backs as it were? Or didn't understand?

Without the 'need' to commit adultery? Go to Brighton and be photographed in the same hotel bedroom as it were? And sorry to ask if it's been said, and for my ignorance, but would adultery sunder even a sacramental marriage or not?

Rhetorical all really.

I'm from a post-Roman Catholic tradition and cannot go back any more than I can go further back to the pre-Roman Catholic position and forward again via any of the Eastern bifurcations.

But I want to repent of conflicting with Roman Catholics here. I really do. I want to embrace more fully than I can be formally embraced in return and that be fine. And I thank you, Ron, for the informal embrace.

That's the best one can hope for and one should NOT insist on more.

And I'm sorry.

I'll answer for myself in future without useless argument. Somehow! Don't let me not.

And I know I've been here before, but it wasn't quite the same stream being stepped in to. I wasn't the same stepper.

God bless the Roman Catholic Church.

[ 17. February 2014, 20:57: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

--------------------
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 
Amen.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  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 Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But surely nobodies lives and marriages are such simple hypotheticals, nor that posited by Eliab ("it only takes one to walk out").

Surely a person who refuses physical and emotional intimacy with their spouse while continuing to live in the same house as them commits as serious a sin as the person who walks away. Though in both cases (the physically present, spiritually withdrawn, and the physical abandoner) we would still wonder what has led to that pass, rather than simply say that one is the guilty party?

Are you saying that with our imperfect knowledge we can't judge in a particular case that one person only is guilty? (If so, yes, mostly) Or that it is in principle impossible that only one person could be guilty? (In which case, no).
Yes to the first.

To the second, I think it is *theoretically* possible that only one of a couple could have contributed to the break down of a marriage.

But in my experience so far, real life is a lot messier. As Primo Levi (I think) said, the line between good and evil goes through the middle of each of our hearts. None of us is wholly innocent, and none wholly guilty.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  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