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.
Friendly reminder that this isn’t about legal protection of sinners, but sin itself.

If two engaged but unmarried people of opposite sex can not live together before marriage, why can they?

Death penalty is inadmissible which is very clear word and it means "unable to be administered” and it is precisely because it isn’t justified in time when Catechism was changed. It can again become admissible because this can change depending on time. Since time has passed since that Catechism change, Catholics can theoretically believe that it no longer applies or needs to be updated. Nevertheless it remains binding.

And if you wanna throw CDF documents, it was stated by CDF before that supporting SS unions is sinful. It has been infallibly taught that that civil law can not support things contrary to Divine Law.

One last thing, Bishop Schneider shouldn’t have made this public but releasing public clarification as Shepherd of Souls and Successor of Apostles would be permissible. He merged it with letter to Pope. Anyone who holds opinion contrary to revealed Truth can not approach Communion as it would be sacrilege and would put their soul in peril. Reminding someone of that is not a bad thing either.
 
Agree with everything except what you said about the death penalty. Inserting things into the Catechism isn’t how the Church teaches. I don’t believe we must accept this vague statement as binding. Pope Benedict already said Catholics are free to disagree on this issue.
 
sealabeag said:
Inserting things into the Catechism isn’t how the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t you are correct. However when CDF states it is binding… it is. It isn’t infallible but binds us. Technically there are ways around that but easiest is to claim that since Catechism was changed situation changed… or without reference say that you don’t believe this statement applies in current situation.

Death Penalty was not admissible 1 day before Catechism changed and inadmissible next day. Technically as anyone could argue it is inadmissible in world before Catechism change, one can argue it is admissible now. After all haven’t things in the world changed since Catechism change? Answer to that depends on us and so one can believe it is now admissible (either again or without reference to prior state).
 
I think documents were linked in above posta addressed to you. Your reply was that inadmissible is not a clear word but I do not think that is the case.
 
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._20180801_lettera-vescovi-penadimorte_en.html

This is the document, yes I saw this. However I honestly (however I’m open to correction) see in this anything that states that this teaching must be accepted by all Catholics. I don’t see that anything has changed in the sense that this is still a prudential judgement. Thoughts?
Actually, maybe @Ender could pitch in on this, it was him (or her!) who helped me with this issue last time around when I was trying to figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. My Bishops’ Conference released a statement saying that they ‘endorse’ the pope’s comments on same-sex civil unions because the pope ‘just wants LGBT people to know they are loved’. I was shocked by this, because not only is this against Magisterial teaching, but I have never known a Bishops’ Conference to endorse off-the-cuff remarks made by any pope.
 
sealabeag said:
This is the document, yes I saw this. However I honestly (however I’m open to correction) see in this anything that states that this teaching must be accepted by all Catholics. I don’t see that anything has changed in the sense that this is still a prudential judgement.
Click to expand...
The change cannot be binding for any number of reasons, one of which is its ambiguity: no one can be sure exactly what it means. The US bishops explicitly said as much. The change does imply, however, what it cannot explicitly claim: that capital punishment is per se evil without exception. Given that this is not (and cannot be) true, the change is more apparent than real - the decision of whether or not to use capital punishment is still a valid option, and is the right and responsibility of the state to make.
catholic03 said:
My Bishops’ Conference released a statement saying that they ‘endorse’ the pope’s comments on same-sex civil unions because the pope ‘just wants LGBT people to know they are loved’. I was shocked by this, because not only is this against Magisterial teaching, but I have never known a Bishops’ Conference to endorse off-the-cuff remarks made by any pope.
Click to expand...
It is fortunate that bishops’ conferences have no teaching authority, but that really is of little comfort to those who (rightly) view their comments with alarm.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
It is fortunate that bishops’ conferences have no teaching authority, but that really is of little comfort to those who (rightly) view their comments with alarm.
Click to expand...
It was very upsetting. Moreover, the bishop who released the statement ‘on behalf’ of the other bishops is the bishop of an important diocese, and yet his own auxiliary bishop seemed to (thankfully) contradict the statement of the Bishops’ Conference. It is sad that as a Catholic, what is taught to the faithful in New Zealand is different to in Poland, in Italy, in USA; we should be consistent, but now, the Church’s leaders seem not to be.
 
civil unions are viewed as legal only, not graced in the catholic church but a worldly union that provides some legal protection and rights as a relative so you can inherit property, visit a loved one in the hospital, be the primary go to for health decisions, etc. The pope realizes that gay people are often alone and rejected by their families and grow old without children and many stay in close family settings with the same people for many years and grow old and deserve to have the rights of family. regarding the law of rights.
 
Sarcelle said:
. The state passes laws that recognizes civil unions the Church doesn’t recognize.
Click to expand...
True.
Sarcelle said:
The Church decides that it will not oppose the passing of these laws in spite of these laws going against Church teaching
Click to expand...
That’s not currently the current official doctrinal position of the Vatican. Such as expressed by the CFD.

In many countries, I am sure, the Church (such as bishops) oppose or have opposed the legalization of civil unions where the legislative changes happened. It was the case for mine.

What the pope said is a new position. And it differs from the official Church’s position.
Sarcelle said:
We, meaning most of us around the world do not live in a CatholIc theocracy where Church laws and civil laws are one and the same. The Church recognizes that.
Click to expand...
Of course, it’s true. But we catholics are part of this society are are entitled to go to the political sphere. We are even encourage to the Church to milit. Even if many agree that if we dedicated to stay true to our faith, we probably don’t have a lot of chances.

The debate is how to be part of the society. This statement goes against what the catholics have made politically and what the Church encourages as a direction through our hierachy.

Another eg, if I was not clear enough, is abortion. Of course the Church official position opposed it. (such as civil unions).
The Catholics who come to the public sphere will be reticent to promote abortion and are strongly discourage by their hierarchy to do it. If they milit, it will be against any legislation, or against the aggravation of it.
However, abortion is legal in many states. The Church recognized that. If a catholic is in charge politically, he will have to organize and guarantee the access of legal abortion. He will probably don’t feel a good conscience at it. That’s one of the many reasons I said that faithfull Catholics will proabbaly not go far in political mandate, unless they are willing to compromise.

But does that mean that catholics have to just sit down and the things happened if any legislation change is planned. They should raise up.
 
Last edited:
mary77 said:
civil unions are viewed as legal only, not graced in the catholic church but a worldly union that provides some legal protection and rights as…
Click to expand...
No idea why you’ve directed this to me. I don’t see the connection to my post…
 
Binding just means that we’re obligated to adhere to it. Infallible means that it is officially a part of the universal teaching of the Church.

I could be bound by a Papal command to abstain from meat on Fridays, but that doesn’t mean that abstaining from meat on Fridays is a necessary belief/action to be Catholic. It would just be a binding discipline that I am required to adhere to but which could change.

An infallible teaching, in this instance, would be the Pope proclaiming, under the full offices of the papacy, not in contradiction to the historical teaching of the Church, that it is absolutely necessary, now and in all times, to abstain from consuming meat on Fridays, as a matter of faith. To not do so would make one anathema.

Generally, what the Pope says on any given subject is a matter of his prudential judgment (a good example being Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment), but it is not binding or infallible. Infallible declarations are actually pretty rare. On the other hand, binding requirements are quite common. I am bound to attend mass on certain holy days due to Church disciplines, but those disciplines can and have changed. Many countries are still bound to abstain from meat on Fridays, but the USA is not. Certain religious communities are bound to exercise poverty, while others are not. However, we are all bound to acknowledge, as a matter of infallible teaching, that homosexual activities are everywhere and in every situation gravely immoral. That teaching has not, and can not ever change, because it has been infallibly proclaimed.

I hope this helps illustrate the difference between a binding or infallible teaching.
 
Have to agree to disagree on this one. I just can’t see how this teaching must be accepted on its face by Catholics. Firstly, the term “inadmissible” - I don’t know what it means, many people don’t know what it means. It’s a strange, vague term. How can we accept an unclear teaching that we don’t understand? I know you say the term is clear but I disagree.
Secondly, I do not see how something that was okay one day before the Catechism revision was not okay a day later. I understand circumstances change and that generally, nowadays the death penalty is unnecessary, and I believe that. However there are circumstances where it is an acceptable punishment, for various reasons, just as the Church has taught for ~2000 years.
Also, Pope Benedict spoke as pope about this and affirmed Catholics have freedom of conscience on this issue, to agree or disagree. I know that was before Pope Francis’ words on this, but I believe this still to be the case.
If someone can clearly show me that this is an infallible or binding teaching, fine. But if they do, the logical part of me will really struggle with that. But thankfully I don’t believe that will happen.
 
Last edited:
So do you believe the Pope’s words on the death penalty are “binding”? Considering their unclarity, amongst other things?
 
its important to remember the reason for such things as fasting on friday etc is to promote a feeling of unity in faith in Christ, like wearing uniforms in catholic school. Coming together in unity etc. Its a good very powerful method using self discipline which we all need…
 
sealabeag said:
…
Click to expand...
It is clearly explained by Pope Francis as a development of doctrine on dignity:
In past centuries, when means of defence were scarce and society had yet to develop and mature as it has, recourse to the death penalty appeared to be the logical consequence of the correct application of justice. Sadly, even in the Papal States recourse was had to this extreme and inhumane remedy that ignored the primacy of mercy over justice. Let us take responsibility for the past and recognize that the imposition of the death penalty was dictated by a mentality more legalistic than Christian. Concern for preserving power and material wealth led to an over-estimation of the value of the law and prevented a deeper understanding of the Gospel. Nowadays, however, were we to remain neutral before the new demands of upholding personal dignity, we would be even more guilty.

Here we are not in any way contradicting past teaching, for the defence of the dignity of human life from the first moment of conception to natural death has been taught by the Church consistently and authoritatively. Yet the harmonious development of doctrine demands that we cease to defend arguments that now appear clearly contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth.
Click to expand...

Oxford Languages:
inadmissible, adjective
1. (especially of evidence in court) not accepted as valid.
2. not to be allowed or tolerated.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top