Bishop Schneider to Pope Francis: For the Sake of Your Soul, Retract Approval of Same-Sex Civil Unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing is being done, per say - the Pope has made some comments based on his personal opinions. Unfortunately that is causing confusion, but no teaching has been changed.
 
TMC said:
This is just plain wrong - a formal change to the Catechism is neither a “comment” or a “prudential judgment.”
Click to expand...
Bingo… the CDC clearly laid out the development of doctrine on this issue… People are of course free to reject the teaching, but you would be against the Church’s teaching. This much is plain
 
“Development of Doctrine” is a term coined to describe how a teaching becomes more clear and defined over time. Not how something that was moral yesterday is no longer moral today. The Truth cannot change. People are free to reject this prudential judgement of the Holy Father.
 
sealabeag said:
“Development of Doctrine” is a term coined to describe how a teaching becomes more clear and defined over time. Not how something that was moral yesterday is no longer moral today. The Truth cannot change. People are free to reject this prudential judgement of the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

Please see the CDF’s elucidation on the development of this doctrine… which is exactly what the CDF calls it.

There a many doctrines and teachings that I don’t understand or agree with, but am still obligated to adhere to.
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen that already. It clarifies nothing other than that the death penalty is now “inadmissible”. What does inadmissible mean?
 
Thank you for providing a list. This allows us to go through each point of contention one-by-one.
I am not an expert, but as I see these issues:
Death penalty
I view this as a prudential judgment today, so while there may be conditions wherein the death penalty is at least acceptable, the prudential judgment of our recent popes would be that these conditions are not in place today.
Charging Interest on Loans
OK, this can get a little complicated. I believe your point is that usury used to mean charging any interest at all, and not just charging ridiculous interest. However, from my very armchair reading of history concerning the Middle Ages, there were workarounds that people took (something like virtual interest perhaps), especially at the beginning of more modern forms of economy which were beginning to take shape. The economy has indeed legitimately transformed. But, charging interest that would harm the poor is still indeed bad. Interest should not harm the poor, which it often would.
Torture
I don’t know too much about this independently, this link does go through stuff, however The Church and Torture | Catholic Answers
Conditions for granting a marriage annulment
This strikes me as very prudential
Filioque
I do not believe the Church has ever taught against the Filioque (in fact I think the big funk over it was very much due to a bad translation)
I think the Blood being shed was about a translation or something in the liturgy that they have changed back, but we do and have always believed that Christ died for all people. We do have to take up for it.
Limbo is still an acceptable theological opinion.
Women teaching in Church has to be looked at in context (which may have been against a sect with some wacky beliefs about the Garden of Eden affair), however priests are the ones still to give homilies/teach in Church.
I am not much too sure on this question, but it is clear that the bread used by Christ was unleavened (as that was what the Jews were instructed to do), no? We indeed use unleavened bread, but I don’t think it has to be unleavened to be used successfully in the Sacrament.
 
Pitcairn17 said:
didn’t think anyone was qualified to judge the state of another’s soul - let alone the Pope’s.
Click to expand...
He’s not judging his soul, but his actions.

If I say to you “for good the sake of your health avoid cookies, they are full of sugar” that’s a judgment about cookies, not your health.
 
I find it far more troubling that teaching young and new Catholics that you can disagree with a Popes teaching and his authority to teach it. No wonder people don’t think they have to follow any rules they don’t like. What a great loss to their formation that they are free to ignore Laudato si and Amoris Laetitia. The Church has a great tradition of collegial study, discussion and prayer that go into the formulation of teaching. To say to ordinary Catholics that they are free to reject that authority and wisdom if you don’t like it is a dreadful thing to do to their souls.
 
Motherwit said:
. To say to ordinary Catholics that they are free to reject that authority and wisdom if you don’t like it is a dreadful thing to do to their souls.
Click to expand...
No, far better to educate all Catholics on what constitutes Church teaching that must be adhered to and accepted by all faithful Catholic, and what doesn’t. Truth and clarity are what are needed here, not blind adherence to every utterance of the Holy Father - no young Catholic or convert wants that.
 
upant said:
Isn’t the sex act even between heterosexuals in civil unions still a sin? That is the issue

Civil unions foster sin
Click to expand...
Ok, so you want the Church to authorize all unions? So everyone would have to be a practicing Catholic for that to happen.

What world do you live in?

Oh, and if you can find any words by the Pope in which he says that same sex behavior, or heterosexual behavior outside the confines of the sacrament of marriage isn’t sinful, please, please post that. We will wait.
 
sealabeag said:
40.png
Motherwit:
. To say to ordinary Catholics that they are free to reject that authority and wisdom if you don’t like it is a dreadful thing to do to their souls.
Click to expand...
No, far better to educate all Catholics on what constitutes Church teaching that must be adhered to and accepted by all faithful Catholic, and what doesn’t. Truth and clarity are what are needed here, not blind adherence to every utterance of the Holy Father - no young Catholic or convert wants that.
Click to expand...
We aren’t talking about ‘blind utterances’. We are talking about actual teaching like the death penalty, the morality of environment issues etc. If ordinary Catholics are told you can pick and choose, why not with contraception and abortion?
 
I didn’t say “blind utterances”. I said “blind adherence to every utterance of the Holy Father”.
“Actual teaching” is not a technical term - the Church teaches by degrees and some things are doctrine and some things are not, some things are the Pope’s opinions and some things are not. I’m not suggesting Catholics pick and choose. I’m suggesting that it would be great is Catholics were taught what is and what isn’t doctrine, and what must be adhered to and what can be disagreed with in good conscience - i.e., prudential judgements and opinions.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
“Actual teaching” is not a technical term - the Church teaches by degrees and some things are doctrine and some things are not, some things are the Pope’s opinions and some things are not. I’m not suggesting Catholics pick and choose. I’m suggesting that it would be great is Catholics were taught what is and what isn’t doctrine, and what must be adhered to and what can be disagreed with in good conscience - i.e., prudential judgements and opinions.
Click to expand...
What’s the point of that? How can they distinguish. For example some people say an encyclical like Humanae Vitae must be blindly adhered to but an encyclical like Laudato si can be ignored or minimized in force. So how is a grading level of force determined other than ones personal opinion?
 
Last edited:
It is distinguishable, thankfully. As Catholics we do no believe that every word the Pope says in infallible. When it comes to encyclicals we can’t say an encyclical in it’s entirety must be accepted as magisterial by all Catholics, because an encyclical contains reaffirmations of doctrine, personal opinion, prudential judgements, spiritual matters, economic and social matters, and so on and so forth. If the Pope makes a statement, for example, about climate change, we have no obligation to accept that, as it is outside the realm of the Pope’s authority and expertise.
A pretty good article by Jimmy Akin on these questions: How to Weigh Church Teachings | Catholic Answers
 
So is getting married in a JPs office even when one’s first marriage hasn’t been annulled.

The sin would be adultery in this case but even heterosexual couples in a civil union have marriage protection under the law which the Church does not oppose.

It doesn’t oppose that same protection for same sex couples in a civil union.

Doesn’t mean the Church is okay with both sins.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
It is distinguishable, thankfully. As Catholics we do no believe that every word the Pope says in infallible. When it comes to encyclicals we can’t say an encyclical in it’s entirety must be accepted as magisterial by all Catholics, because an encyclical contains reaffirmations of doctrine, personal opinion, prudential judgements, spiritual matters, economic and social matters, and so on and so forth. If the Pope makes a statement, for example, about climate change, we have no obligation to accept that, as it is outside the realm of the Pope’s authority and expertise.
A pretty good article by Jimmy Akin on these questions: How to Weigh Church Teachings | Catholic Answers
Click to expand...
The last line sums up what the default should be.

“And by better understanding the Church’s mind, we better learn sentire cum ecclesia—“ to think with the Church.””

Without the expertise or capacity to be fully cognizant of what degree of force a teaching has, we should by default ‘think with the Church’. It’s terrible to see young Catholics and new converts assume they are free to reject teaching because of an assumed expertise. It doesn’t help their faith at all.

And when clergy who publicly chastise the Pope, claim the moral high ground to be followed, it’s just terrible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top