A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

[JimR-OCDS]

Is your claim, then, that God created the institution so that couples could have temporal happiness?

Is any union that comes before God to be blessed by Him?

The unions to be blessed by God are the one’s where the couple, out of faith, freely ask for God’s blessing.

Unions where a couple is pressured out of social construct to be married, is not what God intended.

Unions where one persons is abused, is not what God intended.

Unions where there is no faith, God did not intend and in fact, Pope Benedict XVI said that it could be grounds for nullification.

I’ve been in a happy marriage for 42 years.

I’ve seen many unhappy marriages which should never have taken place to begin with.

Pope Francis, in his mercy, is concerned for the situation of couples who left bad marriages and were happily remarried and have been so for a long time, who want to return to the Church.

I suppose Pope Francis is one of those with dishonest mercy according to some.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

The unions to be blessed by God are the one’s where the couple, out of faith, freely ask for God’s blessing.

Does that include homosexual couples? Or

Unions where a couple is pressured out of social construct to be married, is not what God intended.

As opposed to living together instead, is that what God prefers

Unions where one persons is abused, is not what God intended.

Agreed, and that is why the couples may seperate

Unions where there is no faith, God did not intend and in fact, Pope Benedict XVI said that it could be grounds for nullification.

So there is no such thing as a valid natural marriage?

I’ve been in a happy marriage for 42 years.

I’ve seen many unhappy marriages which should never have taken place to begin with.

Was that the fault of the couple, or of God. Did God give them insuffient Grace to remain married?

Pope Francis, in his mercy, is concerned for the situation of couples who left bad marriages and were happily remarried and have been so for a long time, who want to return to the Church.

As we all are. And the Church has provided means for such persons to do so. Pope St John Paul II had no less concern for such people, which is why he included these means in Familaris Consortio

I suppose Pope Francis is one of those with dishonest mercy according to some.

Jim

Perhaps, but not by anyone here. I have not seen him issue teachings for the Church that have contradicted any previous teachings. If you have seen such, please refer me to them.

And one thing that you forgot to mention, the role of Marriage as a Sacrament. What does that mean to you, what is the purpose of a Sacrament?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Does that include homosexual couples? Or

As opposed to living together instead, is that what God prefers

Agreed, and that is why the couples may seperate

So there is no such thing as a valid natural marriage?



Was that the fault of the couple, or of God. Did God give them insuffient Grace to remain married?

As we all are. And the Church has provided means for such persons to do so. Pope St John Paul II had no less concern for such people, which is why he included these means in Familaris Consortio

Perhaps, but not by anyone here. I have not seen him issue teachings for the Church that have contradicted any previous teachings. If you have seen such, please refer me to them.

And one thing that you forgot to mention, the role of Marriage as a Sacrament. What does that mean to you, what is the purpose of a Sacrament?

I don’t know why you’re conjecturing all sorts if weir scenarios which I’ve never posted about.

Marriage I’m talking about is between one man and woman,

What you’ve posted here has nothing to do with what I have posted and quite frankly, a diversion in the conversation.

Jim

 

[St_Francis]

What is spirituality? Is it only words on a document? Or is it an experience that includes faith which comes from the heart?

Can we make decisions about material things based on people’s ephemeral feelings? “I’m spiritual but not religious.” “I went to the woods and communed with nature, and now I feel so spiritual.”

This idea of feeeeeeling spiritual or having spirituality or whatever stems from the post-“Enlightenment” idea that spirituality and faith-related thoughts, ideas, or feelings stem from a separate part of the brain, and that religion emantes from inside oneself rather than being Truths which actually exist outside and separate from humanity.

So, fine, let people be on their spiritual journeys. And let them understand that there are levels, and that recieving the Eucharist while objectively in a state of mortal sin may be ruinous to one’s eternity on more than one level.

Understand that the saints experienced the highest levels of “spirituality,” and it was often extremely unpleasant. What is spirituality? Sticking with God even when it doesn’t feel good, recognizing that the devil is after you and renouncing his evil ideas rather than embracing them.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t know why you’re conjecturing all sorts if weir scenarios which I’ve never posted about.

Marriage I’m talking about is between one man and woman,

What you’ve posted here has nothing to do with what I have posted and quite frankly, a diversion in the conversation.

Jim

Well you said ‘couple’ coming forth to be blessed by God.

So we agree that not all couples who ask for God’s blessing would receive it, in that God made known which couples would be united by God, and that God set out the terms of that union?

Is that your understanding?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well you said ‘couple’ coming forth to be blessed by God.

So we agree that not all couples who ask for God’s blessing would receive it, in that God made known which couples would be united by God, and that God set out the terms of that union?

Is that your understanding?

I was using “couple,” in the context of a man and woman. I should’ve been more explicit, now knowing a person like yourself would carry it to the extreme.

I don’t know if God refuses blessings on anyone who asks.

You don’t either.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

I was using “couple,” in the context of a man and woman. I should’ve been more explicit, now knowing a person like yourself would carry it to the extreme.

I don’t know if God refuses blessings on anyone who asks.

Did Christ speak on the subject of marriage, and if so, what did He say?

You don’t either.

Jim

I know what the Church teaches, and that is sufficient.

 

[Thomas_White]

Can we make decisions about material things based on people’s ephemeral feelings? “I’m spiritual but not religious.” “I went to the woods and communed with nature, and now I feel so spiritual.”

Sarcasm aside, was St. Francis of Assissi similarly mistaken?

This idea of feeeeeeling spiritual or having spirituality or whatever stems from the post-“Enlightenment” idea that spirituality and faith-related thoughts, ideas, or feelings stem from a separate part of the brain, and that religion emantes from inside oneself rather Thani being Truths which actually exist outside and separate from humanity.

This is a confused interpretation of post-Englightenment philosophy. Beginning with Descartes following the Scholastic period, Ethics became a subjective category in a hylomorphic dualism. But faith is also subjective and of the heart. The idea of Immanence, in the sense that God could be known by Reason alone is what came into question. Reason alone was neither the way of early Christianity nor of a long line of Catholic Mystics and Saints, for the truth that exists transcends the duality of both subject and object. I do not believe it can be known by reason alone, and it is surely no coincidence that it is in this way that both JPII and Benedict XVI favored Augustine over Aquinas. Neither was it likely coincidence that the past three popes were influenced by the dialectic theology of Romano Guardini.

So, fine, let people be on their spiritual journeys. And let them understand that there are levels, and that recieving the Eucharist while objectively in a state of mortal sin may be ruinous to one’s eternity on more than one level.

What levels? It is not a question of “letting people” be on their spiritual journeys. This does not require your permission. And who has said people should receive the Eucharist while ‘objectively’ in the state of mortal sin?

What is the objective state of mortal sin?

Understand that the saints experienced the highest levels of “spirituality,” and it was often extremely unpleasant. What is spirituality? Sticking with God even when it doesn’t feel good, recognizing that the devil is after you and renouncing his evil ideas rather than embracing them.

What would this possibly have to do with the simplistic and mantra-like recitation of selected provisions of the Catechism or documents pasted from Google?

 

[Havard]

Interesting discussion!

It seems to me that the center of the conflict in the thread is that people are arguing with two different concepts in mind. Some appear to be talking about God’s mercy, while others appear to be talking more specifically about the reception of God’s mercy.

A couple of points:
-God’s mercy does precede our response.
-Reception of it does not precede our response.(CCC § 1847).
-To receive mercy, we must confess our sins.

 

[ProVobis]

I am not sure what you are saying here–does my change (bold) bring it closer to what you meant?

Thanks

You must have taken my quotes as I was still editing the post. My apologies. (My other computer’s on the fritz so I was in a little bit of a hurry.) It should have read "A complete change-of-heart from a persistent state of defiance against the Church itself is possible, I suppose, but not without some deep counseling and guidance IMO. "

 

[St_Francis]

You must have taken my quotes as I was still editing the post. My apologies. (My other computer’s on the fritz so I was in a little bit of a hurry.) It should have read "A complete change-of-heart from a persistent state of defiance against the Church itself is possible, I suppose, but not without some deep counseling and guidance IMO. "

Oh, I’vd had that happen to me–and other times I start a quoted response and am interrupted and don’t check back on the post. Anyway, yes, I agree

 

[ProVobis]

What would this possibly have to do with the simplistic and mantra-like recitation of selected provisions of the Catechism or documents pasted from Google?

Well, IMO, it would have been simpler had they just left the excommunication against those guilty of divorce intact. Separation was tolerated. It seems showing mercy by lifting this excommunication has had some unintended consequences, like not giving the marriage a second chance, among other things. Anyone can now divorce it seems without any penalty whatsoever.

 

[Thomas_White]

Interesting discussion!

It seems to me that the center of the conflict in the thread is that people are arguing with two different concepts in mind. Some appear to be talking about God’s mercy, while others appear to be talking more specifically about the reception of God’s mercy.

A couple of points:
-God’s mercy does precede our response.
-Reception of it does not precede our response.(CCC § 1847).
-To receive mercy, we must confess our sins.

If God’s mercy precedes our response, how then must we first confess our sins to receive it if we cannot yet even recognize its presence? Cannot mercy be extended to a person in distress? This is a simple concept, and it appears mercy is extended to the woman accused of adultery in the Gospel of John. Is not mercy at the essence of Christianity?

I think the dispute involves a confusion of mercy with repentence and forgiveness. These are all separate things.

 

[graciew]

Well, IMO, it would have been simpler had they just left the excommunication against those guilty of divorce intact. Separation was tolerated. It seems showing mercy by lifting this excommunication has had some unintended consequences, like not giving the marriage a second chance, among other things. Anyone can now divorce it seems without any penalty whatsoever.

I would say we need to put a lot of effort and help and prayer to give a second chance within the first marriage...children deserve all we can possibly do.

That ,I know. Many first marriages fail for reasons elder couples know are or can be surmountable.
Sorry ,.,… just a little “infiltration” into the topic of marriage …some.hope and strength for those struggling.

 

[St_Francis]

Sarcasm aside, was St. Francis of Assissi similarly mistaken?

I do not know in which way St Francis of Assisi was that you arw referring to.

This is a confused interpretation of post-Englightenment philosophy. Beginning with Descartes following the Scholastic period, Ethics became a subjective category in a hylomorphic dualism. But faith is also subjective and of the heart. The idea of Immanence, in the sense that God could be known by Reason alone is what came into question. Reason alone was neither the way of early Christianity nor of a long line of Catholic Mystics and Saints, for the truth that exists transcends the duality of both subject and object. I do not believe it can be known by reason alone, and it is surely no coincidence that it is in this way that both JPII and Benedict XVI favored Augustine over Aquinas. Neither was it likely coincidence that the past three popes were influenced by the dialectic theology of Romano Guardini.

Immanentism is somewhat different from what you describe. Fr Hardon describes immantism thus: “A method of establishing the credibility of the Christian faith by appealing to the subjective satisfaction that the faith gives to the believer,” as quoted here, where the author also discusses the difference between immanence and immanantism

What levels? It is not a question of “letting people” be on their spiritual journeys. This does not require your permission. And who has said people should receive the Eucharist while ‘objectively’ in the state of mortal sin?

A number of German bishops would like to see the internal forum used in these cases.

Cardinal Cupich sees that this logic can be easily applied to homosecual couples, and advocates that.

Did you read the original article? Because you seem to not understand what the people in this thread are discussing.

What is the objective state of mortal sin?

Being in a situation which is on the face of it a state of mortal sin.

What would this possibly have to do with the simplistic and mantra-like recitation of selected provisions of the Catechism or documents pasted from Google?

I am not the one who posted those items, so I am the wrong person to ask.

 

[St_Francis]

If God’s mercy precedes our response, how then must we first confess our sins to receive it if we cannot yet even recognize its presence? Cannot mercy be extended to a person in distress? This is a simple concept, and it appears mercy is extended to the woman accused of adultery in the Gospel of John. Is not mercy at the essence of Christianity?

I think the dispute involves a confusion of mercy with repentence and forgiveness. These are all separate things.

You seem to he confusing mercy and grace.

Mercy is mitigation of penalties due to sin. In order for God’s mercy to be received as mercy, one must repent sufficiently to amend one’s life and eschew sin (and other criteria). Without that repentance, God’s willingness to extend mercy can go no further.

God’s *grace, *OTOH, is the help He sends which allows us to take action. If I am in a state of mortal sin, then God will (hopefully) send me a special grace which will lead me to repent sufficiently to confess and amend my life.

Note that this grace is not available to all who are in mortal sin. It is theorized that God does not send it to those who will not use it, but overall, because those in a state of mortal sin cannot receive other graces, they do not deserve nor should they expect this special grace to get oneself out of mortal sin.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan;

Did Christ speak on the subject of marriage, and if so, what did He say?

Jesus answer was in the context of the Pharisees trying to trick him, by asking about divorce which Moses approved.

We behave like fundamentalists when we take this to mean that God will refuse to bless a couple who ask God with sincere hearts.

I know what the Church teaches, and that is sufficient.

Yeah me too, except I understand both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Jim

 

[Thomas_White]

Immanentism is somewhat different from what you describe. Fr Hardon describes immantism thus: “A method of establishing the credibility of the Christian faith by appealing to the subjective satisfaction that the faith gives to the believer,” as quoted here, where the author also discusses the difference between immanence and immanantism

I did not describe Immanentism. I specifically refered to Immanence as the philosophical concept of the ability of the human intellect to know God by Reason alone. This concept largely disappeared from classical philosophy following the Scholastic period.

 

[St_Francis]

If God’s mercy precedes our response, how then must we first confess our sins to receive it if we cannot yet even recognize its presence?

We understand that it is through the sacrament of confession that one receives the mitigation of penalties, which is what mercy consists of.

God’s mercy is not some nebulous thing in the air or something. He understands our nature, and understands that the material asect of our nature requires a material sign; hence the sacraments: outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace.

Cannot mercy be extended to a person in distress?

Well, gee, if I and my children were on a boat and someone attacked us and fell overboard and couldn’t swim, would they not be in distress? Should I grant them the mercy of saving them without repentance so that they can attack my familg again? No, that would be absurd.

Distress is not something which always and everywhere requires whatever it takes to alleviate.

This is a simple concept, and it appears mercy is extended to the woman accused of adultery in the Gospel of John. Is not mercy at the essence of Christianity?

No, mercy is not. Love of God and love of neighbor is the essense of Christianity.

God’s mercy is indeed perfect, but His justice is also perfect. His mercy is for the contrite; His justice is for the unrepentant.

I think the dispute involves a confusion of mercy with repentence and forgiveness. These are all separate things.

Fogiveness is to restore a relationship after a repented breach. Mercy is the mitigation of penalties. If I commit a mortal sin, the proper penalty is eternitt in Hell. If I repent, God is kind enough to forgive so that my relationship with Him will be restored and His grace will flow into my soul. He will also show mercy and I will no longer be condemned to eternal fire, which is what I deserve.

 

[St_Francis]

I did not describe Immanentism. I specifically refered to Immanence as the philosophical concept of the ability of the human intellect to know God by Reason alone. This concept largely disappeared from classical philosophy following the Scholastic period.

Yes, but what I was talking about was immantism, not immanance.