R
Rau
Guest
How many divorced and remarried have you admonished? How did you determine all the pertinent facts? What did you say to them?
Last edited:
- Status
The idea I was trying to convey, is that aside from one’s own salvation, there should be nothing more important to us than the salvation of other people. What is more important than salvation? What in my life, or yours, is more important than whether a stranger’s soul is saved or not? Would you trade your fortune, your happiness, even your life itself, for another person’s soul being damned?HomeschoolDad:
The Thread title seems to address the state of another’s soul - not one’s own.
Something to think about.
R
Rau
Guest
Perhaps your point and mine are distinct.
H
humbleseeker
Guest
Jesus is a match and he is in your area!
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
You’re not exactly a reliable source.
A
AlNg
Guest
I guess it is difficult for some to believe, but here are a few reports on it:
http://archive.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/21/vatican_reverses_kennedy_ruling/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...can-overturns-annulment-idUSN2143096420070621
1
1ke
Guest
The vatican didn’t “overturn” the decree of nullity.
After the court of first instance issues a ruling, it used to automatically go to a court of second instance. That is TOTALLY NORMAL.
(Now, in some cases it does not go to a court of second instance and in some cases it must go to a court of second instance, the law changed since her case).
If the court of first instance and second instance do not concur, then it can be appealed to the Rota. Depending on which court the Rota concurs with will determine if the decree is issued or not.
What happened in Kennedy’s case is that she appealed to the Rota as the court of second instance instead of going through the typical process. When the Rota did not concur with the initial court, that left the case without a court for a final decision. So, the case could not be finalized. No decree was issued.
After the court of first instance issues a ruling, it used to automatically go to a court of second instance. That is TOTALLY NORMAL.
(Now, in some cases it does not go to a court of second instance and in some cases it must go to a court of second instance, the law changed since her case).
If the court of first instance and second instance do not concur, then it can be appealed to the Rota. Depending on which court the Rota concurs with will determine if the decree is issued or not.
What happened in Kennedy’s case is that she appealed to the Rota as the court of second instance instead of going through the typical process. When the Rota did not concur with the initial court, that left the case without a court for a final decision. So, the case could not be finalized. No decree was issued.
G
Gorgias
Guest
We’re not called to admonish every sinner. You’re moving the goalposts – you claimed that we shouldn’t admonish any sinner, and that’s what I reject as invalid.
(p.s., not that it’s any of your business, but my answer is “one” – a very good friend, regarding whom I felt that I did know the pertinent facts, and with whom I felt comfortable discussing a rather sensitive subject.)
G
goout
Guest
Let me stray out of moral theology for a sec and talk about prudential judgment.
Who of us has successfully converted someone by telling them they are going to hell by their actions? With a believer this tactic might bear fruit. With a non believer you will simply be dismissed.
Typically a person does not want to be told by the authority of someone else that their actions are wrong. And typically, doing so will earn you anything from ridicule to a cold shoulder to a lifetime of separation. This happens a lot in families when parents or siblings “lay down the law” for someone else’s actions. In my family, my father and his brother didn’t speak to each other for like 30 years.
This is not to say we should water down the truth. We should simply go the way that truth leads. And the truth leads to salvation, not damnation. Happiness. Joy. If our admonishment is causing others to reject the truth because it is not salvific, we should try another course. Prayer of course. Wise counsel, always lovingly.
Negative consequences can lead to conversion. But in the experience of many people, negative consequences have to be personally experienced rather than threatened on you by someone else. We can best help people living in sin by keeping lines of communication and fellowship open, by leading them to the joy of an obedient Christian life. This can be hard to do sometimes when you’d rather throw the book at them.
Who of us has successfully converted someone by telling them they are going to hell by their actions? With a believer this tactic might bear fruit. With a non believer you will simply be dismissed.
Typically a person does not want to be told by the authority of someone else that their actions are wrong. And typically, doing so will earn you anything from ridicule to a cold shoulder to a lifetime of separation. This happens a lot in families when parents or siblings “lay down the law” for someone else’s actions. In my family, my father and his brother didn’t speak to each other for like 30 years.
This is not to say we should water down the truth. We should simply go the way that truth leads. And the truth leads to salvation, not damnation. Happiness. Joy. If our admonishment is causing others to reject the truth because it is not salvific, we should try another course. Prayer of course. Wise counsel, always lovingly.
Negative consequences can lead to conversion. But in the experience of many people, negative consequences have to be personally experienced rather than threatened on you by someone else. We can best help people living in sin by keeping lines of communication and fellowship open, by leading them to the joy of an obedient Christian life. This can be hard to do sometimes when you’d rather throw the book at them.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
It’s a bad title on a media article. It isn’t representative of what actually happened.
G
Gorgias
Guest
@AlNg,
The point is that it wasn’t an occurrence of the Vatican stepping in on its own initiative and “overturning” a legal process as such. Rather, they participated in the normal operation of the process.
It was more that they responded to an appeal and upheld the request of the appellant.
M
MynameisD
Guest
I’m so sorry.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
In those days (and to the present time if the same process occured), the aggrieved Party could appeal the negative decision to another “turnus” of Judges at the Rota. The decision of that group of judges would be the final word on the matter (except for some esoteric possibilities that I will acknowledge but not explain). I think Mr. Kennedy did not bother to appeal the decision.
Dan
A
Aulef
Guest
Praying for them would be the best thing to do.
Speaking to them would be good only if they were open to discuss.
Otherwise, pray as Our Lord did: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’
Speaking to them would be good only if they were open to discuss.
Otherwise, pray as Our Lord did: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’
po18guy
Well-known member
Indeed! We are products of our surrounding culture. The problem is that the state (i.e. government at all levels) has asserted authority over a sacrament of the Church. This forever changes the definition and popular perception of marriage. I’ll bet they did this with good intentions, but we can we see where good intentions have gotten us.
The three elements of sin apply first, last, everywhere and to every human thought, action or inaction. 1. Grave matter 2. Knowledge that it is grave matter 3. the full consent of the will. Generally, it is not all that easy to mortally sin and it cannot be done accidentally.
Those without understanding will be held to lesser account than the rest of us - assuming that we know better. As a principle of how the Lord perceives such cases, (the most saintly of us rely 100% on God’s mercy), He told the following parable:
Luke 12:47-48 "And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."
Grant you, this is a parable, bu parables demonstrate the principles by which God acts. Since we know our God is endlessly merciful - right? - we can rely on Him showing mercy to those who “know not what they do”.
The three elements of sin apply first, last, everywhere and to every human thought, action or inaction. 1. Grave matter 2. Knowledge that it is grave matter 3. the full consent of the will. Generally, it is not all that easy to mortally sin and it cannot be done accidentally.
Those without understanding will be held to lesser account than the rest of us - assuming that we know better. As a principle of how the Lord perceives such cases, (the most saintly of us rely 100% on God’s mercy), He told the following parable:
Luke 12:47-48 "And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."
Grant you, this is a parable, bu parables demonstrate the principles by which God acts. Since we know our God is endlessly merciful - right? - we can rely on Him showing mercy to those who “know not what they do”.
1
1ke
Guest
Thank you for the clarification.
V
Vico
Guest
Also completed in thought through delectation. Masturbation may be psychic or physical source.
That is exactly right. That is one thing I treasure about Catholicism — we acknowledge that "the sin is really committed the instant the will consents and either says ‘I’m going to do it’ or ‘I would do it if I could’ ". I’ve seen this become a “blind spot” outside of faithful, orthodox Catholic circles. “Prevented from sin”, you say? Maybe prevented from physically carrying out the act, but you have the guilt of the sin all the same, because in your heart you’ve already committed it. That’s Gospels 101.HomeschoolDad:
Also completed in thought through delectation. Masturbation may be psychic or physical source.
And you are also right, that particular sin can be committed in the mind as well as bodily.
- Status