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

[ProVobis]

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.

With all due respect I think Christ referred to a more younger generation than one which has been desensitized by glorified cohabitation, divorces, porn in movies, gossip, etc. In other words, we have to watch out what we do for their sake, not ours.

“It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.”

Luke 17:2

 

[LittleFlower378]

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.

Thanks Ora, I appreciate your kind responses and I agree with much of what you say. The pastoral approach and “regularizing” thier situation is a positive step. And as others pointed out, their heart has to want conversion, all our hearts need conversion.

One last thing to point out. When you say, “it is not likely that telling them to quit having relations cold turkey will work nor help resolve the issue.” Is not any intercourse outside of marriage “grave matter?” Even if it is not “grave” it would still be a sin. How could a priest not tell them the truth to atleast try not to have relations? If someone who is poor and decides to steal to get his bread, did he not go about doing it the wrong way and is still guilty of sin?

I like what Cardinal Burke has to say in this article:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-burke-media-hijacking-synod-on-the-family-79760/

“The Church holds the person to the truth of that marriage,” Cardinal Burke continued, “while at the same time, being compassionate, understanding the situation of the person, welcoming them into the parish community in ways that are appropriate, and trying to help them to lead as holy a life as they can, but without betraying the truth about their marriage.”

I am going to take a break from posting for a while, peace and all good to you all!

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I agree. It is exactly these people who made the choice of “moving on with their lives, never mind the Church” which have now put that same Church in this awkward position of trying to overlook the permanence of their past anti-Church commitments.

 

[FollowChrist34]

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.

Yes, exactly. The one critical aspect of this that we are overlooking is submission of our will to the will of God. We seem to want to bring people in on their own terms, accommodating the dictates of their will, rather than revealing truth and instructing them about transformation and genuinely entering into the life of the spirit. Living in Christ is very different from living according to one’s own needs and desires; it espouses an entirely different set of values and priorities. It’s condescension and basically lying to people to imply otherwise. To me, it’s pretty creepy, especially when passed off as mercy or love for others. I believe that Jesus would be horrified by it; it defeats the purpose of everything he did, not to mention why he died. I do agree that there are many aspects of moral teaching that need to be highlighted, not just those about sex or marriage, etc. But we can’t neglect or downplay these either. It seems like one side only talks about moral teaching; the other side only about mercy and love. If you don’t accept his will over yours in MERCY, LOVE, AND MORAL TEACHING/DOCTRINE, you don’t have Christ. We need to better explain WHY we do what we do; there’s nothing wrong with it, and it’s not driving anyone away. I see a lot of unjust, sometimes really wild misrepresentations of Church teaching and practice here, even from those within the Church. (Frankly, I personally really resented the Church for years; nothing could have dragged me into it; I hated it. You change and open up when you’re ready.) Also, people know so little about teaching and even Christianity itself - it’s boiled down to just love and mercy - and a very sentimental, self-serving variety of that. How did this happen?

 

[Sy_Noe]

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?

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.

Maybe you didn’t understand Emily’s post. She comes across to me as understanding quite well. Seems to me all she takes issue with is what can appear to be so much emphasis on what Catholics believe to be sins of others. In comparison to the amount of time spent on His love and mercy and worrying about out own eye planks before we cast stones.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Maybe you didn’t understand Emily’s post. She comes across to me as understanding quite well. Seems to me all she takes issue with is what can appear to be so much emphasis on what Catholics believe to be sins of others. In comparison to the amount of time spent on His love and mercy and worrying about out own eye planks before we cast stones.

I think people are talking about sin simply in defensive mode - that is what is up for discussion. People are proposing changes in practice (and even some changes in doctrine) in how we deal with people traditionally viewed as “sinners.” (a bit oversimplified) Naturally this will be the topic of discussion. It’s not to exclude the rest of the faith or even imply that sin is main thing one is focused on. If you’re talking about new ways to cook pasta, people will talk a lot about pasta, from all perspectives.

 

[GereOMH]

In my experience, most people who object to the language used in Church documents or in Her Liturgy, actually object to the truth expressed by that language.

In ministering to those of us who actually suffer with a sin, or a temptation to sin, language that obfuscates to some degree may be helpful because of the harness of our hearts.

But in laying out Church doctrine, let’s call a spade a spade.

 

[ProVobis]

In my experience, most people who object to the language used in Church documents or in Her Liturgy, actually object to the truth expressed by that language.

Indeed. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Extends to other things as well.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think people are talking about sin simply in defensive mode - that is what is up for discussion. People are proposing changes in practice (and even some changes in doctrine) in how we deal with people traditionally viewed as “sinners.” (a bit oversimplified) Naturally this will be the topic of discussion. It’s not to exclude the rest of the faith or even imply that sin is main thing one is focused on. If you’re talking about new ways to cook pasta, people will talk a lot about pasta, from all perspectives.

Okay though I’m not sure Emily was referring only to this one thread or since she mentioned the forum, if she meant overall. But in any case it seems to me many people, rightfully or wrongly, are given the impression that sin and guilt is the main focus in the Catholic faith. Tons of talk on gays and contraception all the time. I don’t know but maybe that’s partly why the Holy Father has tried to get Catholics to expand the conversation. For instance not talking only about what became the norm to talk about all the time. But to converse more about the poor and other matters of importance to Catholics. Even something such as Mass attendance where I would think the focus should be to come freely and with joy, comes with guilt-ridden connotations and with an attempt to have fear applied to it. In that it is a weekly obligation with a person under penalty of mortal sin hung over their head. And even though someone might love God with all their heart and soul and serve Him by serving others and loving their neighbor, but mess up just one wk and sleep in or fail to attend a Holy Day of Obligation, they then can’t even approach Jesus to receive Him and the grace they could receive the next wk unless they go to the confessional first. People may have the wrong impression. But when the focus is so much on sin and guilt and fear, I can see why they would get the impression.

It’s been nice conversing with you but now I’m heading to dinner. Pasta anyone? Peace to you my friend and God bless!

 

[graciew]

Even something such as Mass attendance where I would think the focus should be to come freely and with joy, comes with guilt-ridden connotations and with an attempt to have fear applied to it. In that it is a weekly obligation with a person under penalty of mortal sin hung over their head. And even though someone might love God with all their heart and soul and serve Him by serving others and loving their neighbor, but mess up just one wk and sleep in or fail to attend a Holy Day of Obligation, they then can’t even approach Jesus to receive Him and the grace they could receive the next wk unless they go to the confessional first. People may have the wrong impression. But when the focus is so much on sin and guilt and fear, I can see why they would get the impression.

It’s been nice conversing with you but now I’m heading to dinner. Pasta anyone? Peace to you my friend and God bless!

I can recall once as a teen I said I was lazy about going to Mass that day and somebody told me that I had to go anyway,even if I did not want,that is why it was called the " sacrifice" of the Mass… :
Fortunately,my mom had a different approach,a bit more understanding , and more of a joyful way to convince me…
She would write on each page she wrote A.M.D.G.,she still does. It must have started with the headaches I gave her…
Love pasta,thank you!

 

[FollowChrist34]

Okay though I’m not sure Emily was referring only to this one thread or since she mentioned the forum, if she meant overall. But in any case it seems to me many people, rightfully or wrongly, are given the impression that sin and guilt is the main focus in the Catholic faith. Tons of talk on gays and contraception all the time. I don’t know but maybe that’s partly why the Holy Father has tried to get Catholics to expand the conversation. For instance not talking only about what became the norm to talk about all the time. But to converse more about the poor and other matters of importance to Catholics. Even something such as Mass attendance where I would think the focus should be to come freely and with joy, comes with guilt-ridden connotations and with an attempt to have fear applied to it. In that it is a weekly obligation with a person under penalty of mortal sin hung over their head. And even though someone might love God with all their heart and soul and serve Him by serving others and loving their neighbor, but mess up just one wk and sleep in or fail to attend a Holy Day of Obligation, they then can’t even approach Jesus to receive Him and the grace they could receive the next wk unless they go to the confessional first. People may have the wrong impression. But when the focus is so much on sin and guilt and fear, I can see why they would get the impression.

It’s been nice conversing with you but now I’m heading to dinner. Pasta anyone? Peace to you my friend and God bless!

Nice speaking with you - hope you enjoy your pasta (the staple of truly discerning minds/palates). I think I saw somewhere that you didn’t practice the faith, was that you? (sorry if not - disregard these remarks) . I would you encourage to check out a few local parishes as convenient. Take communion or not, as you will. Nobody will bother you, in fact you may not even be noticed. Believe me, you could go for a year and not hear the word sin. If you don’t believe me, try it and report back. Peace to you too.

 

[Weejee]

I would you encourage to check out a few local parishes as convenient. Take communion or not, as you will. Nobody will bother you, in fact you may not even be noticed. Believe me, you could go for a year and not hear the word sin. If you don’t believe me, try it and report back.

Believe me, you could go for a year and not even be noticed.

The church really needs to work at the local level, how to be more welcoming to all its members and visitors. They also need to work on Christian Education.

I know this Synod did not plan to work on that, but if you want to help the poor, you’ve got to start with a loving, cohesive, and blessed organization.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Nice speaking with you - hope you enjoy your pasta (the staple of truly discerning minds/palates). I think I saw somewhere that you didn’t practice the faith, was that you? (sorry if not - disregard these remarks) . I would you encourage to check out a few local parishes as convenient. Take communion or not, as you will. Nobody will bother you, in fact you may not even be noticed. Believe me, you could go for a year and not hear the word sin. If you don’t believe me, try it and report back. Peace to you too.

Yes I’m NP. But I have tried 3 or 4 different parishes convenient to me so I can already report back. I’ve attended Saturday vigils, Sundays, even some weekdays. My geographical parish is not for me. I have heard a homily on “bedroom” matters there and wearing Sunday best and not much in regards to the poor. I’ve heard a priest there say who should not receive Jesus. It’s a parish that reminds me of CAF. The parish I more recently attended is more welcoming. People wear a wide spectrum of attire. Some dressy but more come casual. More shorts than I’ve ever seen. No one much seems to care. There are no pews or kneelers. Very few kneel on the floor. The decor is rather plain. But at Easter the altar was decorated with the most colorful flowers. I should have taken a picture. Others were. People there aren’t afraid to get up from their seats and offer the Sign of Peace. I’ll just note I’ve attended since Easter so no one accuses me of being a C&E “Catholic”. But I remember Christmas Eve when I did take Communion, the EMHC caught me off guard when she said “Merry Christmas!” before saying “The Body of Christ”. One of the priests who no longer is there was known to speak about the poor. And I’m a bit concerned because the pastor may be nearing retirement and I find in my experience a pastor has a lot to do with the persona of any parish or church/faith community. And I’ve noticed CAF posters say younger priests coming up are different/stricter/more conservative than those in their 50s and 60s. The music is lacking and uninspiring to me but it is my Catholic parish of choice when I attend.

Thank you for your nice and encouraging words. But you tell me to take Communion or not. And then I read others on CAF who use harsher language and would accuse me of being guilty of the blood of Christ if I received. Or they throw around the h-word (heretic) and those things discourage me, make me feel unwelcomed, so I then find myself not bothering to attend Mass as much. I’m just one person but I don’t think I’m alone. It seems to me outside of the 2 holidays, pews or chairs aren’t exactly full compared to how many Baptized/Confirmed Catholics there are. But that can be the case in other organized religions today as well.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes I’m NP. But I have tried 3 or 4 different parishes convenient to me so I can already report back. I’ve attended Saturday vigils, Sundays, even some weekdays. My geographical parish is not for me. I have heard a homily on “bedroom” matters there and wearing Sunday best and not much in regards to the poor. I’ve heard a priest there say who should not receive Jesus. It’s a parish that reminds me of CAF. The parish I more recently attended is more welcoming. People wear a wide spectrum of attire. Some dressy but more come casual. More shorts than I’ve ever seen. No one much seems to care. There are no pews or kneelers. Very few kneel on the floor. The decor is rather plain. But at Easter the altar was decorated with the most colorful flowers. I should have taken a picture. Others were. People there aren’t afraid to get up from their seats and offer the Sign of Peace. I’ll just note I’ve attended since Easter so no one accuses me of being a C&E “Catholic”. But I remember Christmas Eve when I did take Communion, the EMHC caught me off guard when she said “Merry Christmas!” before saying “The Body of Christ”. One of the priests who no longer is there was known to speak about the poor. And I’m a bit concerned because the pastor may be nearing retirement and I find in my experience a pastor has a lot to do with the persona of any parish or church/faith community. And I’ve noticed CAF posters say younger priests coming up are different/stricter/more conservative than those in their 50s and 60s. The music is lacking and uninspiring to me but it is my Catholic parish of choice when I attend.

Thank you for your nice and encouraging words. But you tell me to take Communion or not. And then I read others on CAF who use harsher language and would accuse me of being guilty of the blood of Christ if I received. Or they throw around the h-word (heretic) and those things discourage me, make me feel unwelcomed, so I then find myself not bothering to attend Mass as much. I’m just one person but I don’t think I’m alone. It seems to me outside of the 2 holidays, pews or chairs aren’t exactly full compared to how many Baptized/Confirmed Catholics there are. But that can be the case in other organized religions today as well.

Well, thanks for the report. I don’t think any parish is perfect, but I personally find that regularly attending (and, yes, taking the Eucharist) helps me stay meaningfully committed in the faith, which actually really enriches my life. I like my parish; I love the Church building’s architecture and I pray there for Eucharistic Adoration. I find secular values to be pretty cold and barren. Our culture often reflects that; it’s superficial and materialistic. It amazes me for example how much energy people will put into physical fitness (and I do actually do that), but nothing toward their soul. We are very self-centered.

I won’t lie; I am a pretty conservative Catholic even by CAF standards. But I’ve never let my religious or political views interfere with friendship or affect the way I treat people who don’t agree with me. Most of the people around me are liberal anyway, so that is probably a good thing. Keeps me humble. (So if we scrap, which we probably will at some point, it’s not personal! .) As for whether to take Communion, I think we should all probably contemplate it more seriously and I am ok with where the Church stands on that. But conscience is a sensitive area, and I leave each alone on that issue.

Best wishes!

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Also, people know so little about teaching and even Christianity itself - it’s boiled down to just love and mercy - and a very sentimental, self-serving variety of that. How did this happen?

My guess is secular trends of relativism and utilitarianism, and what has happened with Protestant churches - many hardly resemble the Christian faith. (Probably because they followed these secular trends.) These things have influenced the church, I am in no doubt about it.

I think that when engaged in a war - and we are at war with the secular world - the church must be strong and not compromise one bit, even when it comes to not succumbing to pressure of using more inclusive language and euphemisms. These things obfuscate the truth, do not convince anyone to repent, and confuse many who are not informed enough about the teachings.

 

[Tigg]

I think that when engaged in a war - and we are at war with the secular world - the church must be strong and not compromise one bit, even when it comes to not succumbing to pressure of using more inclusive language and euphemisms. These things obfuscate the truth, do not convince anyone to repent, and confuse many who are not informed enough about the teachings.

Very well said, BUT, we are being told by some that we shouldn’t focus on sin so much implying that there are more important matters than our eternal salvation to attend to.

Because if I don’t laugh, I’ll cry, how’s this for an example of a euphemism and obfuscation?

“Negative patient outlook, instead of being dead.”

Ya think it will work?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Because if I don’t laugh, I’ll cry, how’s this for an example of a euphemism and obfuscation?

Ya think it will work?

Well, it might show things from a different angle. Or something.

No. I don’t think it will work.

 

[Weejee]

Yes I’m NP. But I have tried 3 or 4 different parishes convenient to me so I can already report back. I’ve attended Saturday vigils, Sundays, even some weekdays. My geographical parish is not for me. I have heard a homily on “bedroom” matters there and wearing Sunday best and not much in regards to the poor. I’ve heard a priest there say who should not receive Jesus. It’s a parish that reminds me of CAF. The parish I more recently attended is more welcoming. People wear a wide spectrum of attire. Some dressy but more come casual. More shorts than I’ve ever seen. No one much seems to care. There are no pews or kneelers. Very few kneel on the floor. The decor is rather plain. But at Easter the altar was decorated with the most colorful flowers. I should have taken a picture. Others were. People there aren’t afraid to get up from their seats and offer the Sign of Peace. I’ll just note I’ve attended since Easter so no one accuses me of being a C&E “Catholic”. But I remember Christmas Eve when I did take Communion, the EMHC caught me off guard when she said “Merry Christmas!” before saying “The Body of Christ”. One of the priests who no longer is there was known to speak about the poor. And I’m a bit concerned because the pastor may be nearing retirement and I find in my experience a pastor has a lot to do with the persona of any parish or church/faith community. And I’ve noticed CAF posters say younger priests coming up are different/stricter/more conservative than those in their 50s and 60s. The music is lacking and uninspiring to me but it is my Catholic parish of choice when I attend.

Thank you for your nice and encouraging words. But you tell me to take Communion or not. And then I read others on CAF who use harsher language and would accuse me of being guilty of the blood of Christ if I received. Or they throw around the h-word (heretic) and those things discourage me, make me feel unwelcomed, so I then find myself not bothering to attend Mass as much. I’m just one person but I don’t think I’m alone. It seems to me outside of the 2 holidays, pews or chairs aren’t exactly full compared to how many Baptized/Confirmed Catholics there are. But that can be the case in other organized religions today as well.

Oh Sy Noe!

Please go back to that church you liked. Please go back to communion with the real presence of Jesus Christ! God loves you soooo much and wants you back in church. Honest, I can’t see it any other way.

Remember (and this is the only way the local churches will ever get off their duffs and serve the poor.) THE LOCAL CHURCH IS THE CONGREGATION! PASTORS COME AND GO!
You and your fellow congregants must fight for what you want, and not let the new guy boss you around! He may not even try. You don’t know him yet. And if he does, Push back!

I AM a cafeteria catholic. I can’t live with every single teaching of the Roman Church. I do my best, but I really can’t believe contraception is bad, homosexuality is a sin, all that “little stuff” Today is 10/11, National Coming Out Day, and I just made a donation to the Pride Center of Albany. I also attend the Latin Mass here, and am so glad we don’t shake hands, etc. I’m a real mixed bag.

BUT DON’T GIVE UP THE SHIP! (Musical note: Eternal Father Strong to Save…
youtube.com/watch?v=bDjwUzUnNpU

(tried to find a more perky version of this hymn, but I need to get a MIDI plug-in first!)

 

[Teelynn]

Nope, I don’t think it’ll work either. You have to look back to see that we have already sanitized sin about as much as I thought you possibly could. We don’t use phrases like
‘living in sin’ anymore in the Church, we call it ‘cohabitating’. And don’t we already use the term ‘irregular marriages’ for people living in 2nd civil marriages? Wonder how they want to sanitize it more? Guess we could say these sins are ‘unions in progress’ or maybe ‘families in progress’ to indicate that maybe eventually they may be full, sanctified unions. Realistically though, how many of these are going to complete the journey? Especially knowing that the Church looks at them with no scrutiny nor needing any correction. Oh and BTW, what do they want to call ‘sin’? Maybe something different? How about ‘normal human frailties’? That way, we need not even go to confession! We will all be just ‘normal’ and not in any need of any penance, because wrongdoing will be ‘normal.’

 

[OraLabora]

And I’ve noticed CAF posters say younger priests coming up are different/stricter/more conservative than those in their 50s and 60s. .

I think that it isn’t just an issue of priests. Someone fresh out of seminary no doubt has the doctrine fresh in his mind and tends to go “by the book”. Someone in his 50s or 60s is simply more realistic, has more human experience, and realizes as my PP says “doctrine has never saved a soul, it is Jesus who saves”.

As I look back at my 17 years since reverting, I was far more legalistic and by the book at the beginning, until I realized that hiding behind law didn’t make me any less a sinner nor did anything for a real inner conversion.

Even in the medical field: when I visited my family doctor to work me up for type II diabetes, he had a med student/intern do the initial workup and suggested treatment plan and invariably it’s “we’re going to put you on this, test that, probe into there…” and basically turn me into a pin cushion and lab rat. Then my doctor walks in, looks at the numbers and says “no, you’re an avid cyclist, keep at it and let’s just work on diet at first and reassess in 6 months” and “you can still eat what you love but just remember to reduce portions and only have the really bad stuff as an occasional treat so you don’t go crazy”.

The young and the keen feel they can change the world. The old grizzled warriors realize they can’t change human nature and instead focus on mending and healing those suffering from the aftermath. Been there, done that!