Amoris Laetitia apologists rely on kids from second marriages?

[cominghome1966]

… One cannot be able to receive Confession but not the Eucharist.

I take your point and will meditate on what you’ve said here.

OTOH, he is also refusing to clarify AL and his approval of what a group of Argentinian bishops is a public stance.

OK but does that make this public stance protected from error by the Holy Spirit?

Well, first, the fact that lots of orthodoxy is included in the document does not clarify the confusing parts. And you yourself admit that they are “unclear,” which means your original statement; “I don’t have a problem with AL either. I think it’s entirely possible to read it in continuity with historic Church teaching.” is not accurate, or at least that you have not explained how the parts which are unclear can be read in “continuity with historic Church teaching.”

That is what I tried to do already. As I noted above, I acknowledge what you said there and will consider it.

As to what Dr Mirus said, perhaps those of us who remember what happened in the 1960s wrt artificial birth control will disagree that this is a good path to take with his optimistic view of the future.

I stand by my optimism but let me clarify it.

The Church has not changed Her teaching on contraception.

Likewise, in regards to marriage, my optimism is based on what the Church will actually teach, not necessarily what the majority of the laity will do.

 

[cominghome1966]

I think it is an excellent point that focus may be given to children of second marriages ignoring children of the first. I’ll say that as a person whose parents divorced and whose father remarried this issue is very important to me. One thing that attracted me to convert to Catholicism was the constant teaching about marriage. And that is even with the troubling amazing of annulments granted.

Yes, me too! I found it very attractive.

One question I have is how did the Church handle this in the early days? I don’t know how prevalent it was but certainly in the Jewish and Roman societies there was divorce. So I would think there would be a fair number of similar ‘difficult’ cases to what we see today.

I don’t know, but it is a very interesting question. Thanks for raising it. Maybe somebody else knows the answer.

 

[cominghome1966]

If your diocese does nothing for children of divorce, then maybe you could help to start something. AL implores the local Christian communities to take care of people in situations like this.

Thank you for pointing out those quotes from AL.

I stand by my witness that I have never heard a homily regarding divorce or any other other things I listed in post #47. Catholics who have not undergone a divorce as children or as adults really cannot imagine the fallout, I have unfortunately discovered.

I am quite involved with the issue but not directly with my diocese. I would love to get involved there and have even thought of how, but don’t have the time or the energy.

For example, I would love to see my diocese hire a staff member who will accompany those who are going through an unwanted civil divorce (aka, the respondents), to go with them to civil hearings, to listen to their stories, to evaluate if justice is actually being rendered in such cases and to report the findings to the Bishop. This person would serve as a official representative of the Bishop in such actions, not to the civil court, but to the respondent, the Catholic community and the wider public. Public reports can be made (without identifying the family, obviously), statistical data can be gathered, analyzed and published, and names of judges can be published with respect to the sorts of decisions they are rendering.

 

[St_Francis]

I take your point and will meditate on what you’ve said here.

OK but does that make this public stance protected from error by the Holy Spirit?

no, in order that infallibility apply, he must be speaking from the Seat of Peter: he has to say that he is. Very few infallible pronouncements have been made since V1, when the Pope’s infallibity was proclaimed. As a document, Humanae Vitae is not at the level of infallibility, but since it reiterates a perennial teaching of the Church, what it teaches is.

That is what I tried to do already. As I noted above, I acknowledge what you said there and will consider it.

I stand by my optimism but let me clarify it.

The Church has not changed Her teaching on contraception.

Do you know what happened in the 1960s regarding the teaching on abc?

Likewise, in regards to marriage, my optimism is based on what the Church will actually teach, not necessarily what the majority of the laity will do.

 

[cominghome1966]

Do you know what happened in the 1960s regarding the teaching on abc?

Are you suggesting that the Church changed Her teaching?

 

[St_Francis]

Are you suggesting that the Church changed Her teaching?

Quite the contrary!

When the Pill was developed in the 1950s, it was thought that since it worked hormonally that it might be cinsidered a means of birth control which worked through women’s cycles (sorta kinda) and so the pope asked for the inout of the bishops around the world. In the meantime, many priests said using the Pill was ok.

Humanae Vitae caught veryone by surprise when it reiterated thenperennial teachings of the Church against abc, as the bishops had actually thought it would be ok to use the Pill.

There was a huge rebellion from priests, there was the Winnipeg statement and also a description of what happened at one US diocese, where thenpriests all got together to sign a letter rejecting HV and one priest refused to sign and was treated badly.

Many, many Catholics left the Church over this. My own mother was already half-way out the door, this caused her to leave altogether. Many were the complaints about old celibate men in the Vatican…

So my problem with the apparent permission with lack of guidelines is that we will later face a situation similar to that which occurred after HV was released. One doesn’t loosen the reins and then pull them back in: it is just a foolish way to go.

 

[Vico]

I may be too personally involved in this issue to see clearly, so I would like your (name removed by moderator)ut.

It seems that people who advocate for a more liberal/lenient interpretation of AL will invoke the necessity to care for kids in the second marriage. It is hypothesized that the parents cannot split up, since this would disrupt those kids’ lives.

It seems that I’ve seen that a few times.

I have never seen them say that people need to provide a unified home for kids born into the first marriage. Kids from the first marriage seem to be left out of the discussion entirely.

It’s as if it is perfectly OK to tear their families into two pieces so that their parents can be happy in their second marriage.

AL is being used as a way to encourage parents to not do that to kids born into second marriages. These parents can remain together and even be sexual with each other, for the kids’ sake.

But the needs of the kids born into the first marriage to have a unified home with both mother and father present on a daily basis are not even taken into account.

So my questions are these: are the kids from second marriages being given some sort of moral preference in discussions about AL? To the extent that the needs of children are invoked in discussions about AL, is it the needs of the kids of the second marriage that are the primary concern, not the needs of the kids of the first marriage?

I posted this in the social justice area since I believe it is an issue of justice.

Example 1: a spouse divorces the other, and keeps the children, and decides to marry again, even invalidly.

Example 2: a spouse divorces the other, and looses the children, and decides to marry again, even invalidly.

 

[cominghome1966]

Example 1: a spouse divorces the other, and keeps the children, and decides to marry again, even invalidly.

Example 2: a spouse divorces the other, and looses the children, and decides to marry again, even invalidly.

By “keeps” and “looses,” I assume you mean that the kids are not doing the back and forth thing between “two homes.” Yes?

If so, then Example 3 could be, a spouse divorces the other, the children do the back and forth thing between “two homes,” and one (or both) decide to marry again, even invalidly.

 

[cominghome1966]

Quite the contrary!

When the Pill was developed in the 1950s, it was thought that since it worked hormonally that it might be cinsidered a means of birth control which worked through women’s cycles (sorta kinda) and so the pope asked for the inout of the bishops around the world. In the meantime, many priests said using the Pill was ok.

Humanae Vitae caught veryone by surprise when it reiterated thenperennial teachings of the Church against abc, as the bishops had actually thought it would be ok to use the Pill.

There was a huge rebellion from priests, there was the Winnipeg statement and also a description of what happened at one US diocese, where thenpriests all got together to sign a letter rejecting HV and one priest refused to sign and was treated badly.

Many, many Catholics left the Church over this. My own mother was already half-way out the door, this caused her to leave altogether. Many were the complaints about old celibate men in the Vatican…

So my problem with the apparent permission with lack of guidelines is that we will later face a situation similar to that which occurred after HV was released. One doesn’t loosen the reins and then pull them back in: it is just a foolish way to go.

OK, yes, I am familiar with the general outline of what you described here. You added some details of which I was unaware, so thanks for that.

The Church must formally reject the sexual revolution and its fruits. If that occurs later than it should, then at least it finally happened.

If people decide to leave over it, then so be it. Frankly, I want to say to them, “Don’t let the door hit you on the *ss on the way out.” Having been raised under the chaos created by “sexual freedom,” I am not at all sympathetic to those who want the Church to institutionalize any part of it.

Good riddance to those cherish the unjust and inequitable ideology known as “sexual liberty.” No Catholic, no Christian, should have anything to do with it.

 

[Vico]

By “keeps” and “looses,” I assume you mean that the kids are not doing the back and forth thing between “two homes.” Yes?

If so, then Example 3 could be, a spouse divorces the other, the children do the back and forth thing between “two homes,” and one (or both) decide to marry again, even invalidly.

Yes, that third example would be good.

 

[Lea101]

I’ve heard those arguments before, but it always seemed like what they were trying to say was that the kids in the first marriage already had their lives disrupted, and if the second marriage ends, the other kids will have their lives disrupted as well. So at the end of the day, more kids are affected and they don’t want that. don’t really know

 

[cominghome1966]

I’ve heard those arguments before, but it always seemed like what they were trying to say was that the kids in the first marriage already had their lives disrupted, and if the second marriage ends, the other kids will have their lives disrupted as well. So at the end of the day, more kids are affected and they don’t want that. don’t really know

If that is the case, and I am not certain that it is since I’ve not seen the scenario set up that way, then I hope it strikes them as profoundly backwards and unjust that the kids in the presumptively valid marriage are the ones who are suffering the most.

Don’t be a first born, or a first conceived, in this culture. It is brutal. Your parents’ “choices” trump everything.