T
thequietsinger
Guest
The same thing came to mind when I read this. I really do hope everything works out well for Bishop Paprocki!
- Status
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Jesus said that we can’t serve two masters without hating one. As Catholics, we are not to place the laws of the state above the laws of God. Although there seem to be plenty of people nowadays who want to believe they are God, every single person today who thinks this way and supports so-called “same-sex marriage” will be dead in less than 100 years because none of us are God. Life is short. We all die, and let me say it again. We are not God. So-called “same-sex marriage” is Satanic because it goes directly against the will of God. It is an anti-marriage. It is harmful not just because it is going to make living our faith a hate crime but also because “same-sex marriage” is a lie. Lies are not what set us free. The truth is what sets us free.
This isn’t exclusively a religious issue since marriage between one man and one woman follows the natural design of our bodies which predates every religion and goes all the way back to the beginning of the human race. But in our Catholic theology of the body and theology of the domestic church the husband symbolically represents Christ, and the wife represents the Church (Eph. 5:21-33). So-called “same-sex marriage” symbolically separates Christ from the Church. A “marriage” between two men would symbolize Christ without the Church, and a “marriage” between two women would symbolize the Church without Christ. And Satan, wanting to destroy us, wants to separate us from Jesus who can save us. That is why the concept of so-called “same-sex marriage” is Satanic at its root. And that’s why exorcism is appropriate for this.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
The question of whether or not this is a religious issue is sort of silly, though, no? A Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church will convene the faithful to offer prayers of exorcism. To me, that sounds like a rather religious thing to do. Is same-sex marriage (writ broadly) principally or only a religious issue? No, of course not. But the Bishop’s response in this instance (given the article quoted by Mr. Bay) is a very religious response. That’s just a fact. If it weren’t actually a genuinely religious response, it would be merely cynical political/rhetorical showmanship to organize an exorcism like this.
But I’ve a feeling that may be okay with you, because I think you just wanted a jumping off point to say/write the following…
Christ cannot be separated from his church either symbolically or actually. That’s because all symbols, in order to be symbols, must point to a greater reality that informs them and to which they give some sort of access. Since Christ cannot actually be separated from his church, there is no symbol in the world which can actually depict such a separation. What can depict such a separation, however, is a metaphor or some other poetical or rhetorical device.
Marriage can indeed be a symbol in that it can be construed as pointing to and giving access to the deeper reality of the relationship between Christ and the Church. It can be this symbol because the reality of the relationship between Christ and the Church is mystically present in the sacrament–this is what informs its nature as a sacrament. Same-sex marriage, however, has been deemed, by the Roman Catholic Church, to be a sacramental impossibility. There is no reality beyond itself to which same-sex marriage can point or give access in this case. Same-sex marriage does not symbolically separate Christ from his Church–it is sacramentally impossible for same-sex marriage to symbol anything regarding the Divine since, according to Rome, same-sex marriage is itself a sacramental impossibility. Consequently, the relationship between Christ and the Church *is not and cannot *be sacramentally present in a same-sex marriage rite only for Christ and the Church to be separated or their relationship broken simply because the marriage is same-sex. Sacraments aren’t magic–you don’t do them backwards or strangely or unusually in order to achieve different effects according to whatever weird thing you’re doing or wanting to do. A rite either is a sacrament or it isn’t.
So how is it that a thing that cannot be suddenly assumes enough being to be a symbol of something? Through the powers of rhetoric, of course. Which leads me to think that instead of symbol, you mean to say “metaphor.”
These distinctions are important. Symbols are very real things that indicate to us things much more Real than either they or we actually are. Metaphors are not quite so real so much as they’re evocative of ideas, emotional states, etc.
I would also caution you against the dangers of categorical and/or reductionist thinking. It is not necessary to reduce Christ and all bridegrooms to their maleness and the Church and all brides to their femaleness in order to establish the connection between the symbol and the reality in the sacrament of marriage. Such reductionism actually does some violence to the mystery by subtly suggesting that it is by virtue of Christ’s maleness and by virtue of the Church’s (symbolic!) femaleness that marriage is meaningful or the sacrament efficacious. But that’s to miss some very crucial things about the relationship between God and his creation which the realities (and symbols) of maleness or femaleness legitimately body forth, but which are not contained by them. Those fundamental facts about the relationship between God and his creation (starting with the fact that the relationship actually is) do not actually take their cues from or depend upon created maleness or femaleness to exist or be meaningful.
To be honest (and this is why I asked the question I asked in the first place), my fear regarding the Bishop’s exorcism was that he was just using the Church, using religion, using prayer to make a rhetorical point. If the intention is to exorcise a concept, the only thing the Bishop will accomplish will be on some rhetorical level or other. Happily, Mr. Bay’s article largely assuaged that fear. But when people suggest in some way or another that concepts need exorcising, then, I will admit, I do get a little anxious that people are losing their grip on what is or isn’t actually absurd.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Okay. But that doesn’t quite address my question. Mr. Bay’s post more or less answered my question–the rite/prayers offered by the Bishop and the faithful on 20 November will most likely be similar to that designated “for general use” in the old Rituale (not having a copy of the 2004 edition of the rite and its appendices, I can’t tell for sure what the prayers will be, but the “general use” exorcism or some version thereof seems logical).
The question of whether or not this is a religious issue is sort of silly, though, no? A Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church will convene the faithful to offer prayers of exorcism. To me, that sounds like a rather religious thing to do. Is same-sex marriage (writ broadly) principally or only a religious issue? No, of course not. But the Bishop’s response in this instance (given the article quoted by Mr. Bay) is a very religious response. That’s just a fact. If it weren’t actually a genuinely religious response, it would be merely cynical political/rhetorical showmanship to organize an exorcism like this.
But I’ve a feeling that may be okay with you, because I think you just wanted a jumping off point to say/write the following…
And I think what you write here is somewhat theologically/religiously problematic.
Christ cannot be separated from his church either symbolically or actually. That’s because all symbols, in order to be symbols, must point to a greater reality that informs them and to which they give some sort of access. Since Christ cannot actually be separated from his church, there is no symbol in the world which can actually depict such a separation. What can depict such a separation, however, is a metaphor or some other poetical or rhetorical device.
Marriage can indeed be a symbol in that it can be construed as pointing to and giving access to the deeper reality of the relationship between Christ and the Church. It can be this symbol because the reality of the relationship between Christ and the Church is mystically present in the sacrament–this is what informs its nature as a sacrament. Same-sex marriage, however, has been deemed, by the Roman Catholic Church, to be a sacramental impossibility. There is no reality beyond itself to which same-sex marriage can point or give access in this case. Same-sex marriage does not symbolically separate Christ from his Church–it is sacramentally impossible for same-sex marriage to symbol anything regarding the Divine since, according to Rome, same-sex marriage is itself a sacramental impossibility. Consequently, the relationship between Christ and the Church *is not and cannot *be sacramentally present in a same-sex marriage rite only for Christ and the Church to be separated or their relationship broken simply because the marriage is same-sex. Sacraments aren’t magic–you don’t do them backwards or strangely or unusually in order to achieve different effects according to whatever weird thing you’re doing or wanting to do. A rite either is a sacrament or it isn’t.
So how is it that a thing that cannot be suddenly assumes enough being to be a symbol of something? Through the powers of rhetoric, of course. Which leads me to think that instead of symbol, you mean to say “metaphor.”
These distinctions are important. Symbols are very real things that indicate to us things much more Real than either they or we actually are. Metaphors are not quite so real so much as they’re evocative of ideas, emotional states, etc.
I would also caution you against the dangers of categorical and/or reductionist thinking. It is not necessary to reduce Christ and all bridegrooms to their maleness and the Church and all brides to their femaleness in order to establish the connection between the symbol and the reality in the sacrament of marriage. Such reductionism actually does some violence to the mystery by subtly suggesting that it is by virtue of Christ’s maleness and by virtue of the Church’s (symbolic!) femaleness that marriage is meaningful or the sacrament efficacious. But that’s to miss some very crucial things about the relationship between God and his creation which the realities (and symbols) of maleness or femaleness legitimately body forth, but which are not contained by them. Those fundamental facts about the relationship between God and his creation (starting with the fact that the relationship actually is) do not actually take their cues from or depend upon created maleness or femaleness to exist or be meaningful.
Keep in mind that exorcising a concept is absurd.
To be honest (and this is why I asked the question I asked in the first place), my fear regarding the Bishop’s exorcism was that he was just using the Church, using religion, using prayer to make a rhetorical point. If the intention is to exorcise a concept, the only thing the Bishop will accomplish will be on some rhetorical level or other. Happily, Mr. Bay’s article largely assuaged that fear. But when people suggest in some way or another that concepts need exorcising, then, I will admit, I do get a little anxious that people are losing their grip on what is or isn’t actually absurd.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I disagree with you. Evil can be symbolized and point to the truth of that evil. Although Jesus and the Church as a whole can’t be separated individual members of his Church can be forever separated from him. The separation of Jesus from the Church that so-called “same-sex marriage” can symbolize is the separation of individual Catholics from Jesus since the Church is made up of individual members.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Of course we need to call sinful behaviour what it is-- sinful behaviour. Your suggestion on a Catholic forum that Catholics should be praying for same-sex marriage is strange. Homosexual “marriage” is not “fine.”
Yes, you are. From the CDF:
"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty."
Yes, there is.
Bishop Paprocki explained that the ritual of exorcism is designed not only for cases of demonic possession, but also for circumstances when the work of the devil is evident in public activities “and in various forms of opposition to and persecution of the Church.”
(from catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19685)
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Good find!
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I hope they record this on video, actually.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
If the RCC affirms that same-sex marriage is evil and if you believe the RCC, how is that the evil of same-sex marriage symbolizes evil as opposed to just being the evil that it is? Because isn’t evil just what it is–evil? Isn’t an act evil because of what it actually does, not what it may or may not symbolize? A murder isn’t wrong because it symbolizes the taking of a life–it actually is the taking of a life. Theft is not symbolic of illicit property-taking–property is actually taken in an act of theft. Sin doesn’t symbolize separation from God–it is a real instance of that separation. Sin doesn’t symbolize anything. It’s not that special. It’s just sin.
Evil has no special symbolic mystique. But it seems like you’re insisting that it does by attempting to press the symbols and theology of the Church into the service of your rhetoric. It doesn’t make sense to me.
And while the Church, yes, is made up of individual members, when one of them falls away, it is not the Church that falls away. That’s because the Church is a collective reality into which individuals are called and in which they share–we co-inhere in it, it co-inheres in us, God co-inheres in it, it co-inheres in God, God co-inheres in us, we co-inhere in God. By falling away, individuals don’t take the Church with them–it remains a reality to which they can return and in which they can participate through repentance.
How can you make the claim that Christ can be separated from his own body, the Church? How can you claim that such a separation is a reality to which any symbol can point? It makes no sense to me.
Or rather, the only way it can possibly make sense to me is if you’re less interested in the theology and the bizarre theological statements your rhetoric is leading you to make and more interested in being merely rhetorical on account of or on behalf of some ideology or other. A statement like, “same-sex marriage is evil because it symbolizes the separation of Christ from his Church,” may sound especially portentous because it sounds especially ungood while sounding like the sort of thing a relatively pious person might say. But if it doesn’t mean anything because it’s actually theologically absurd, then what’s it really worth? It seems rather empty to me.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
I urge you to actually think about what you’re saying.
If the RCC affirms that same-sex marriage is evil and if you believe the RCC, how is that the evil of same-sex marriage symbolizes evil as opposed to just being the evil that it is? Because isn’t evil just what it is–evil? Isn’t an act evil because of what it actually does, not what it may or may not symbolize? A murder isn’t wrong because it symbolizes the taking of a life–it actually is the taking of a life. Theft is not symbolic of illicit property-taking–property is actually taken in an act of theft. Sin doesn’t symbolize separation from God–it is a real instance of that separation. Sin doesn’t symbolize anything. It’s not that special. It’s just sin.
Evil has no special symbolic mystique. But it seems like you’re insisting that it does by attempting to press the symbols and theology of the Church into the service of your rhetoric. It doesn’t make sense to me.
And while the Church, yes, is made up of individual members, when one of them falls away, it is not the Church that falls away. That’s because the Church is a collective reality into which individuals are called and in which they share–we co-inhere in it, it co-inheres in us, God co-inheres in it, it co-inheres in God, God co-inheres in us, we co-inhere in God. By falling away, individuals don’t take the Church with them–it remains a reality to which they can return and in which they can participate through repentance.
How can you make the claim that Christ can be separated from his own body, the Church? How can you claim that such a separation is a reality to which any symbol can point? It makes no sense to me.
Or rather, the only way it can possibly make sense to me is if you’re less interested in the theology and the bizarre theological statements your rhetoric is leading you to make and more interested in being merely rhetorical on account of or on behalf of some ideology or other. A statement like, “same-sex marriage is evil because it symbolizes the separation of Christ from his Church,” may sound especially portentous because it sounds especially ungood while sounding like the sort of thing a relatively pious person might say. But if it doesn’t mean anything because it’s actually theologically absurd, then what’s it really worth? It seems rather empty to me.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
G
GraceSofia
Guest
I disagree. Francis became pope in March of this year, and Illinois has had civil unions for homosexuals since 2011. Rahm… Obama… Quinn… this was going to happen even if Benedict XIV were still pope.
B
Brendan
Guest
I understand that, but I also can’t imagine any Catholic legislator looking to Pope Benedict for cover on their actions either…
T
Tigg
Guest
No? You really might want to re-think this:
And to pray for SS"M" would be the sin of blasphemy as the bishop also said.
T
Tigg
Guest
Excellent post! Some tend to forget that marriage isn’t something just dreamed up by society but that it stems from our humanity – the maleness or femaleness of our very being. How does one go about re-defining God’s creation and the reality of who we are. It is absolute arrogance and madness and Satan loves it as the good Archbishop fully knows by his decision to perform an exorcism.
M
Monica02
Guest
I am driving down tomorrow for the service. I am calling friends so we can get a carload full.
CATHOLIC ROAD TRIP !!! Four hours there, four back, snacks and lots of Catholic chatter.
Prayers for the tornado victims.
CATHOLIC ROAD TRIP !!! Four hours there, four back, snacks and lots of Catholic chatter.
Prayers for the tornado victims.
P
pnewton
Guest
There is no such reality as a same-sex marriage. It is a political construct that defies eternal reality. Yes, we should pray for homosexuals, but not for their sham marriages, lest they continue and enter eternal Hell.
T
Tigg
Guest
Please get back with us so we’ll know what you saw.I am driving down tomorrow for the service. I am calling friends so we can get a carload full.
CATHOLIC ROAD TRIP !!! Four hours there, four back, snacks and lots of Catholic chatter.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
L
Lapey
Guest
I believe the good Bishop is more qualified to know what is and what is not necessary wouldn’t you agree?
As has been pointed out to you, there is no such thing as “same sex marriage”. There may be a legal contract but no marriage; that would be as possible as confecting the Eucharist with beer and potato chips in place of the bread and wine.
Question for you, how are two people of the same sex participating in a fruitful relationship??? They cannot produce offspring; do you have another definition of the term “fruitful” which you can help me understand?
You are defying the Church; you are working against Her and Her mission. We can bring scandal and dissension with our comments every time we post against Her teachings with “Roman Catholic” as our affiliation. If you choose to keep speaking in such ways you can change your affiliation because you do not speak for Holy Mother Church.
You support what is harmful; making an evil seem to be normal is scandalous and harmful in many ways. Any emphasis on anything but the traditional family is harmful on the family. God created family and marriage; we have no right to change either.
The fact that many cannot see the harm or the damage is not proof of no one being harmed or that there is no such thing as “destruction of the family” going on; it is proof of the need of exorcism. The enemy has caused a great deception, a movement of “Catholics” who are conforming to the world.
Remember Hebrews 13:4-9
*Let marriage be honored among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers. Let your life be free from love of money but be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never forsake you or abandon you. Thus we may say with confidence:
“The Lord is my helper,
[and] I will not be afraid.
What can anyone do to me?”
Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching.*
The good Bishop is teaching as he speaks the Word of God. It’s up to us to sit down and listen and conform ourselves to the teachings of Mother Church.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
:clapping:I am driving down tomorrow for the service. I am calling friends so we can get a carload full.
CATHOLIC ROAD TRIP !!! Four hours there, four back, snacks and lots of Catholic chatter.
Prayers for the tornado victims.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
- Status