C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Cardinal Caffara has said that it goes both ways.
- Status
P
phil19034
Guest
What rights are being infringed upon? No lay person has the right to liturgical ministry or parish leadership.
We have a right to attend Mass, but that’s it. Everything else are “privileges.”
As a parish member, I do not have the right to force my parish to do anything, even if I’m willing to pay for something 100% myself. If I offer a donation to bring a parish program to the parish and they say no thank you… That’s it. Discussion over. I might be able to bring it back up at a future time and ask again, but there is no democracy in the Church. Even when the Pastor, Bishop and/or Pope put things to a vote; they still have the final word
G
godisgood77
Guest
I understand your point. However, I don’t believe excluding an entire group of people is a good look for the Church. Not to mention that it seems contrary to the more inclusive Church that Pope Francis is calling is to.
A better question for my mind is why would we say that a fully repentant and fully absolved person can’t hold a position of responsibility? Just seems off… If you commit a crime that causes you to lose your drivers license and subsequently your record is wiped clean for whatever reason… Your privelige to drive is reinstated… We don’t say you can only drive this sort of car or in this lane or on this day. Just seems punative for no good reason.
Anyway, instead of hearing statsmwents about how no one is being deprived and no one has a right to a position of responsibility, I’d love to hear logic explains why we would exclude a fully repentant and fully absolved Catholic…
V
Vico
Guest
The clergy cannot give the Eucharist when it will cause grave scandal, it may have to be in private. The faithful should also avoid such a situation of giving scandal, so may need to go where they are unknown. This is the practice of several decades using the pastoral solution.
The example certainly is grave matter in Acts of the Apostles 15:
So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: 28 ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, 29 namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’”
G
godisgood77
Guest
Thanks. Chaput guidelines actually state that a divorced and civilly remarried can receive the Eucharist after committing to live in continence and the help of the sacrament of reconciliation. So that is not an issue… I’m talking about a much less serious issue of holding a position of responsibility in the parish… Which for some reason +Chaput has prohibited these individuals from holding. So after repentance, forgiveness and absolution they are banned from a position of responsibility in the parish in the Archdiocese of Philly.
I’m looking for any logic to back that up?
V
Vico
Guest
Scandal is an issue. The guidelines also state: “where pastors give Communion to divorced and remarried persons trying to live chastely, they should do so in a manner that will avoid giving scandal or implying that Christ’s teaching can be set aside.”
Also the purpose of not holding positions of responsibility in a parish or performing liturgical functions is to avoid scandal “the unintended appearance of an endorsement of divorce and civil remarriage.”
cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/07/05/chaput-says-divorcedremarried-must-renounce-sex-get-communion/
G
godisgood77
Guest
Again… My point is that in this scenario fear of scandal is weighted more heavily than the individual situation… Even when the individual is no longer carrying any sin. This is onerous to the individual and I would argue potentially scandalous in and of itself. The Church offering forgiveness in word, but not practice is bad news.
We were instructed by Christ to not be afraid more than any other command. Saint John XXIII warned of prophets of doom… We can not live in fear… Especially, unfounded fear.
Just one man’s opinion
D
deaconjohnO
Guest
Where in the dogmatic teaching of the church is this formula presented?
If so, does Mother Church teach that this is always the case?
V
Vico
Guest
Fear is not what scandal is about, but lack of charity.
The definition of scandal from Modern Catholic Dictionary is:
SCANDALAny action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she foresees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)
SCANDAL OF THE WEAK.Disedifying morally weak persons by permissible conduct. Circumstances determine the duty in charity to avoid giving scandal to the weak. The existence of such a duty is clear from the teaching of St. Paul, who would not eat meat that had been offered to idols lest he scandalize the weaker brethren. He warned the early Christians not to rationalize their conduct but to follow his example, lest “by sinning in this way against our brothers and injuring their weak consciences, it would be Christ against whom you sinned” (I Corinthians 8:12). This obligation in charity is such that one may licitly refrain from fulfilling even a grave positive precept that is not necessary for salvation in order to prevent serious scandal to the weak. Behind the obligation is the mandate of selfless love that seeks not only to help another in obvious need but also by self-restraint to protect another from spiritual harm.
G
godisgood77
Guest
You’re right. It shouldn’t be. In this case, it seems that fear of scandal is trumping the individual situations; which in and of itself scandalized many - including me and my family of weak sinners.
This actually seems closer to scrupulosity than scandal…
Scrupulosity is characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional, and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning.
V
Vico
Guest
Scandal is about lack of charity because it is the behavior that intentionally or unintentionally leads the weak into sin. Merriam Webster dictionary definition
1b: conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another
Now you are referring to guilt (which can be fact or feeling or both).
G
godisgood77
Guest
Vico- I appreciate all of the definitions. I thoroughly understand scandal… I do understand the logic for how this applies in the context of this discussion. Maybe better said, I believe some of the guidelines cause scandal in an of themselves… Namely, by excluding an entire segment of people from holding positions of responsibility in the Church, we cause scandal in that we are saying that once you commit a certain sin, you can never be fully forgiven even when fully repentant and absolved.
Here’s an example to give the debate some focus…i’m not sure why a person with high financial acumen who happens to be divorced, civilly remarried, repents and is absolved would be excluded from consideration for membership on a parish finance committee. It would be great if you could explain that in a way that doesn’t involve posting a static definition
V
Vico
Guest
Repentance with absolution do not necessarily remove the temporal effects or sin and there is still a need for satisfaction for sin, called reparation. If the restriction was a punishment, then it still would not be scandal.Vico- I appreciate all of the definitions. I thoroughly understand scandal… I do understand the logic for how this applies in the context of this discussion. Maybe better said, I believe some of the guidelines cause scandal in an of themselves… Namely, by excluding an entire segment of people from holding positions of responsibility in the Church, we cause scandal in that we are saying that once you commit a certain sin, you can never be fully forgiven even when fully repentant and absolved.
Here’s an example to give the debate some focus…i’m not sure why a person with high financial acumen who happens to be divorced, civilly remarried, repents and is absolved would be excluded from consideration for membership on a parish finance committee. It would be great if you could explain that in a way that doesn’t involve posting a static definition
It is written that the reason for restriction is to avoid giving scandal.
Catechism1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.” 85
1494 The confessor proposes the performance of certain acts of “satisfaction” or “penance” to be performed by the penitent in order to repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a disciple of Christ.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Understand… thanks.
So according to +Chaput, in the case of divorced, remarried, repentant and absolved individuals… the universal and permanent punishment for all cases in the entire Archdiocese is exclusion from holding any positions of responsibility in the parish…
I’m not particularly well versed on the subject, but I had not heard of a universal and pre-determined punishment for all people in certain situations… given outside of the confessional. In light of the Pope teaching in AL, that seems particularly strange given that the Pope made clear that the Church is not in the business of condemning anyone forever.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
On the other hand, if the opposite happened and the divorced/remarried were allowed to hold positions xyz, I’m sure we’d have some thread on CAF with people talking about how Archbishop Chaput has scandalized them for allowing that. It’s about finding a balance, and I’m sure the Archbishop is doing what he discerns as best.
I’m not sure what good there is in discussing this much further since at the end of the day we’ll all have to go with what our own bishop/archbishop discerns is the right course of action, whether it’s Archbishop Chaput or not.
V
Vico
Guest
I think you are not reading the posts because that is contrary to what was posted:
It is written that the reason for restriction is to avoid giving scandal.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Common man!! This back and forth is crazy…
I read the posts… I know what it says and the intent. I disagree that it would cause scandal. It’s that simple. No one have been able to provide a logical reason for why this would cause scandal.
Conversely, it caused me scandal that our Church is excluding good Catholics.
And last… I really think you’re not reading my posts or not following…
G
godisgood77
Guest
Amen…with a firm norm for all cases and all situations either way, one side is going to be
scandalized
V
Vico
Guest
I am reading them.
So if I understand you correctly now, because the Church is excluding good Catholics from certain things, is it leading you into sin, (which is the meaning of scandalized)?
K
KSU
Guest
Moses said to the people:
"If only you would heed the voice of the Lord, your God,
and keep his commandments and statutes
that are written in this book of the law…
"For this command that I enjoin on you today
Last weekend, after the above reading, my Pastor explained that Moses wasn’t buying the excuse that God’s laws were too complicated for the people to understand and obey. Throughout the sermon I couldn’t stop thinking of these pre and post AL-related threads that have been going on for the past two years or so.
It’s not that the law about adultery and marriage is all that difficult to understand; the reason for the years of disagreement and confusion is man-made–everyone has an agenda.
Pope Francis in AL tells us that everything we thought we knew about it remains in place, and that his agenda is to shift the Church’s emphasis from just formal annulment procedure to comforting those who suffer and examining their individual situations in the internal forum. The rub is that he leaves it up to each Bishop to figure out what that may mean and how to do it; even Bishops who, as I posted elsewhere, recommend “perhaps re-admitting” those in an invalid marriage to the sacraments : catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20398
So, again, the reason for the years of disagreement and confusion is man-made. As Jesus said when He gave us this particular law on adultery and marriage, not everyone can bring himself to accept it. Viz:
1 Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say, and he left Galilee and came into the territory of Judaea on the far side of the Jordan.
2 Large crowds followed him and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, ‘Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?’
4 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’
7 They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’
8 He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.
9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’
10 The disciples said to him, ‘If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.’
11 But he replied, 'It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted.
12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.
Matthew Chapter 19
"If only you would heed the voice of the Lord, your God,
and keep his commandments and statutes
that are written in this book of the law…
"For this command that I enjoin on you today
is not too mysterious and remote for you.
It is not up in the sky, that you should say,
‘Who will go up in the sky to get it for us
and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?’…
No, it is something very near to you,
already in your mouths and in your hearts;
you have only to carry it out."Dt 30:11-14
Last weekend, after the above reading, my Pastor explained that Moses wasn’t buying the excuse that God’s laws were too complicated for the people to understand and obey. Throughout the sermon I couldn’t stop thinking of these pre and post AL-related threads that have been going on for the past two years or so.It’s not that the law about adultery and marriage is all that difficult to understand; the reason for the years of disagreement and confusion is man-made–everyone has an agenda.
Pope Francis in AL tells us that everything we thought we knew about it remains in place, and that his agenda is to shift the Church’s emphasis from just formal annulment procedure to comforting those who suffer and examining their individual situations in the internal forum. The rub is that he leaves it up to each Bishop to figure out what that may mean and how to do it; even Bishops who, as I posted elsewhere, recommend “perhaps re-admitting” those in an invalid marriage to the sacraments : catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20398
So, again, the reason for the years of disagreement and confusion is man-made. As Jesus said when He gave us this particular law on adultery and marriage, not everyone can bring himself to accept it. Viz:
1 Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say, and he left Galilee and came into the territory of Judaea on the far side of the Jordan.
2 Large crowds followed him and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, ‘Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?’
4 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’
7 They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’
8 He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.
9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’
10 The disciples said to him, ‘If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.’
11 But he replied, 'It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted.
12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.
Matthew Chapter 19
- Status