Well…first they would not need to submit the article to him…
They are not obligated to support this ‘kind of stuff’…I simply think it’s silly to withold support from the university over it…heck…send a check to the university for a specific department or purpose…just avoid giving to the family and marriage center if that helps.
Except, of course, that the male can more easily bug out and avoid responsibility for his children.
As Catholic academics at a Catholic University, they have specific duties–they do not have the license that secularist college professors have. If you’re going to challenge Church’s teaching on co-habitation and sex before marriage, you are under a duty to work together with the Magisterial authority.
They made a suggestion based in history on how the church could possibly change its stance on something…
If the university tolerates this stuff, then supporting the university is supporting this stuff. The university must be motivated to impose the kind of discipline we expect as Catholics.
Its the kind of discipline YOU expect as a Catholic. I don’t think you can speak for all of us on this one.
While I do not agree with the concepts in the article (as I found them in a very brief scan), IMO they are not “teaching” or intended to be “teaching” and therefore your comments are immaterial.
On the other hand, you can speak for all of us on this one?
Are you seriously defending their proposal? I read the article and it makes no sense. As I posted above, their vision is not substantively different than what the secular world does. It would allow for and condone sex and even children without “consummating” the union or making in “indissoluble”. It’s the most ridiculous proposal I’ve seen regarding marriage in the context of the Church. I find it hard to believe that college researchers actually came up with this nonsense and are presenting it as an academic exercise. There is no way that I would send my kids to Creighton if they allow this kind of error to be published in their name.
I too, did not find the article that scholarly. They committed the academics “cardinal sin” of looking at a historical situation through a modern lens. While it may be true that betrothal followed by marriage, even living together was accepted, what else was going on at the time? In the pre-industrial Western world, especially in rural areas, many Catholics were served by roaming preachers who came to say Mass every few months. Might couples have set up “house” prior to the padre’s arrival? Society also viewed betrothal as much more of a serious commitment that an “engagement” is viewed today. A man who broke a betrothal was considered a scoundrel and unfit for marriage to another.
Nah…I’m not really defending it…to me it’s just an article…lots of them get published every day…and I don’t see a reason to get all up in arms about this one.
If I read it in a Catholic magazine, then it MUST be true. I know a Priest who says it’s OK. I’ll still respect you in the morning. Honest!
That was my impression. They mention all this stuff in the past but didn’t seem to give any references.
I would. If these two “theologians” are dissenting from Catholic teaching, why would I support that under the guise of “academic freedom”. I wouldn’t support a school that was teaching flat earth theory (which they would have the right to do with “academic freedom”)
So now the promiscous Catholic Male can carry both a condom and a copy of this article in his wallet when he goes bar hopping.
“And we can both be ordained priests after we marry and preside at Cousin Harry’s marriage to his lover, John.”