Cardinal Dolan insists papal text will be on marriage, not divorce

[TMC]

You are right that the individuals are married. But it’s not their marriage that keeps them from Communion. It’s the subsequent living arrangement.

I haven’t heard anyone, in the context of the Synod or surrounding debate, call for the approval or acceptance of these subsequent relationships as marriages.

Really? I have heard it a lot. OK, so you can hear it from me first. The Church should approve and accept some of these subsequent relationships as marriages.

 

[ARSpade]

Really? I have heard it a lot. OK, so you can hear it from me first. The Church should approve and accept some of these subsequent relationships as marriages.

Why should the church approve of what Christ calls adultery?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Oh, so you’re saying that Jesus words on the subject are only directed to the people of a certain time and place.

I don’t know, I’m not a theologian, but there are theologians who think so.

I accept what the Catholic Church teaches, but the Synod is hopefully, going to help the Church be more pastoral toward divorced and remarried Catholics.

The goal is to welcome them back into the fold, so to speak, not drive them away.

I grew up before Vatican II, when divorced Catholics were shunned, but the Church and by the parishioners.

Such people took proverbial stoning and some even lost their jobs when they got divorced.

Such attitudes by Catholics still exists.

Jim

 

[ARSpade]

I don’t know, I’m not a theologian, but there are theologians who think so.
.

Jim

yes, there are theologians who deny that Christ is also God.

Which is what the statement “this judgement of Christ’s is only true at that time and false in others” means.

Of course, it makes me wonder what other statements of His apparently have expiration dates. Maybe the peacemakers aren’t blessed anymore? Or the meek get nothing?

 

[TMC]

Why should the church approve of what Christ calls adultery?

There has been much written on that topic in this thread and elsewhere. The gospel, and all scripture, must be read in context. Jesus was not addressing the modern marriage, which is very different from marriage in the first century. The Church has already acknowledged this fact by allowing certain second marriages to be approved and acknowledged. In the same way, the Church should examine each situation and approve and acknowledge other second marriages.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ARSpade;

yes, there are theologians who deny that Christ is also God.

Different subject than what we’re talking about.

I don’t know any Catholic Theologians who do not believe Jesus is God the Son, but there are those who view this particular part of Scripture a little differently.

Which is what the statement “this judgement of Christ’s is only true at that time and false in others” means.

Of course, it makes me wonder what other statements of His apparently have expiration dates. Maybe the peacemakers aren’t blessed anymore? Or the meek get nothing?

Well keep in mind that what we know from Scripture, continues to be studied, debated and evolve as we learn more.

The contradictions between John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels on the timing of the Last Supper and Crucifixion are an example, but that’s a different topic.

Jim

 

[ARSpade]

Jesus was not addressing the modern marriage, which is very different from marriage in the first century. T

Ah, so you’re saying that Jesus was unaware of the problems of modern marriage and couldn’t forsee how his words would be taken today.

 

[ARSpade]

Well keep in mind that what we know from Scripture, continues to be studied, debated and evolve as we learn more.

Jim

So there’s a chance that what Jesus really meant was “Blessed are the war makers, for explosions are cool. The meek inherit a grave.” As we study and learn more we may find out that war is the best.

I mean, in context Jesus was speaking to people under a strong military occupation where they’d be slaughtered if they resisted. Things are different today.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So there’s a chance that what Jesus really meant was “Blessed are the war makers, for explosions are cool. The meek inherit a grave.” As we study and learn more we may find out that war is the best.

I mean, in context Jesus was speaking to people under a strong military occupation where they’d be slaughtered if they resisted. Things are different today.

OK, you’re going off the rails, so there’s no point in continuing the discussion.

I already raised two children.

Jim

 

[ARSpade]

OK, you’re going off the rails, so there’s no point in continuing the discussion.

I already raised two children.

Jim

It makes perfect sense.

If one of Jesus’ specific statements is time and location specific, why can’t more be? Why not all of them?

 

[TMC]

Ah, so you’re saying that Jesus was unaware of the problems of modern marriage and couldn’t forsee how his words would be taken today.

I am saying that Jesus was speaking in the first century and that we should understand that when looking at what he said.

At the time there were two schools of thought in Judaism about divorce. One was that a husband could divorce his wife for any reason at all. The other was that a divorce could be granted only for serious issues, such as adultery. It was an important discussion because divorced women were often unable to support themselves. So when men sometimes divorced their wives for trivial reasons they were basically condemning them to living in poverty.

Some commentators view Jesus as taking sides in this argument, i.e. saying divorce requires serious reasons. Others see Jesus as taking neither side, and saying that divorce is never justified. But many in both camps also believe that one of the important underpinnings of Jesus teaching was his concern that these women not be casually discarded and forced into poverty. To now convert that teaching to a blanket, black-and-white purity teaching is not consistent with either the context of the teaching at the time, or with the way the teaching has been applied in the Church (then or now).

It is always amusing to me that some Catholics latch onto these particular words in the Gospel and insist that they be enforced in the way that they view as “literal”, but don’t argue for doing the same with other of Jesus’ statements. Jesus Himself said that the entire law rests on the Golden Rule. All of the Law must be read in that context. That is what the Church is charged with doing. The Church has already determined that millions of second marriages should be approved and accepted. The Church has the authority to accept and approve other second marriages, and should do so.

 

[TMC]

So there’s a chance that what Jesus really meant was “Blessed are the war makers, for explosions are cool. The meek inherit a grave.” As we study and learn more we may find out that war is the best.

I mean, in context Jesus was speaking to people under a strong military occupation where they’d be slaughtered if they resisted. Things are different today.

Well, based on that statement do you think that the Church should be always and ever pacifist? If the Church is not supposed to take that statement as literal and apply it in a blanket way to all situations, why should divorce be treated that way?

 

[ARSpade]

I am saying that Jesus was speaking in the first century and that we should understand that when looking at what he said.

At the time there were two schools of thought in Judaism about divorce. One was that a husband could divorce his wife for any reason at all. The other was that a divorce could be granted only for serious issues, such as adultery. It was an important discussion because divorced women were often unable to support themselves. So when men sometimes divorced their wives for trivial reasons they were basically condemning them to living in poverty.

Some commentators view Jesus as taking sides in this argument, i.e. saying divorce requires serious reasons. Others see Jesus as taking neither side, and saying that divorce is never justified. But many in both camps also believe that one of the important underpinnings of Jesus teaching was his concern that these women not be casually discarded and forced into poverty.

You’re ignoring that Jesus also said it was adultery if a woman remarried. He wouldn’t have said that if he was solely concerned about women in poverty. He also doesn’t say anything about poverty.

But either way, if Jesus felt that his words were too specific for a 21st Century crowd, why didn’t he say more?

 

[Louie1983]

I seriously can’t believe people are trying to justify second marriages in light of scripture and tradition…

“Heaven and earth may pass, but my words will never pass”

I don’t remember Our Lord saying “But it may change depending what century it is”.

 

[ARSpade]

Well, based on that statement do you think that the Church should be always and ever pacifist? If the Church is not supposed to take that statement as literal and apply it in a blanket way to all situations, why should divorce be treated that way?

That was a rhetorical trap. I do not actually think Christ’s words can be twisted to say “war is great”. I was merely pointing out that if Christ’s words on divorce can be tossed aside as being merely meant for a specific 1st century audience, why not everything else?

 

[ARSpade]

I don’t remember Our Lord saying “But it may change depending what century it is”.

Fundamental it’s about denying Christ as True God. If Christ couldn’t see his words transcending time and being always True, he isn’t God. He’s just a guy saying nice things to people in 30 AD.

It’s Arianism.

 

[anon67074017]

I do not think the Church teaching will change on same-sex marriage. Pope Francis is against it too.

 

[TMC]

That was a rhetorical trap. I do not actually think Christ’s words can be twisted to say “war is great”. I was merely pointing out that if Christ’s words on divorce can be tossed aside as being merely meant for a specific 1st century audience, why not everything else?

So why not everything else? Why not always turn the cheek? Why not always sell your possessions and give all the money to the poor? Why not always follow all of Jesus’ individual teachings without nuance or context? Why just this one?

Interesting that when I ask these questions its a “rhetorical trap,” but when you do the same its “following Jesus.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So why not everything else? Why not always turn the cheek? Why not always sell your possessions and give all the money to the poor? Why not always follow all of Jesus’ individual teachings without nuance or context? Why just this one?

Interesting that when I ask these questions its a “rhetorical trap,” but when you do the same its “following Jesus.”

How bout gouging one’s eye out ?

Jim

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis has told us how to respond to divorced Catholics;

A pope is the caretaker of doctrine, not it’s master. He doesn’t get to decide what it should or should not be.
TMC; 13802295:

I am saying that Jesus was speaking in the first century and that we should understand that when looking at what he said.

Morality does not change with time and place; what was immoral in the first century is equally immoral today. Our understanding of what behavior is immoral can change, but if it does in this case it means the church has been in error for 20 centuries.

Ender