B
Brendan
Guest
For me, it is because the Church stated so…
I think it would help if you explained what you consider to be a doctrine. How do you define it.
Cardinal Wuerl: The Catholic Church is moving from legalism to mercy
- Status
A
anthrogirl
Guest
Rant alert - showcasing some laws while ignoring others.Absolutely right–we alone will answer for our actions.
Our Lady of Fatima:
More souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.
Many marriages are not of God and do not please Our Lord.
Do not be surprised that I speak to you so much about hell. This is one truth that it is necessary to recall often in these times, because we forget that souls are falling into hell in droves.
But, hey, so what? None of that is doctrine so we are not bound to believe it, and, just like actual doctrine, our understanding of it could change, and there could be exceptions, right?
At Fatima, Our Lady taught us this prayer: “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, deliver us from the fire of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need of your mercy.”
When I read your quote that the Lord is not pleased with many marriages, I thought about my family. My parents were Catholic and married in the church. And I have to admit that I would have rather grown up in a single parent home headed by my mom, even if that meant living in a women and children’s shelter. Approx 20% of children are sexually abused before they reach the age of 18. 50% are abused by their parents and an additional 18% by other members of their families. I grew up in an upper middle class family, of heterosexual parents who were well liked in their community. The perfect set up for secret abuse. No one would ever suspect. Since then, I’ve met so many like me with millions more left to meet. We need our church to educate and preach to parents often and strenuously about their obligation not to physically, emotionally and/or sexually abuse their kids. As a child, I may have been empowered to speak out if I had heard sermons addressing this, sermons that addressed my situation and the situation of so many others in nearby pews. We’d like to blame it on homosexuals but we all know that statistically they are no more abusive than heterosexuals. The percentage of those sexually abused by homosexual men is about 2%. And studies have found that people with religious affiliations are not less likely to sexually abuse their children. We need to address the serious disease that is killing our families from the inside. If we want kids to stick with our faith, we need to walk the talk. Learning and reciting laws is cheap without action. Imagine sitting in the pew with your dad and mom, listening to the priest chastise the marriage of two women and then later that night, being molested by your dad. At that point, having two moms would have been a godsend. Waging our fingers at gays, at those who are divorced, at those who take birth control while we ignore the abuse of our children by our friends, family and neighbors is just too hypocritical for many victims to stomach. We need to cast a wider net because sinful acts of the flesh are alive and thriving in heterosexual marriages. If we don’t address this problem aggressively and persistently, we have no credibility in anything we say about marriage and parenting. As a child, I would have taken real love and assured safety over law any day, even if that meant living with a single mom … or two moms. The Catholic heterosexual marriage I was born into, like so many others Catholic marriages, was horrifying, humiliating, soul crushing and painful. This fact is the one thing we as a church are perfect at ignoring. Unless we do better, our laws are mere sounds floating in the air.
K
KSU
Guest
Do you think Jesus and His/our mother are pleased with your description of her warning about bad marriages, sex and hell as a “rant”? They weren’t my words, they were Mary’s words.
And speaking of rants, what you said above was a 100% actual rant. Worse, it sounded anti-heterosexual; as though you were miffed that the Synod utterly rejected the proposals regarding non-heterosexual unions.
You also gave two more impressions in your posts:
One, that you think the Church was not concerned enough about the family in which you were raised just because it was heterosexual; and, two, that you support the dissident priest’s pro-contraception preaching (post #224).
You may want to correct all three of those impressions.
A
anthrogirl
Guest
My words were the rant. Not Mary’s. In social media, it’s referred to as a rant alert, letting the reader know that the following text is an emotional opinion piece…aka a rant. Sorry if you got the wrong impression.
And I’m not anti-heterosexual. I’m a heterosexual and I’m so lucky to be in a loving marriage. I was saying that we, as a church, can only effectively, truthfully, honestly address issues of birth control, divorce, homosexual marriages, etc, when we put as much effort in terms of education, media outreach, sermons, etc on addressing the failings of heterosexual marriages as well. We can’t pretend that heterosexual marriage offer any type of moral standing while sweeping child abuse under the rug. Please realize that when we open up the statistics to all types of child abuse (neglect, physical, emotional, sexual), the numbers are staggering. We’re averaging over 3 million reports of child abuse each year in the US involving over 6 million children. And those are just the ones reported. We should also consider spousal abuse as well. About 1.3 million women and about 880,000 men are victims of domestic violence in the US each year. I work in the legal field and have a fair amount of experience interviewing victims. This topic is something we can and should be addressing with heterosexual married couples frequently because we, as a society, as a country and as members of our faith are sorely in need of guidance. We can’t in good conscience offer up heterosexual marriage as the model of perfect union when it, like other forms of unions, is too often a bastion of sin, pain, abuse and degradation. This is not a problem with God. This is purely a human condition and it’s one we can fix if we just took our heads out of the sand and chose to do the right thing. If we want to place heterosexual marriage on the proverbial pedestal, we need to make sure it worthy of being there. We can do this if we choose to address the problems.
P
pnewton
Guest
Had it been a homosexual marriage with the same abuse, it would have been just as painful. The problem is child abuse, not heterosexual marriage. The Catholic Church makes allowances for the necessity of divorce to protect children in abusive situations an always has. A parent who does not avail themselves of the option to leave such a spouse has no one to blame but themselves.
Yes, we do sometimes get tunnel vision in addressing our favorite sinners who we like to target for stones. I note that most of us like to rant the most against sins we are not tempted by. It is more comfortable for us and gives us a feeling of superiority. I do not doubt that we have not given abuse in the family proper attention during this synod and all the discussion around it.
A
anthrogirl
Guest
I appreciate your words and I agree with you. I have to admit though, having gone thru what I went thru, I would have much rather preferred growing up with a single mom or two moms than with my dad. I can’t imagine how having 2 moms would have been just as bad or worse than being repeatedly assaulted by a man who supposedly loves you. The ugliness was/is just so overwhelming, it’s making me sick just writing this. My daughter’s friend has two moms. When I compare my experiences to hers, they just don’t equate. She’s happy and well adjusted. I was hiding in the closet… literally. Sigh. It’s so hard to be objective here. I have no problem with the church’s definition of marriage. I just wish that we could mold it into an institution that’s worthy of God.
E
Ender
Guest
The conjunction “and” here means that the obligation is both doctrine as well as discipline, but the fact that it is also a discipline doesn’t make it any less a doctrine…which is exactly the point being made. It is indeed a doctrine. The fact that it is also a discipline is irrelevant.
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
That is an interesting reading, but hardly the only grammatically correct one. The reference to doctrine and discipline (in the introductory statements) could equally mean (and usually does) that the following will cover both elements, not that everything said from that point on will be both. If I were to write about the duties of husband and wife, for example, it is logically possible to take these as two *separate *people, not as the duties of one person who is both husband and wife.
A
anthrogirl
Guest
Sorry. I forgot to address the priest’s comments. Those were his words, not mine. And he knows better about the Church’s position on condom use by afflicted married couples in AIDS ravaged Africa than I could ever presume to know. He’s the one out in the field, not me. I have no reason to doubt that what he told the congregation and therefore I have no reason to correct him.
Your question did spur me on to do a google search on the topic. I found that Pope Benedict softened on condom use when it’s used to stop the spread of infection. “She [the church] of course does not regard [the use of condoms] as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” - Pope Benedict.
“We do not distribute condoms. We give people the information they need to make an informed decision in conscience about what they are going to do in their lives… That is where the issue of the use of a condom, not for contraceptive purposes, but to prevent the transmission of a death-dealing virus, comes into play.” Catholic Bishop Kevin Dowling, AIDS worker.
“CRS does not finance, distribute or promote the use of condoms. However in line with its HIV Policy, CRS provides full and accurate information about condoms as part of its HIV activities through implementing partner agencies.”- CRS position paper on the prevention of HIV.
“In their pastoral statements on AIDS, at least two Conferences of Catholic Bishops (of Chad and of Southern Africa) have specifically addressed the issue of prevention for discordant married couples (where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not ). In both cases, the bishops make the point that Church leaders cannot require married persons to abstain from sexual activity within their marital relationship. Thus the bishops make the point that such couples need to develop a well-formed conscience on what means they will take to reduce the risk of spreading the infection from the HIVpositive to the HIV-negative spouse.” CRS position paper on the prevention of HIV.
K
KSU
Guest
E
Ender
Guest
OK, I’ll grant that point as a general explanation. As to whether the particular restriction is doctrinal, we can determine from the passage itself.*The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, "founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion"(9). ** The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.
***Since disciplines can surely be modified, what is being referred to here as “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion” is clearly doctrine. If it is founded on Sacred Scripture it is a doctrine, not merely a discipline. The church can reverse her disciplines, but she has no authority whatever to reverse her interpretation of scripture. As Benedict said, it is binding, and this applies as much to the church as to the individual. If a “constant and universal practice founded on Sacred Scripture” is not a doctrine it is hard to imagine what would qualify as one.
Ender
J
JimG
Guest
You’ve got a valid point there. Marriage itself has been seriously damaged ever since the start of the sexual revolution.
Husband and wife promise to love, cherish, and honor each other till death. They promise permanence, fidelity, openness to life. A husband must love his wife as Christ loves the Church. That means he must be willing to lay down his life for her. And for his children as well. A husband willing to lay down his life for his wife and children will not abuse them; it’s a contradiction to the meaning of marriage. I agree that a great deal of attention must be paid to teaching the true meaning of marriage. Children will not understand it if it is not modeled for them by their parents.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The ‘sexual revolution’ is the modern fallguy for the destruction of marriage, and it surely has resulted in the ironic devaluing of the woman and the family… but when Mary spoke those words about marriage to the children of Fatima it was 1917. Well before the sexual revolution. She was probably referring to the inequalities that have existed as offenses to marriage since Joe Caveman dragged his wife back to the cave bed by the hair.
I think antrogirls general sense is right concerning what the focus of the Churchs teachings on marriage. There is strong denunciation of divorce, cohabitation, same sex relationship but regarding marriage of man and woman it doesn’t stress the attitudes of each that should make marriage a safe, happy and loving experience for a person. It rightly stresses indissolubility and says “for better for worse” and that’s that. When a marriage is an exercise in “worse” for the most part, there’s not much compassion or guidance in mending the spiritual communion. It’s very much about proscriptions, proscriptions, proscriptions. I think Pope Francis is trying to bring back the emphasis on prescriptions by endeavouring to identify what is good in any relationship whether it is strictly valid or not. I really do like that approach because I know that even legitimate marriages can become prisons of the letter of the law when there is no emphasis on the spirit of the law concerning sacramental marriages.
J
JimG
Guest
Of course the sexual revolution had its beginnings before the 1960’s, as did the contraceptive mentality which lies at its root. But the sexual revolution certainly accelerated the process of the devolution of marriage.
The sacrificial nature of marital love used to be emphasized in a short exhortation which was read by the priest just before the exchange of vows. It is no longer read (although I once heard it used as a homily), perhaps because brides and grooms no longer believe that a sacrificial marital love is possible. That’s a shame.
Ours is not the first era of rampant sexual dysfunction. St. Peter Damian wrote a book called “The Book of Gomorrah” back in the eleventh century which warns against all the varieties of sexual dysfunction which have arisen today. There is a new translation newly available.
The idea of marriage as a true permanent lifetime loving union certainly is due for a comeback.
K
KSU
Guest
You know it and I know it and the African Bishops at the Synod know it and even complained about it getting no attention.
Trouble is, that’s too conservative of a topic for the agents of change at the Synod. As already beat to a bloody froth in this thread, they believe the best medicines for marriage and the family lie elsewhere; they didn’t want to loose their opportunities to lobby for such change by devoting time to obvious needs which everyone already agrees upon.
So, as everyone also agrees, it’s now up to the Holy Father.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
K
KSU
Guest
The Church never abandons anyone.
C
Corki
Guest
The only true solution would be not to enter into a second adulterous marriage in the first place.
How would you look at it if the civil marriage was not a factor? Would you say the same thing about a man who had children with his mistress but wanted to reconcile with the Church? Should he be asked to “abandon” his mistress and children in order to receive Communion or should he be told “it’s ok” and welcomed to the Lord’s table unconditionally? What about the wife and children from the Sacramental marriage? Hasn’t he already abandoned them? Why is the “new” wife to be protected from abandonment but not the one he promised “til death do us part”?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I simply posed a hypothetical question. WouId I say what “same thing”? You see, there are a whole lot of assumption made, in this instance five of them. It is interesting.
- Status