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

[OraLabora]

You have some good points but some of this still doesnt make sense.
Immediate continence should be expected. For a divorced person to have relations would be a sin regardless. We may still fall into temptation and sin and go back to confession. The terminology you are using is saying its ok to commit sin, even though there may not be much culpability and its a venial sin. We should abhor all sin. I know this is not what you mean but the explanation given is not balanced.

Well, yes I guess I’m saying that the sin may have venial culpability in the examples I enumerated. I’m just being realistic. I’m not really saying it’s OK to sin, I’m saying it is not likely that telling them to quit having relations cold turkey will work nor help resolve the issue. They need to work this out with their confessor in the confessional. It’s above our pay grade. I’m very adamant that this needs to be taken to the confessional and worked out there concerning the sins emanating from their situation, and perhaps outside the confessional but with their priest concerning what needs to actually be done to regularize their situation. Then the confessional can be used as a means to approach holiness and ensure that concrete steps are taken in the right direction.

What I am saying though, is that we need guidelines for confessors to come out of the synod, in order to help the confessor establish the level of culpability and in general, how to handle these situations. This already exists for the sin of masturbation, and is explicitly stated in the CCC.

What’s also needed is a firm resolution, plan, and demonstrated efforts to regularize their situation. I think a cohabiting couple that thumbs their nose and says “forget it, we aren’t ever going to get married” should be treated differently than a spouse who says “I pray every day that my spouse will come around so we can have our union regularized by getting married, but (s)he wants nothing of it and I do my best to get him/her to change his/her mind”, which should be treated differently than a couple that has gone through the formal prep phase and are awaiting the date of their marriage. Same thing with the annulment process for the divorced and remarried; a person who has started the formalities vs. one who won’t bother.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I totally agree.

And if you are lax with someone and drive them away from God or affirm their sins in your heart or allow yourself to become lax, you are not following Jesus’ example either.

All we can do is to follow the example of Jesus (who used both “nice” and “harsh”) as closely as possible (which would mean using both “nice” and “harsh” depending on the situation, the person in question, etc).

It’s a never-ending circle. And now we’re back to how often the perfect Jesus was harsh compared to the times he wasn’t vs how often imperfect mere mortal beings are with one another. I also wonder how many of the advocates for harshness here are as harsh in their real life parishes. Or if they are even harsher when they can hide behind the internet.

 

[FollowChrist34]

It’s a never-ending circle. And now we’re back to how often the perfect Jesus was harsh compared to the times he wasn’t vs how often imperfect mere mortal beings are with one another. I also wonder how many of the advocates for harshness here are as harsh in their real life parishes. Or if they are even harsher when they can hide behind the internet.

Well, please keep in mind that “advocate for harshness” is your characterization of others, correct?

 

[Emily2014]

Sy Noe is expressing what many of us feel and I applaud the tolerant wisdom demonstrated in all his posts, especially in this thread.

Anyone (especially non-catholics) just browsing this forum out of interest would surely be surprised to find such bigotry and intolerance amongst those who claim to follow Our Lord. He made it very clear that we are to “Love one another as I have loved you…”

 

[FollowChrist34]

Sy Noe is expressing what many of us feel and I applaud the tolerant wisdom demonstrated in all his posts, especially in this thread.

Anyone (especially non-catholics) just browsing this forum out of interest would surely be surprised to find such bigotry and intolerance amongst those who claim to follow Our Lord. He made it very clear that we are to “Love one another as I have loved you…”

They would be well advised to steer clear of the Bible too…read the wrong passage and they’ll end up at the hospital. I am just trying to make a point - not a single person on this thread has shown in my view any bigotry or intolerance whatsoever. That is an ugly accusation - completely unfounded. This has been a spirited debate, nothing more.

 

[ProVobis]

What I am saying though, is that we need guidelines for confessors to come out of the synod, in order to help the confessor establish the level of culpability and in general, how to handle these situations. This already exists for the sin of masturbation, and is explicitly stated in the CCC.

Ora, this is true for acts. However, if you’re in the business of buying or selling porn, for example, you are definitely more culpable though you might not realize it. This falls into the scandal category, the same as cohabiting (in most cases), etc.

 

[Emily2014]

They would be well advised to steer clear of the Bible too…read the wrong passage and they’ll end up at the hospital. I am just trying to make a point - not a single person on this thread has shown in my view any bigotry or intolerance whatsoever. That is an ugly accusation - completely unfounded. This has been a spirited debate, nothing more.

With some exceptions, the emphasis has been upon the perceived “sins” of others who choose to live their private, personal lives in a way which is contrary to the rules of the Catholic Church - the clear implication being that only Catholics are right and that anyone who disagrees with certain rules is both a sinner and a heretic.
Spirited debate - yes mostly - but if you re-read through the posts you will possibly see that there is much more about sin and damnation than about the love of God.
If my “Ugly accusation” has caused offence, I apologise, but cannot retract what I genuinely believe to be true.
God bless you.

 

[Weejee]

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.

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.

I’ve read the whole gospel. And I do believe in the devil and hell. I just don’t believe you’ll go there if you want to limit the size of your family, etc.

 

[Seraphim73]

You know a lot of what shapes my personal views on this question is something I heard an archbishop say some years ago. He was interviewed for a documentary.

Interviewer: Why does Christianity have a bad name today?

Archbishop Lazar: The hypocrisy and bigotry of Christians. The hypocrisy and bigotry we have is, first of all, to think that we have a special righteousness or holiness as Christians automatically simply because we are Christians without any real sincere work to transform our hearts and to transform our inner persons, to transform our being so that we come into accord with the moral imperatives of Jesus Christ rather than the moral laws that people have super-imposed on Christ.

I’m sure many of you are wonderful, holy people but I’ve done some really bad things in my life. I’m in no position to call anyone out on their sins. It would be the height of hypocrisy for me.

 

[JimG]

You know a lot of what shapes my personal views on this question is something I heard an archbishop say some years ago. He was interviewed for a documentary.

Interviewer: Why does Christianity have a bad name today?

Archbishop Lazar: The hypocrisy and bigotry of Christians. The hypocrisy and bigotry we have is, first of all, to think that we have a special righteousness or holiness as Christians automatically simply because we are Christians without any real sincere work to transform our hearts and to transform our inner persons, to transform our being so that we come into accord with the moral imperatives of Jesus Christ rather than the moral laws that people have super-imposed on Christ.

I’m sure many of you are wonderful, holy people but I’ve done some really bad things in my life. I’m in no position to call anyone out on their sins. It would be the height of hypocrisy for me.

So have I. To use an overworked phrase, I have no right to judge anyone. Still, our common sinfulness does not thereby make accurate moral judgements an impossibility. Of course we can judge the rightness and wrongness of particular actions, and we must, especially our own.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Seraphim73;12397321:

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.
Pointing out that someone isn’t Jesus isn’t being harsh. None of us are…

It’s kind of a silly and loaded question to ask if we “agree” with Jesus.

How is it silly?
And I dont understand what you mean by “loaded”.

Perhaps you could correct the premise?

Sure, if you can kindly show me the premise to which you are referring and in what way you think the premise is incorrect.

 

[Seraphim73]

How is it silly?
And I dont understand what you mean by “loaded”.

Sure, if you can kindly show me the premise to which you are referring and in what way you think the premise is incorrect.

Asking someone in a conversation, especially another Christian, whether or not they “agree” with Jesus is a loaded way to ask a question. Of course I agree with Jesus! After all what Christian is going to say they don’t agree with Christ? Frankly the question is a little insulting and seems to be designed in a way to get the other person to be quite. It’s the very definition of a loaded question.

The incorrect premise is that this is about “agreement” with Christ’s use of words. That’s not the question. The question is what words should we use.

 

[Sy_Noe]

You know a lot of what shapes my personal views on this question is something I heard an archbishop say some years ago. He was interviewed for a documentary.

Interviewer: Why does Christianity have a bad name today?

Archbishop Lazar: The hypocrisy and bigotry of Christians. The hypocrisy and bigotry we have is, first of all, to think that we have a special righteousness or holiness as Christians automatically simply because we are Christians without any real sincere work to transform our hearts and to transform our inner persons, to transform our being so that we come into accord with the moral imperatives of Jesus Christ rather than the moral laws that people have super-imposed on Christ.

I’m sure many of you are wonderful, holy people but I’ve done some really bad things in my life. I’m in no position to call anyone out on their sins. It would be the height of hypocrisy for me.

I don’t think Jesus meant only you. He said none of us are in the position. Matthew 7:4 “how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye?”

 

[Lion_IRC]

Asking someone in a conversation, especially another Christian, whether or not they “agree” with Jesus is a loaded way to ask a question.

Now you’re just repeating the same assertion you made earlier. I asked, if you could explain - not repeat - what you said.

…Of course I agree with Jesus!

Hang on. I thought you said it was a “loaded question”. How can you answer it so unequivocally if that was the case?

…After all what Christian is going to say they don’t agree with Christ?

You tell me. Are you saying all Christians actually DO agree with Jesus all the time? Or do some deny Him every now and then? (Perhaps after the rooster crows 3 times. Perhaps when His teachings are awkward or embarrassing to say out loud in the public square.)

…Frankly the question is a little insulting and seems to be designed in a way to get the other person to be quiet. It’s the very definition of a loaded question.

That’s not the definition of a loaded question.
Needing to think a little while before you answer, rather than blurting out non-sequiturs like… “You’re not Jesus”, is not what defines a loaded question.
Do you agree with Jesus that the woman caught in adultery had committed a sin? Do you agree with Jesus that the temple had been turned into a den of thieves? Was Jesus right to refer to vipers as vipers? Were the people who Jesus called hypocrites really hypocrites or not? I don’t see any difficulty in answering a simple yes or no.

…The incorrect premise is that this is about “agreement” with Christ’s use of words. That’s not the question. The question is what words should we use.

Excuse me???
“…use of words”
“…what words should we use”


Let me. Ask you another ‘loaded’ question.
Do you think (agree) it is an “abomination” for two men to have sexual intercourse?

 

[OraLabora]

Ora, this is true for acts. However, if you’re in the business of buying or selling porn, for example, you are definitely more culpable though you might not realize it. This falls into the scandal category, the same as cohabiting (in most cases), etc.

I’m not sure in this day and age that cohabiting causes much scandal anymore except perhaps among the odd busybody. I’m certainly not scandalized by it even though I’m old enough to remember an era when people were.

People are led astray for all sorts of reasons, including the enormous pressure to assert one’s self sexually coming from the mass media, TV, etc.

Our job is to bring them back gently but ever-so-surely. I’m convinced this can only be achieved by meeting people where they are now.

 

[Tigg]

Anyone (especially non-catholics) just browsing this forum out of interest would surely be surprised to find such bigotry and intolerance amongst those who claim to follow Our Lord. He made it very clear that we are to “Love one another as I have loved you…”

Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of false charity. Love is not an emotion or sentimentality. And neither is it love or goodwill to allow your neighbor to burn himself because you did not warn him the stove was hot. True charity would have our neighbor’s best (and eternal) interests at heart and for the love of God, he is told truth, not to condemn, but so that he might enter a new life. How could authentic love possibly let one see another in sin and death and turn their head away? And how could the Church, whose purpose is to be the beacon of light for the world, remain silent and betray her mission?

With some exceptions, the emphasis has been upon the perceived “sins” of others who choose to live their private, personal lives in a way which is contrary to the rules of the Catholic Church - the clear implication being that only Catholics are right and that anyone who disagrees with certain rules is both a sinner and a heretic.

As you identify yourself as Catholic, I find these words rather amazing. Do you realize what Christ commanded His Church to do? Negative connotations against the Church apply also to the Son of Man as her founder.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Our job is to bring them back gently but ever-so-surely. I’m convinced this can only be achieved by meeting people where they are now.

I think this is very true. But people need to want to be brought back. We can’t bring them in kicking and screaming. In my experience, those who want to return will be ready to make some sacrifices, to accept that their living conditions are problematic, that they need to change. And this is perhaps the biggest hurdle that needs to be jumped: that people want to do this. No amount of gentle pulling and euphemisms will help the person who is not convinced and wants to be accepted as they are and where they are without changing. That’s why I’m utterly unconvinced that this emphasis on language is useful.

 

[OraLabora]

I think this is very true. But people need to want to be brought back. We can’t bring them in kicking and screaming. In my experience, those who want to return will be ready to make some sacrifices, to accept that their living conditions are problematic, that they need to change. And this is perhaps the biggest hurdle that needs to be jumped: that people want to do this. No amount of gentle pulling and euphemisms will help the person who is not convinced and wants to be accepted as they are and where they are without changing. That’s why I’m utterly unconvinced that this emphasis on language is useful.

Agreed. I posted elsewhere that we have to make a distinction between, say a cohabiting couple who just want to do their own thing, or another where one or both partners want to grow closer to Christ but face major impediments along the way. A good example might be a case where one partner of the couple is very keen on regularizing their situation but the other says “no” or needs rather a lot of convincing. We have to find a way that doesn’t punish the partner desirous of change to help nudge the couple in the right direction.

 

[Tigg]

I think this is very true. But people need to want to be brought back. We can’t bring them in kicking and screaming. In my experience, those who want to return will be ready to make some sacrifices, to accept that their living conditions are problematic, that they need to change. And this is perhaps the biggest hurdle that needs to be jumped: that people want to do this. No amount of gentle pulling and euphemisms will help the person who is not convinced and wants to be accepted as they are and where they are without changing. That’s why I’m utterly unconvinced that this emphasis on language is useful.

Good post! As changing = acknowledgment of sin and repentance, and comes only from God’s grace, I must agree.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

We have to find a way that doesn’t punish the partner desirous of change to help nudge the couple in the right direction.

Maybe I’m just splitting hairs here, but I find it seriously problematic that people talk about this as punishment. It is not. The situation is a consequence of people’s actions. And very often they have been freely made. This is reality and not punishment. I think that the language used in MSM has creeped into the way we talk and think about it.