B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You put it far better than I could have thanks.
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
They are still grave material evils and if war mongers directly intend them even in the obviously tolerable exception situations we all know of they still commit personal sin regardless. I put it to you that few practising Catholic soldiers come back from Afghanistan without confessing.
War eventually contaminates even the just and bloodlust is a dangerous inclination to awaken.
That is why the Magisterium always translates the 5th as kill not murder these days.
E
Ender
Guest
But the Magisterium does not interpret the commandment that way, now or ever. There is no blanket prohibition against killing. The exceptions for war, self defense, and capital punishment are unchanged.2308 However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.
2267 *The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty…
*Ender
R
Rau
Guest
Correct. Some people debate whether “Thou shall’t not kill” or “Thou shall’t not murder” is the accurate translation. But neither fully and precisely captures the meaning, as is evident when one examines the expression of the commandment in its original language. Or if one reads the ccc.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Typical, I say “translate” and you respond as if I said “interpret”.
Hence your comment here is irrelevant.
Certainly the Magisterium of recent decades always prefers to translate the 5th C as “kill” regardless of any fabulous explanations attempting to downplay the significance of this easily verified observation.
The below is not a translation of the 5thC.
The CCC does quote and comment on the 5thC some 30 times - from memory only twice is the word “murder” used in this context.
Clearly the Church teaches “you shall not kill”.
Yet there are exceptions.
How we explain that is not a simple or monolithic quest.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
To assume the Church, and in the light of Christ, has not developed or even changed its understanding of the commandment from the Jews of 3000 years ago beggars belief.
Its preferred translation of “kill” regardless of the allegedly original Jewish meaning (as is the case with the “brothers” of Jesus) is a key indication of shifts in understanding.
R
Rau
Guest
I think Ender directly addressed what may be an excessive focus on translation to the detriment of meaning and understanding.
R
Rau
Guest
Could you expand on / outline the shift in understanding of the 5th over the life of the Church? Certainly it’s not a topic I’ve ever studied.
M
Mammoths
Guest
Some people just want the church to match their sentiment. It is evident that the fifth commandment has never been understood to mean all killing. Within the Pentateuch there are examples of righteous killing both of men and animals. Given that the same law which says “do not kill” also says that an idolator must be stoned to death, clearly the original recipients understood righteous killing and unrightious killing as two different things. It is true that in war there is ample temptation to give in to murder and other sins. That does not make all killing sin. In fact, God rejoices over the death of His enemies. Being made in His image we ought to rejoice over the death of His enemies with Him. One cannot reason from a false premise that because the church has recently rejected the original meaning of the fifth commandment, which it has not, that we can now ignore any other public sin as though it is a cultural issue of pastoral care alone. Murderers, adulterers, fornicaters, homosexuals, and any person known to be insubordinate against God is unable to receive communion pending repentance and reconciliation. All the fuzzy feelings and wishful thinking in the world won’t change the real peril of Ananias and Saphire. They lied to the Holy Spirit about their sin and God struck them dead at the feet of Peter.
The original question was about whether any actual quote from pope Francis seems to mean that persons living in public sin such as Same sex marriage could be allowed to receive communion. Here we are discussing the merits of such a position, which discussion has its value. What is the text people might be twisting or misunderstanding to this issue.
I have noticed, that Pope Francis sometimes gets reported as though the media is committed to presenting him as the liberal savior of a presumed backward church. I reject that characterization of him but I wonder if it accounts for some of the stuff I’ve heard on moral issues.
The original question was about whether any actual quote from pope Francis seems to mean that persons living in public sin such as Same sex marriage could be allowed to receive communion. Here we are discussing the merits of such a position, which discussion has its value. What is the text people might be twisting or misunderstanding to this issue.
I have noticed, that Pope Francis sometimes gets reported as though the media is committed to presenting him as the liberal savior of a presumed backward church. I reject that characterization of him but I wonder if it accounts for some of the stuff I’ve heard on moral issues.
M
Mammoths
Guest
Are you suggesting something could be an abomination. It not a personal moral sin? Is this the comparison you are making?Great, so as New Testament Christians let’s also drop the Old Testament abomination, always a personal mortal sin, red neck, President Putin prejudice thing. The moral theology involved is not complicated but neither is it as simplistic as a number of contributors are seeming to assume.
All killing is an abomination but not all killing is personal moral sin.
All homosexuality is an abomination but not all is a personal moral sin.
So just like soldiers in war acting under orders don’t have personal culpability
Homosexual Catholics who simply fail to recognize their marriage is a sin, are therefore not culpable and can be absolved without repentance somehow?
If a person is catholic, I should think they would have culpability for refusing to agree with a widely known moral dogma in nearly all cases. Remember, the issue isn’t whether pagan homosexuals can receive communion since only Catholics can. Are there catholic homosexuals? There certainly are. Those who confess, repent, and endeavor with God’s help to leave their life of sin can receive communion as has always been the case.
F
Fiasco
Guest
In the specific context of SSA men engaging in acts of sodomy, they know that the Church sees it as a grave sin. The false “doctrine” of supremacy of conscience is invoked too often.
If they’re blissfully unaware (virtually impossible) of the Church’s stand, of course they can’t be held accountable. No argument with that.
A lot of US soldiers and their allies probably perform acts of brutality, including beating or maiming or even killing those who have already been “disabled”. Atrocities. Etc. If they have a conscience, and even if they’re not aware of any personal gravely sinful acts, they must feel grubby and defiled. A good Confession would be like an act of cleansing. War in hot blood can bring out the worst in a man, as you inferred. He would have to be permanently affected in one way or another.
Another reason? i have a brother who served time in South Vietnam in 1970. When R & R came up, off to Vung Tau. He was a retired Catholic (now an anti-Catholic atheist) but he called the place “Sodom and Gomorrah”. Seemed you could have ANYTHING you desired, no matter how depraved.
[Big brother was engaged at the time. He made a donation to an orphanage. Telling! Those poor children and their mothers suffered terribly after the fall of South Vietnam, as you’d already know.]
Probably the same, and worse, for servicemen overseas now. “Everybody’s doing it!” Or like a cigarette advertisement many decades ago: “Try it! You’ll like it!”
Agree with, as above.
Not only brutality/bloodlust, but sometimes a mental breakdown.
Mammoths: only just noticed.
“…please take exception with extreme prejudice.”
Shades of “Apocalypse Now”!
(and other cloak and dagger acts)A violation of the Fifth Commandment!
And totally applicable to this thread at its current stage.
E
Ender
Guest
You continually play with the meaning of words. If we are concerned with what it is the Fifth Commandment actually prohibits then it is obviously not simply killing, regardless of how it is translated. That said, your assertion that “kill” rather than “murder” is the translation of the modern Magisterium is not supportable either, as both translations exist.*Jesus said, 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal… *(Veritatis Splendor)
*Thus the commandment “You shall not murder”… *(Ibid)
You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal.… (Pontifical Biblical Commission)
2261* Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.”
*The meaning of the commandment, at least as the church interprets it is clear, and “killing” is not it.
Quite clearly the church teaches there are times when killing is acceptable. This isn’t all that complicated.
Ender
R
Rosebud77
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
My small point is that how it is preferably translated by the Magisterium to a scholar has very significant bearing on the particular solution, amongst many, that the current Magisterium favours.
That you have recently described the CCC as being “defective” in this area on another thread says all that needs to be said re your views here methinks.
You do realise this is not the Magisterium translating the 5th Commandment of the OT don’t you?
Again this is not directly translating the OT Commandment
.Having exhausted your word search for murder in the CCC to only 1-2 relevant instances why have you not mentioned the other 25 direct translations there which, strangely, are “Thou shall not kill.”
Noone denies murder is a subset of killing. Therefore Thou shall not kill does not mean Thou shall not murder is unacceptable. However murder clearly does not exhaust the meaning of killing which is why the CCC 95% of the time does seem to favour Thou shall not kill when directly quoting the OT Commandment.
Clearly there are exceptions to Thou shall not kill, but pretending that translation is wrong and that changing it to murder neatly solves the problem is denying reality my friend.
Is this another “defective” aspect of the CCC also?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
A moral theologian you are not so forgive me for not knowing whether to laugh or cry re your simplistic personal view “you’ve been told it’s wrong, now you have no excuse”.In the specific context of SSA men engaging in acts of sodomy, they know that the Church sees it as a grave sin. The false “doctrine” of supremacy of conscience is invoked too often.
If they’re blissfully unaware (virtually impossible) of the Church’s stand, of course they can’t be held accountable. No argument with that.
A lot of US soldiers and their allies probably perform acts of brutality, including beating or maiming or even killing those who have already been “disabled”. Atrocities. Etc. If they have a conscience, and even if they’re not aware of any personal gravely sinful acts, they must feel grubby and defiled. A good Confession would be like an act of cleansing. War in hot blood can bring out the worst in a man, as you inferred. He would have to be permanently affected in one way or another.
Another reason? i have a brother who served time in South Vietnam in 1970. When R & R came up, off to Vung Tau. He was a retired Catholic (now an anti-Catholic atheist) but he called the place “Sodom and Gomorrah”. Seemed you could have ANYTHING you desired, no matter how depraved.
[Big brother was engaged at the time. He made a donation to an orphanage. Telling! Those poor children and their mothers suffered terribly after the fall of South Vietnam, as you’d already know.]
Probably the same, and worse, for servicemen overseas now. “Everybody’s doing it!” Or like a cigarette advertisement many decades ago: “Try it! You’ll like it!”
Agree with, as above.
Not only brutality/bloodlust, but sometimes a mental breakdown.
Mammoths: only just noticed.
“…please take exception with extreme prejudice.”
Shades of “Apocalypse Now”!
A violation of the Fifth Commandment!
And totally applicable to this thread at its current stage.
Do come back when you have a Magisterial quote that strongly supports this view.
If you read AL I believe you will in fact discover the opposite.
R
Rau
Guest
And we know all killing is not forbidden by the 5th
1
1990Domer
Guest
Yes, they would have to be aware. But, if in doubt, refrain from taking the Eucharist and first go to Confession.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
On the otherhand doubt is usually understood to be indicative that venial rather than mortal sin is in play.
That certainly necessitates seeking wise counsel, and confession of venial sin is laudable but immediate refraining from Communion is not thereby implied one way or the other.
Its good to remind ourselves that according to the CCC God’s forgiveness is available by private contrition well before absolution is sought and gained.
This applies even for grave sin…for a serious reason Communion may be received before confession providing the usual conditions are fulfilled (perfect act of contrition, getting to confession as soon as reasonably possible).
It is only reasonably certain awareness of grave sin that necessitates closing the time gap between personal contrition and seeking/receiving absolution.
Aquinas observed that it is often psychologically “seemly” to delay going to Communion immediately after grave accidental “sins” (eg a nocturnal emission) but strictly speaking this is not required and is a personal prudential choice.
.
M
Mammoths
Guest
If they are Catholic, and unaware that sexual immorality of any kind is a grave sin, they are willfully ignorant almost inexorably. However, they might have an excuse if elders start theorizing that a person could accept the messiah and his church and then disregard its authority with a clear conscience. Still, what is this document that fuels the controversy?
Here’s the original Christian point of view from Romans 1
Here’s the original Christian point of view from Romans 1
- Status