|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Excommunication
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Again, sorry, that sounds sarcastic. Those are meant as straight questions. Is this where the teaching comes from.
Have you considered asking a priest?
So far I have only covered facts and processes, not the reasons why it's this way. That was enough for one evening. He recommended that I attend a RCIA course, so I hope I'll come out of that understanding a lot more about the Catholic faith. But I will be exploring the Church's position on this particular question with him before taking it any further.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I have a question about the situation in the OP. this person has re-married and has a family. Does the Church really belive that he should leave his current family and renounce that marriage before he can take communion? It seems to me, from the outside, to be a very un charitable and un-Christian approach to the situation, since it would destroy a family, and one that was created at a time that the participants were not part of the Church that has this rule. I suspect this is precisely the sort of mercy and flexibility that the current Pope has called for.
while I do understand the reasoning behind the rule about re-marriage, and certainly accept that the RCC has not only a valid reason for the rule, but the right to interpret it any way it wants. But requiring a person to either destroy a happy family or abstain eternally from communion seems like a position which goes counter to the spirit of that rule. It's one thing to tell a divorced person that they can not re-marry (I can disagree with it, but it's at least a do-able option that impacts only the individual), but dissolution of a family impacts many people, some of them entirely innocent of any wrongdoing (the children). this seems to be a situation where there is no good answer, and where the concept of "Economia" would apply in an Orthdoox setting.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I agree with Anyuta.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Does the Church really belive that he should leave his current family and renounce that marriage before he can take communion?
To be clear, this was my own extrapolation, and not a suggestion that any Catholic priest has made.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Does the Church really belive that he should leave his current family and renounce that marriage before he can take communion?
To be clear, this was my own extrapolation, and not a suggestion that any Catholic priest has made.
This RCIA document from the Archdiocese of Baltimore suggests something along those lines - unless an annulment can be obtained:
quote:
Does Divorce Affect my Entrance into the Catholic Church?
Please remember that a divorce alone would not affect, or hinder in any way, your entrance into the Catholic Church. However, if you are divorced and remarried a question does arise. We presume and respect all marriages, even one which ended in a civil divorce. Every prior marriage must be examined, since each is presumed to be a lasting, lifelong commitment. Until it is shown otherwise, you would not be free to enter into another marriage without the appearance or occasion of serious sin. If you are divorced and remarried, the sacraments of initiation which you desire to receive may need to be delayed until a Tribunal has examined your prior marriage(s) and issued a decision.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
But requiring a person to either destroy a happy family or abstain eternally from communion seems like a position which goes counter to the spirit of that rule. It's one thing to tell a divorced person that they can not re-marry (I can disagree with it, but it's at least a do-able option that impacts only the individual), but dissolution of a family impacts many people, some of them entirely innocent of any wrongdoing (the children). this seems to be a situation where there is no good answer, and where the concept of "Economia" would apply in an Orthdoox setting.
The Catholic Church dealt definitively with this question in Pope Jon Paul II's 1981 Apostolic Exhortation "Familiaris Consortio." It doesn't give much hope to those who've erred.
"However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."
Given that the Catholic Church regards forgiveness via the Sacrament of Reconciliation as the only means of attaining salvation, the remarried can only avoid damnation if they stop shagging! And they must separate unless it's for the welfare of young children. So do you abstain from communion or from sex? And if you make the wrong choice you're eternally damned. Pope Francis would like to see some changes to this Manichean contempt for human sexuality, but he's having a hard time getting it through. But we can hope.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
unless a choice is made that the new marriage will be entirely celibate,
I'm not sure that the RCC would recognise an unconsummated marriage as a marriage.
My aunt married a RC who was impotent, but who had married his first wife in the hope that this would "cure" him.
It didn't, of course, and she had relationships with other men, leading to her husband's getting the RCC to annul the marriage.
He and my aunt then met and fell in love, and she agreed to marry him knowing it would be a sexless marriage.
However the RCC refused to marry them on the grounds that if he was telling the truth about his impotence and the non-consummation of his first marriage, then it wasn't going to marry him to another woman with whom he would be unable to have sex and therefore make it a "real" marriage.
He gave up on the RCC, and they were married in a registry office.
I have heard of similar problems with the RCC when women have wanted to marry quadraplegics or paraplegics.
[ 08. April 2016, 11:07: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
As Humble Servant has shown, some of the language of Amoris Laetitia is different, gentler and non-condemnatory, but Pope Francis has quite cleverly avoided making any concrete decision to guide the Catholic Church. The wording is vague enough that many Catholics, priests and laity alike, will interpret it to suit themselves. For example, in a footnote we read:
“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”
Also:
“In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments."
Some Kasperites may interpret this to mean that if a person is not subjectively culpable for their objective sin of being remarried after divorce, growing in grace and charity could lead to admission to the sacraments. Others would argue that growth in grace can already lead to the sacraments if that grace is sufficient to prepare the person to abstain from sexual activity. This provision has existed since Familiaris Consortio in 1981.
Rather than clarify what he means, it seems to me that Pope Francis has left this open to too much individual interpretation.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday, it is not for me to look into the mind of the two people you mention who wished to enter a 'sexless' marriage, however, if there is no sex involved , then the two people are not , at least in the eyes of the teachings of the RC church, 'living in sin'. There should not then be any bar to the couple receiving Communion, if that is what they wish to do and are otherwise suitably disposed.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
Thanks PaulTH*. I've had a chance to read some more of the text and the various commentaries, particularly from the Catholic Herald. I'm really none the wiser. I will need to discuss with my parish priest and decide where to go next.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Another big problem I see in Section 3 of Amoris Laetitia is where Pope Francis writes:
“Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs."
A good example would be that in Germany the bishops are so open to the idea of communion for the remarried that they have said they would go ahead with it whatever the outcome of the two synods. On the other hand the Polish Bishops Conference ruled out any changes. So if the Germans interpret this as a green light to go ahead with their plans, there will be two very different Churches on opposite sides of the Oder-Neisse Line. How can that be Catholic?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Depending on how one looks at things there could be as many as one billion Catholic churches. Each of the faithful will interpret what he or she hears and there will be slightly different emphases.
Although there is, again in the view of many people, ONE Catholic Church, it already has a number of external differences.
In Poland it is extremely rare ever to see anyone receive Communion in the hand (I have never seen it) whereas in Germany it is an everyday occurrence.
A few years ago I was in the German border town of Frankfurt an der Oder and went to Mass on a Friday evening in the local Catholic church. As well as the priest there was an altargirl and about ten of the faithful. Out of interest I walked
across the bridge over the Oder to Slubice in Poland and attended Mass on the other side. As well as the priest there were ten altar boys and 150 of the faithful .
Pope Francis puts forward the same ideals as the Church has always put forward but is trying to give local 'particular' churches more leeway in dealing pastorally with messy 'irregular' situations, in which we as messy human beings sometimes find ourselves.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
If one has come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church offers the only valid form of Holy Communion, one cannot receive those sacraments by any other means than by joining that church.
If one, prior to taking the above position, had been validly married (entirely outside the RCC) suffered a divorce, remarried and started a family with the new spouse, I understand that the RCC would not be willing to allow that person to receive the Sacraments.
Therefore a person in such a situation would be denied access to the only source (in their view and the view of the RCC) of valid Holy Communion, based on something done in ignorance and in the past which cannot be undone (short of breaking up the new family or murdering the first wife).
Can there be any justification for this?
I suppose this is what I don't understand about the RCC. How can you believe that it offers the only valid form of Holy Communion while at the same time hold that its teachings are deeply wrong?
Unless the RCC formally changes its teachings and becomes liberal on the family then perhaps duplicity is the only solution: find a liberal parish, or a parish where you're unknown, and take Communion there. Why not? You may be in error for doing so - but you believe the Church is also in error for pursuing its course. Error clearly isn't the issue, or else you wouldn't still be in the RCC. Problem solved....
[ 09. April 2016, 19:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm not RC, but I understand that the Catholic Church does consider it wrong and dangerous to take communion if you are guilty of mortal sin (which has not been dealt with by repentance and confession). ...
That is not an RC peculiarity. Although the language 'mortal sin', 'state of grace' etc is specifically RC, I think all ecclesial communities understand 1 Cor 11:27-29 in much the same way. If one receives the sacrament unworthily, carelessly etc one endangers one's mortal soul by eating and drinking judgement on oneself.
I'm not RC either. My take is that Jesus ate with sinners. I receive the sacrament because I am a sinner - unworthy and everything else being a sinner entails.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
If I have read correctly, Humble Servant asks about justification for the teaching on marriage of the RC Church. He doesn't necessarily say that it is wrong, even although it is a teaching which causes him more than a little difficulty to accept.
The only justification, in turn, for seeking to receive Communion in a Catholic church ,is, if one believes that the Catholic Church is, in fact, what it claims to be.
Of course, many ,who have been baptised as infants into full communion with the Catholic Church will never have taken the time to investigate these various claims. In the same way, although I do not actually know, I think, that a good many members of the CofE will never have investigated the claims of the 39 Articles.
Humble Servant seems to have come to a belief in the claims of the Catholic Church. He finds some of the teachings difficult in his personal situation and seeks to clarify exactly what his position is.
I do not agree with Leo that the Apostolic Exhortation is simply full of pious platitudes.
Going to the difficulties of civilly divorced and remarried Catholics the pope write in para 36 :
'We need to be humble and realistic,acknowledging that at times the way we present our Christian beliefs and treat other people, have helped contribute to today's problematic situation. At time we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological idea of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families.
We are called to form consciences ,not to replace them.'
I see nothing in the document which suggests that gays are going to Hell in a handcart, even although
the pope is unable to accept that a same sex marriage is the same as what may have been in the divine plan when God made them male and female and asked them to go forth and multiply.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I see nothing in the document which suggests that gays are going to Hell in a handcart, even although the pope is unable to accept that a same sex marriage is the same as what may have been in the divine plan when God made them male and female and asked them to go forth and multiply.
Though the style has changed, the doctrine hasn't. So any 'practicing' gays are in a state of mortal sin and this hell-bound, according to the trad. teaching that hasn't changed.
--------------------
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
Perhaps Anglo-Catholics remain with traditional interpretations of what constitutes 'mortal sin'
Within the big tent of what constitutes the Cat6holic Church in communion with the Roman pontiff ,there is a softening of attitudes at the highest levels.
Pope Francis says that 'pastors should not apply moral laws as if they were stones to throw at people' and that 'there should be more common sense and less unthinking following of rules'.
'Every person,of whatever sexual orientation ,should be respected and treated with consideration.'
'It should no longer be said that those in 'irregular' situations are in a state of mortal sin.
The pope cannot change the way that we understand God to have created human beings,male and female,but he can ask for more respect and consideration for those who do not fit into the neat categories of theologians used to cataloging and classifying mortal sins.
To my mind he has done that.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I see nothing in the document which suggests that gays are going to Hell in a handcart, even although the pope is unable to accept that a same sex marriage is the same as what may have been in the divine plan when God made them male and female and asked them to go forth and multiply.
Though the style has changed, the doctrine hasn't. So any 'practicing' gays are in a state of mortal sin and this hell-bound, according to the trad. teaching that hasn't changed.
A now-expired canonist of my acquaintance once said that the danger of allowing anglopohones to do canon law is that they assumed that it was to be applied literally. Mediterranean types, he thought, understood that it was a counsel of perfection, and the letter only applied after everything else failed. (Since then, I've heard the same aphorism ascribed to others, so I think he simply nicked it for his own use.)
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Indeed Augustine. In the north of Canada, where English may be the second language, where most of the aboriginal population isn't much into the structures of "settler society*", no one seems to be denied anything regardless of marital or other status. Which is the pastoral thing to do.
You have mentioned elsewhere a liberal interpretation of a particular canon law bit, which seems to allow reasonable latitude. I find the contrasts in interpretation of requirements and diminishment of impediments uplifting and optimistic.
*"settler society" - seems to be a term gaining traction these days in the Canadian west - perhaps elsewhere also? - in place of "colonists", "European" and "white". It provokes and ultimately requires the Eurocentric interpretations and structures to necessarily adapt to local conditions. I seem to recall JP2 being asked in Fort Simpson in 1987 to consider a separate something for the Dene. Didn't happen in terms of a structure, but appears to have in terms of practice.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
My take is that Jesus ate with sinners. I receive the sacrament because I am a sinner - unworthy and everything else being a sinner entails.
"Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed"
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Perhaps Anglo-Catholics remain with traditional interpretations of what constitutes 'mortal sin'
Within the big tent of what constitutes the Cat6holic Church in communion with the Roman pontiff ,there is a softening of attitudes at the highest levels.....'Every person,of whatever sexual orientation ,should be respected and treated with consideration.'
'It should no longer be said that those in 'irregular' situations are in a state of mortal sin.
Thanks for pointing this out.
And have little time for anglo-catholics who stay in their ghetto oblivious to the wider Western Church.
I also notice that there's to be some devolving of decision-making to different regions - would that the Anglican Communion could so the same.
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unless the RCC formally changes its teachings and becomes liberal on the family then perhaps duplicity is the only solution: find a liberal parish, or a parish where you're unknown, and take Communion there. Why not?
Apparently, two years ago, Pope Francis said much the same thing. I'm sure many Catholics who don't feel sinful in their new relationships do it anyway.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unless the RCC formally changes its teachings and becomes liberal on the family then perhaps duplicity is the only solution: find a liberal parish, or a parish where you're unknown, and take Communion there. Why not?
Apparently, two years ago, Pope Francis said much the same thing. I'm sure many Catholics who don't feel sinful in their new relationships do it anyway.
There you go, then. The RCC is the largest Christian denomination in the world. Most of its members live in the Global South. It's hard to believe that they all feel oppressed by their church on these matters.
I also think there may a paradox here, which is that even if people find themselves unable to live by the 'rules', a large number of them may not necessarily want the rules to be changed. Experience shows that in the long run relaxing the rules isn't a strategy that has prevented the historical Protestant denominations from losing members in the West. I'm sure the RC leadership is aware of this.
OTOH, pastoral sensitivity regarding individual and local circumstances must be ever more important. Adhering too strictly to the letter of the law is likely to drive away RCs in the secularised Western world (and Argentina, I read, is one of the more secular countries in South America). And in Africa there's a huge growth in lay RCs but far too few priests to provide all the sacramental duties that the Church officially says are essential. A large degree of tolerance must therefore be inevitable there.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
'It should no longer be said that those in 'irregular' situations are in a state of mortal sin.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Before you get too grateful... I don't have any privileged insight into what Francis really meant in the exhortation, but I know what the document says, and it definitely isn't that. What the English text actually says (with my emphasis) is: quote:
Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc and I share the same faith .We believe that our faith is a following of the way of Jesus Christ. We both believe that the Catholic Church in communion with the Roman pontiff has both the right and indeed the mandate to teach in the name of Jesus.
In all the teachings of the Church concerning the daily lives of the faithful we recognise an attempt to elucidate the teachings of Jesus, based on a central core of teaching that our primary duties are to love God and to love our neighbour as we love ourselves.
Pope Francis believes and knows that God is Love
and wishes to emphasise that God loves us, his creation, more than we can ever love Him - and that God is ever merciful.
His recent 'Apostolic Exhortation' deals with family life and is above all an ENCOURAGEMENT to all Christians.
Faced with an abandonment by many of the regular practices of Catholic Christian life he wishes to remind us that God does not abandon us.
Of course the pope's words, as indeed everyone else's words, can often be interpreted in different ways.
Some people find that their strength to lead the Christian way of life comes from a close adherence to the traditional interpretations of the Church's teachings. This sometimes calls for heroism on the part of the faithful and allows no leeway for the weaker brethren (of both sexes).
Pope Francis (in my humble opinion and I have no greater insights into what he meant than Chesterbelloc) likes at the very least to ENCOURAGE weaker Christians and to try to make them realise that they are an integral part of the Church.
I was much taken by two sentences from Chapter 8 of the Exhortation :
'la strada della Chiesa e' MISERICORDIA e INTEGRAZIONE'
(The way of the Church is that of MERCY and INTEGRATION)
'Nessuno puo' essere condannato per sempre - questa non e' la logica del Vangelo'
(No-one can be condemned for ever - that is not the logic of the Gospel)
As Svitlana has recognised many people who have been involved as Catholics do not really want to walk away. Of course they will walk away if the Catholic community makes it clear to them that they are not wanted, because they find themselves in 'irregular' situations.
Pope Francis attempts to remind them that they are wanted and that with the help of understanding and sympathetic pastors they can find their way and come closer, as we all try to do, to Christian ideals.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Of course the pope's words, as indeed everyone else's words, can often be interpreted in different ways.
Especially, though, when they're misquoted entirely.
It seems to me that there's enough cause for Catholic concern in Amoris laetitia as it is without making stuff up out of whole cloth.
Let's be careful out there.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Experience shows that in the long run relaxing the rules isn't a strategy that has prevented the historical Protestant denominations from losing members in the West. I'm sure the RC leadership is aware of this.
I think looking at rules making the church more or less appealing is totally the wrong attitude. You're implying that we should be less strict because our strictness drives away the faithful. I think we should be strict if we can justify our strictness as God's will. I think we should be relaxed if we believe that to be God's will. We should never be strict because we want to engineer our community or relaxed for the sake of avoiding offence.
[ 15. April 2016, 05:24: Message edited by: Humble Servant ]
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Pope Francis says :
'I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, always does what good she can, even if ,in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the streets.'
Amoris Laetitia,his Apostolic Exhortation, speaks at length about the positive effects of marriage and the strengthening of the family.
He deplores divorce and the difficulties it often causes for children.
He restates traditional Catholic teaching again and again.
While all Catholics would wish to listen with respect to the words of the pope, they are, of course, not obliged, to agree with him.
Some people believe that, having stated clearly the ideals of Catholic teaching, that the best way to help those who are in, what might be seen as 'irregular' situations, is to remind them that they are in a situation of mortal SIN and destined for Hell unless they amend their lifestyle.
Others,and I believe, that pope Francis is among them, believe that we must try to accompany people where they are.
Civil marriage, civil remarriage, same sex relationships, even same sex marriages are features of everyday life nowadays. Is the only way to deal with Catholics caught up in these situations to tell them that they are destined for Hell ?
When pope Francis says that 'not all' in 'irregular' situations are in mortal sin, what does he mean ?
1% are living in mortal sin ? 98.2% are living in mortal sin ?
Or is it 'simply' that above all, we should welcome those, whose imperfections with regards to Catholic teaching on ideals, can be seen in more public fashion, than those whose imperfections are more hidden from public view ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I don't necessarily agree with all of that, Forthview, but that doesn't unduly concern me.
My point was "simply"(!) that we should be careful not to misquote the document, especially in such a way as to mislead others about a fairly important and disputed aspect of it. Whatever else the pope said or meant or wished for, he most certainly did not say:
quote:
It should no longer be said that those in 'irregular' situations are in a state of mortal sin.
I think this is important enough not to leave uncorrected. Let's be clear about that before we say anything else.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Okay, I have to accept that it should have been 'not ALL those living in 'irregular' situations' My apologies for quoting from a summary of the document.
The Church teaches that our lives here on earth are a preparation for life in eternity. The Church still teaches us about 'mortal sin' and older Catholics (like myself !!) will know that if one dies in 'mortal sin' one is destined for Hell.
Fifty or sixty years ago those who had been baptised as Catholics but who were in 'irregular situations' would have been denied a Catholic funeral. Cohabitation might have permitted a funeral, homosexual relationships might not even have been mentioned, but those who 'married' outside of the Church would have been consigned to outer darkness.
Even without the pope Francis effect much has changed in the intervening time. Most Requiem Masses now concentrate on the hope of eternal glory, rather than on the pains of Purgatory. They do not in any way deny the pains of Purgatory but point beyond to the goal of eternal happiness in the presence of God.
In the last few years I can think of several high profile funerals in Catholic churches in Scotland of those who could easily be said to have been in 'irregular situations'. For what it is worth I approve of these funerals which give some comfort to grieving relatives but which more importantly
acknowledge the part which the Church has played in the lives of these people and also the part which the Church in her liturgies plays in accompanying the said deceased beyond death and onto the hope of Resurrection.
It is not for us to judge the ultimate worth of others.
Although it is only my opinion,I think that that is also the opinion of pope Francis. I apologise for omitting the word 'all' in the quote which I made. I agree with Chesterbelloc that is important not to misquote.
However I firmly believe that pope Francis would prefer that those who might previously have been simply seen to be living in a state of mortal sin and a lack of sanctifying grace, should be accompanied by sympathetic pastors rather than simply abandoned.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I think looking at rules making the church more or less appealing is totally the wrong attitude. You're implying that we should be less strict because our strictness drives away the faithful. I think we should be strict if we can justify our strictness as God's will. I think we should be relaxed if we believe that to be God's will. We should never be strict because we want to engineer our community or relaxed for the sake of avoiding offence.
I see your point, but churches and denominations are human institutions, and they are influenced by pragmatism and sociological context, etc., as well as purely theological motivations. Indeed, theological perspectives are also influenced by context. That's why we talk about contextual theology these days.
Whether this is all ungodly is a good question. I doubt that any of us could answer with total objectivity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
The legalistic arguments involved in explaining the RC position seem to highlight by implication how churches can overlook the comment upthread that God is best placed to judge and cope with whatever situation we poor mortals land ourselves in.
The temporal church and its rigidities, not God, is IMO the problem. But hey - I voted with my feet long ago. Humble Servant, I wish you the best in unravelling whatever difficulties you are experiencing. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Ćbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I think looking at rules making the church more or less appealing is totally the wrong attitude... I think we should be strict if we can justify our strictness as God's will. I think we should be relaxed if we believe that to be God's will....
...churches and denominations are human institutions, and they are influenced by pragmatism and sociological context, etc., as well as purely theological motivations....
If I understand correctly, the RCC holds that it is NOT a human institution.
I mentioned to an RCC friend mulling whether to obey my church or obey God on some minor issue. (I was young, these days I don't hesitate.) He laughed and said Catholics don't have to choose between pleasing the church or God because the Church is God. I thought but didn't say "Crusades". As if reading my mind he said "the Church is sometimes wrong but the Church is God." I wandered away with a syllogism in my head "The church is God, the church is sometimes wrong, God is sometimes wrong."
IngoB explained it precisely and thoroughly. The primary obligation is obedience to the RCC authorities. Even when they are clearly wrong, obedience is the primary value.
I put love at the top, next to forgiveness and compassion and truth etc, and blind unthinking raw obedience to human beings who think they speak for God somewhere in the basement.
Reminds me of the afternoon I sat on the porch reading the Episcopalian wedding service and said with surprise "Mom, it doesn't say "obey!" She grinned and said "I know."
Catholics and Protestants have important agreements - Jesus died and was raised from the dead - but also some real differences in understanding how we are to live this life.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If I understand correctly, the RCC holds that it is NOT a human institution.
Well, sort of. It is not merely a human institution. It is of divine foundation, its head is Jesus Christ and the gates of hell will never prevail against it. It surely can't be just Catholics who still believe this of the Church. In addition, we think the Church enjoys a divine guarantee of infallibility, but of very limited scope. The Church in the world (the Church Militant) is nonetheless made up entirely of human beings and is run by them, albeit with the aid (should we avail ourselves of it) of the Holy Ghost.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I mentioned to an RCC friend mulling whether to obey my church or obey God on some minor issue. (I was young, these days I don't hesitate.) He laughed and said Catholics don't have to choose between pleasing the church or God because the Church is God. I thought but didn't say "Crusades". As if reading my mind he said "the Church is sometimes wrong but the Church is God." I wandered away with a syllogism in my head "The church is God, the church is sometimes wrong, God is sometimes wrong."
He was wrong. Absurdly wrong. I have never even heard of anyone saying this. You never questioned his reliability?
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
IngoB explained it precisely and thoroughly. The primary obligation is obedience to the RCC authorities. Even when they are clearly wrong, obedience is the primary value.
Quote, please. A pound to a penny he never came within a country mile of having said any such thing.
Frankly, it never ceases to amaze me what utter tosh some people will readily attribute to the Catholic Church - and that very much includes self-describing Catholics.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In this case I am 100% with Chesterbelloc.
Many followers of Jesus Christ see in the Bible, and in particular in the New Testament, the inspired Word of God , being of divine origin.
At the same time many followers of Jesus Christ recognise in that Bible, certain words, phrases or even ideas which are difficult to explain and which may go against commonly perceived notions today. Sometimes these are the 'faults' of scribes or translators or simply differences in general cultural understanding.
Although we are all individuals, we are, for the most part, members of various families. Most followers of Jesus see themselves as members of the Holy Catholic Church, albeit sometimes not in communion with Rome.
Whether we are members of the Church in communion wit Rome or not, most church members see themselves as members of a Church which has divine origins( and a divine mandate !)
For Catholics (in the generally accepted understanding of the word ) it is an essential part of their faith in Jesus that the Church continues by divine mandate the teaching of Jesus.
Jesus has promised to be with the Church until the end of time, that the gates of Hell will never prevail and that what is loosed on earth will be loosed in Heaven, whatever is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven and that 'whose sins are forgiven will be forgiven , whose sins are retained, will be retained.'
Just like the case of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, it is easy for Catholics to distinguish between the divinely inspired teaching of the Church and the inevitable flaws and imperfections of many of its all too human members, clergy included.
Today's Roman liturgy (5th Sunday of Easter) reminds us that we should love one another and that it is by this that people will recognise who we are.
Surely there can be no argument about this. But we can argue about how best we should love one another.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
"......whatever is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven and that 'whose sins are forgiven will be forgiven , whose sins are retained, will be retained.'
Unfortunately this is open to serious abuse by the Church and that has been done to the full. If an excommunicated person has no access to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist, they have, by Catholic teaching, their only route to salvation blocked. The Church retains their sins, so they are damned. This can occur when someone disagrees with Church teaching on any subject. I personally believe that I, and anyone else, can make my own peace with God and that no institution can stand in the way of anyone's salvation.
quote:
Today's Roman liturgy (5th Sunday of Easter) reminds us that we should love one another and that it is by this that people will recognise who we are.
Today's reading says that we are recognised by the love we show to one another, not by what we believe of by what institutions we follow or obey. This was the basis of St Francis of Assisi's comment, "Preach the gospel at all times, if necessary use words.". Our lives should be our gospel and our love our salvation.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Indeed ,Paul, you must make your own peace with God. You may do this on your own, but you are not alone, there are many others who like you, wish to follow the way of Christ and the Church has to be there for them, pointing the way ahead.
Whilst there may be some teachings which you disagree with, you surely have to accept that it is not you but rather Christ who determines best how to follow Him.
You must listen to Him and then decide how closely you can follow his teachings.
How do we know what His teachings are ? well, we have the Scriptures AND we have the Church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whilst there may be some teachings which you disagree with, you surely have to accept that it is not you but rather Christ who determines best how to follow Him.
Most certainly, but I think he's best followed by obedience to His mandatum novum. The Catholic Church expects obedience to things like Humanae Vitae, which few of it's own followers choose to obey. If the Church claims power to bind and loose, and to retain sins for things many people don't see as sinful, how can they claim that Christ requires this?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pulsator Organorum Ineptus
Shipmate
# 2515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
According to Catholic theology, you don't have to be a Christian, even an atheist can do it as long as he/she uses natural water, the correct form and has the intent to do what the church intends.
I don't see how it is possible for an atheist to have the proper intention. Surely being an atheist and having the proper intention would be mutually exclusive?
Posts: 695 | From: Bronteland | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Indeed, Paul, we have to follow our own conscience.
Pope Francis said recently that the Church is there to form our conscience and not to replace it.
If we cannot follow the teaching of the Church, then we cannot follow it .
To change a well known phrase slightly 'The Church proposes, but God disposes.'
We still remain part of the family of the Church, unless we ourselves cast ourselves out into outer darkness.
You are right to say that many Catholics reject the practices enjoined by Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, but they may well accept it as a for them unrealisable ideal. The ideas expressed may be worthy of respect, but some Catholics may see other ways of fulfilling Christ's commandment of love other ways where their conscience tells them are more important for them.
Of course it is true that there have been abuses of authority at times, but this does not mean that the Church should have no authority at all.
If we are truly sorry for our sins, then the Church has a mandate to assure us of God's forgiveness. That is what absolution means.
If we are not sorry for our sins then the Church
has a mandate to refuse absolution.
But remember that we can only commit a sin if we recognise it as such.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
According to Catholic theology, you don't have to be a Christian, even an atheist can do it as long as he/she uses natural water, the correct form and has the intent to do what the church intends.
I don't see how it is possible for an atheist to have the proper intention. Surely being an atheist and having the proper intention would be mutually exclusive?
In short, atheists can baptise because the intention required is merely to do what the Church does in baptism, even if one does not believe in what the Church teaches about that sacrament.
For example, Tom and Fred could be caught out in the wilderness, slowly dying. Fred, who was due to be baptised the next week after an adult conversion to the Church, and perhaps not wishing to rely solely on the concept of "baptism of desire", asks Tom to baptise him right there in the lake. Tom, an atheist, protests his lack of belief, but realises that his old pal Fred's dying wish is to baptised, and Fred tells him all about what that means to Catholics. Tom, though not believing in any of that stuff, nonetheless wants to do what he can for his friend - he wants him to have what Fred wants for himself.
That's all he needs. Tom needs only to perform simple the rite as the Church would, desiring this one thing for his friend as he (Fred) believes it to be, and without positively intending to do something contrary to the meaning of the rite as the Church understands it.
Such is the importance of baptism and such is the mercy of God.
[ 25. April 2016, 21:45: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
But remember that we can only commit a sin if we recognise it as such.
This categorically not true. I may have other things to comment on the last few exchanges here, but I just want to get this one out of the way now.
Forthview and I have had an exchange about this very thing quite recently in another thread. I repeat here what I said there. We can certainly sin without recognising our sin as such at the time. In fact, that is very much what we mean in everyday language when we say we acted "thoughtlessly" towards another. This is what the whole concept of an examination of conscience is about. If we already automatically recognised our sins as such when we committed them there would be no need to examine our consciences to determine them at all.
It is certainly true that we can fail to recognise at the time of our moral shortfallings that they are sins, and sometimes that to some lesser or greater degree reduces our culpability for them. But they remain sins if we should and could have recognised them as such. And sometimes our ignorance of their being sins is itself culpable - as when we fail to consider their impact on others or when we fail to properly inform our consciences.
And this, I think, is vitally important.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And sometimes our ignorance of their being sins is itself culpable - as when we fail to consider their impact on others or when we fail to properly inform our consciences.
I completely agree with this. In fact it's the negative impact of our actions on others which is sin, IMO. What I disagree with is where the Church claims certain things to be "objectively" sinful when they have no negative impact on anyone. I have never seen the use of contraceptives as sinful, at least those contraceptives which don't induce abortion, because I can't regard human sexuality as being only for procreation. I would see it as positively sinful not to use condoms if the result is to infect somebody else with HIV.
Likewise, while many cases of divorce and remarriage stem from sinful actions, I can't accept that all such relationships are "objectively" sinful. Some may take place long after any scars caused by the first failure have healed, and may be very loving and wholesome. In other words they hurt nobody and cause absolutely no harm in this world. That can't be sin.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The simple solution is not to belong to a church that believes such things to be sinful. But it seems that people like to make life difficult for themselves!
[ 26. April 2016, 20:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
It's all based on one premise - that Holy Communion is only valid if performed by the RCC.
For many of us that isn't a given and for some of us that is a presumption that we cannot find to be truthful or even necessary.
The point is well made above: there has been very public support expressed for groups and/or individuals which, even at fist glance, seems very peculiar (funerals of public figures, support for the IRA, The Mafia etc). At the same time, the RCC is publicly stating that divorcees etc can't be welcomed into the mass. One rule for some, one for another?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Just to say just now that divorcees are ALWAYS welcome to take part in the Mass. They are, however, if remarried outside of the Church, not allowed to receive Communion.
There is for Catholics a clear distinction between the whole of the Eucharistic liturgy often called the Mass and that part of the liturgy which is the reception of Communion.
Similarly there is a clear distinction between Catholics who have contracted a civil dissolution of a marriage (divorce) and a civil remarriage outside of the Church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
