Among first synod discussions: changing harsh language, trying 'graduality'

[Mark121359]

Is this really where we’re at…softening the language? Abortion, euthanasia and the like are what the Catholic Church calls “intrinsic evils.” I guess we’ll have to remove this particular term from the CCC as well so that this “harsh language” doesn’t alienate those who support these heinous acts.

Peace, Mark

 

[PTL]

How long before the Bible is hate speech?

It is right on the corner. When we water down the truth and sugar coat sin, the Bible that teaches right from wrong unavoidably becomes hate speech. Very sad for our society.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Let me give an example. My wife and I made the mistake of having relations when we were engaged and before we were married. I knew this was wrong and sinfull because we had not made our sacramental marriage. When I did fall back into that sin I went to confession. If I commited that sin I would not recieve the Eucharist or if I did I would confess that sin as well. After a while I decided to totally wait until our wedding day to have relations. Although my wife and I had disagreements about this, and it wasnt easy, it still was the best thing for us because I respected my self,my wife, and the sacrament of matrimony atleast for some time before we got married. I can’t see under any circumstance where this would not be the best thing to do.

The Eucharist inst some magic potion, it is very holy.

 

[Weejee]

I just can’t imagine contraception and homosexual love being a sin. Guess I’m in the wrong pew.;

The synod should have really addressed more urgent issues: Not putting God first in your life. The Poor. Stuff like that.

 

[Lion_IRC]

This is confusing. I hope the synod stresses there are no changes in doctrine. Wait untill I have family members who are already in opposition to Church teaching saying the Church is getting lax on there teachings and they can do what they want. We are going to have a lot of explaining to do.

The article wrote "…contradicting reports that the synod may result in changes of certain church doctrines, Rosica said: “There was no language whatsoever of a need to change doctrine…”

Dont change to doctrine. Change the way you explain it.
I think it’s a great approach.

Former president of Ireland, Mary McAleese was on the radio in Australia yesterday saying pretty much the opposite - complaining about all the Synod bishops being unmarried
celibate men (who probably have never changed a nappy.)

I think these Bishops are tremendously well-qualified to discuss and contemplate family life and matrimonial love.

How many thousands of people has SHE personally counselled and comforted when, in the privacy of the confessional - men and women, husbands and wives,
estranged partners, parents, children - have wanted and needed someone to share their deepest personal thoughts?

How many funerals has SHE conducted for grieving families in their darkest hours, at a time when the word “family” means more than any other word in the human language.

How many sick and dying children, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, has she visited in hospitals and family homes?
Annointing. Giving communion. Listening. Crying. (Yes, priests cry too - probably more than the rest of us.)

I think our clergy and bishops are among the greatest defenders of The Family[sup]TM[/sup] and they do their best work (IMHO) when they ‘evangelize’ the family as a sacred institution that brings happiness and protection from the very things which are decaying our western, secular, materialist, atheist, hedonist society.

We need to evangelize the real and tangible benefits of Church doctrine on family life

From Christopher Prowse (former Bishop Catholic Bishop Of Sale)

Sometimes when we examine the biblical/theological ideal as summarised above and then look at the reality of so many families today we can become discouraged. Family life today comes in so many different forms.
Family life in Australia has become a kind of patchwork of various human arrangements offering all sorts of hopes, joys and sufferings. Without denying that many families seem to be in a healthy and happy state, many are in great pain and suffering tremendously.
This is not helped by cultural and political attitudes and structures that seem to undermine the centrality of family life.
In his Apostolic Exhortation on the Church in Oceania, John Paul II observed that:
The Christian concept of marriage and the family is being opposed by a new secular, pragmatic and individualistic outlook which has gained standing in the area of legislation and which has a certain “approval” in the realm of public opinion. (Ecclesia in Oceania, 2001, 45)

See more at: mediablog.catholic.org.au/?p=2003#sthash.RS0YjhrG.dpuf

 

[LittleFlower378]

There is no doubt the Bishops know more about the family than we could imagine. After all they are sheparding a larger family than any of us have. They may not change a diaper but they sure can change a soul for the better. good points thanks.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The Eucharist is supposed to convey grace to us, to help us on our journey, but we sometimes deny access to the Eucharist to the very people that need it most. Medicine for the soul, not a prize for the perfect as the Holy Father says.

I join Emily2014 in saying bless you for this.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Well, for starters, the divorced and remarried, cohabiting couples, gay couples, couples using contraception. At least nominally, we expect them to refrain from the Eucharist because they’re in an objective state of grave sin, though those that do turn up in the communion line don’t seem to get turned away but many have been ostracized from their parishes.

I agree it’s an objective state of sin. But every case is different, and culpability may be mitigated in many instances to make the culpability somewhat lesser (grave matter, full knowledge and full assent of the will being the three conditions for culpability to be mortal). These need to be assessed case-by-case, and these folks encouraged with the help of their confessors, to regularize their situations. That’s all that the gradual approach means as far as I can gather. It means “let’s be realistic here, there are good reasons why someone may not be in a position to regularize their situation immediately”. It doesn’t mean a license to sin indiscriminately and forever.

My guess is what you are saying here is this: lets use cohabitation as an example. a person that believes and finds that cohabitation is sinful but is already living with someone goes to confession and tries his best to change his situation but for some reason can’t change it right away. This person maybe even sleeps in a different room or at a family members house until he can change his situation and possibly move out until marriage. That person should not be refused communion? If that is what you are saying that seems understandable because the person is trying his best to change his situation without putting himself in a dangerous situation to sin.

 

[Seraphim73]

For the people saying it would be good to soften the language, how do you respond to the fact that Jesus called people “hypocrits”, “brood of vipers”, and “Satan” right to their faces?

Anyone?

My reaction? You ain’t Jesus.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Okay I’m a little confused here. Some of this is from the book Catholicism. Sacrament means oath. When we say Amen to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity we are saying Amen to the teachings of the Church. I thought Communion was the final fruit of unity with the Church. Only those in communion should receive the Eucharist and mortal sin means we are not in communion. And of course what about St. Paul’s admonition?

And there’s the prayer at Mass about not being worthy but Lord say the word and my soul shall be healed. And Jn 6:37.

 

[Sy_Noe]

My reaction? You ain’t Jesus.

That was precisely my reaction as well.

 

[ProVobis]

And there’s the prayer at Mass about not being worthy THAT THOU SHOULD COME UNDER MY ROOF but Lord say the word and my soul shall be healed. And Jn 6:37.

“ut intres sub tectum meum” in Latin

 

[ProVobis]

My guess is what you are saying here is this: lets use cohabitation as an example. a person that believes and finds that cohabitation is sinful but is already living with someone goes to confession and tries his best to change his situation but for some reason can’t change it right away. This person maybe even sleeps in a different room or at a family members house until he can change his situation and possibly move out until marriage. That person should not be refused communion? If that is what you are saying that seems understandable because the person is trying his best to change his situation without putting himself in a dangerous situation to sin.

I’ll agree with you if there is danger to scandal. Perhaps they have refrained from sex (or any other sin for that matter). Personally I’d give him the benefit of the doubt, especially if he goes to confession.

 

[johnnyc176]

I just can’t imagine contraception and homosexual love being a sin. Guess I’m in the wrong pew.;

Yep…I guess you are…there are many communities that accept that sin…they won’t have Jesus as their founder but you will ‘feel’ better.

The synod should have really addressed more urgent issues: Not putting God first in your life. The Poor. Stuff like that.

Well a good part of the Catholic Church’s mission is to save souls. If God is first in your life then you will follow the Church’s teachings. Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church, are One and the Same. Jesus spoke much about sin, satan and hell. In fact Jesus spoke more about the place of eternal damnation than He did Heaven. You might want to read the whole Gospel.

 

[ProVobis]

My reaction? You ain’t Jesus.

But he reads his Bible.

Just sayin…

 

[johnnyc176]

And there’s the prayer at Mass about not being worthy but Lord say the word and my soul shall be healed. And Jn 6:37.

Well from what I understand that is for venial sin. Are you saying that the sacrament of confession is bogus?

 

[Lion_IRC]

McCall1981;12394578:

For the people saying it would be good to soften the language, how do you respond to the fact that Jesus called people “hypocrits”, “brood of vipers”, and “Satan” right to their faces?

Anyone?

My reaction? You ain’t Jesus.

Hey, go easy on McCall1981

Remember, Jesus didnt go looking for sinners to rebuke and call vipers and neither do those of us who strive to follow His teaching.

The ‘vipers’ and ‘hypocrites’ put themselves in the way of Jesus and deliberately baited Him.

So I ask the same as McCall1981.

Having said what He said and having spoken truly, are we to agree with Jesus’ word choice or disagree?

Do we agree that the money changers HAD in fact made God’s house into a den of thieves or not?

Do we agree with Jesus that the woman caught in adultery WAS in fact sinning? (Otherwise the words…“go and sin no more” seem irrelevant.)

And if asked by one of Jesus’ enemies in the worldly, political, establishment circles of power whether adultery ( a woman doing what she wants with her own body) is a “sin”, what are we to say?

For how long and how far can we soften our language to keep up with the changing times so as not to provoke the rage against God?

Eventually we are left with no choice but to let our yes be yes and out no be no.

 

[pnewton]

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands.

Love,
Jesus Christ

Mark 9:43

Jesus didn’t Tweet one verse. This is part of an all day sermon on the Kingdom of God. If one wants to spend the day expounding on the Kingdom of Heaven with a homosexual, I am sure that Hell and the consequences of sin can be presented properly.

 

[pnewton]

I’m not saying an actively gay person would deny that they are a sinner as an overall human being.

I’m saying (in this particular example) that they would deny that they are a sinner in regards to their active homosexuality being a sin. The same would go for any other sin that any other person commits.

Just like we all sin, we also all have experience in justifying certain pet sins, at least at first.

 

[PaulinVA]

Nobody is suggesting that the Church can no longer define what grave sin is. The Eucharist is supposed to convey grace to us, to help us on our journey, but we sometimes deny access to the Eucharist to the very people that need it most. Medicine for the soul, not a prize for the perfect as the Holy Father says.

Okay, but here is the problem. The Church has said that there are certain sicknesses that preclude one from access to the Eucharist. Can the Church change that? Jesus died for the gay person’s sin of engaging in gay sex, and he died for the gay person’s sin of obstinate refusal to accept the sinful nature of the acts.

I’ve always wondered about “worthy reception” of the Eucharist. Jesus died for the most disgusting, dirty sins people have committed. Why are we protecting Him?