Cardinal Wuerl: The Catholic Church is moving from legalism to mercy

[graciew]

Coincidentally, I am travelling/sightseeing in Tasmania at the moment and this past day we have just visited Port Arthur…

Enjoy your trip ,Longing Soul !

 

[pnewton]

“They didn’t stand up and shout, “Jesus was wrong” or “Jesus, like Homer, sometimes nods” or “We can forgive Jesus his unfortunate and not-very-merciful error since he, poor man, didn’t have the benefit of the moral wisdom readily available to those of us who are so happy as to live in the marvelous twenty-first century.” But this is the real meaning of what they were proposing.”–David Carlin, Does Jesus Nod?

No, Mr. Carlin, it is not the “real meaning” and such lack of charity is appalling in a Catholic blog. One cannot impute to a bishop or this synod, since over two thirds of the bishops agreed to the final document, such a negative view of Jesus our Savior. The real meaning is what was said and if Mr. Carlin lacks the ability to read and understand it, then I understand why he also might have been so confused that he posted a picture of an Episcopal gay wedding, as if that had any bearing on the price of rice in France.

The “Catholic Thing” would be to follow the teaching in the Catechism on rash judgment and slander.

 

[Ender]

In fairness to OraLabora, he does have a point. For example, there might be an elderly couple who are just living out their lives as comfortably as possible and so forth. It’s an entirely different matter for vibrant couples who have rejected the Church and refuse to consider any kind of reconciliation.

It is on one level a very different situation, but the applicable concern is the same: if there is no sin (sexual relations), there is no bar to communion. It would certainly be much more difficult for a young couple to comply with that requirement…but the requirement applies equally to both. On what basis can we reduce the requirement for the young couple not to sin without diminishing both the severity of the sin and without comparably reducing the requirement that singles refrain as well?

I am not a fan of vagueness. Define a specific situation where a couple may continue to commit a grave sin and still receive communion.

Ender

 

[KSU]

The criminal justice system is being changed all the time as we become more knowledgeable about what costitutes culpability and the human capacity for reform. How much more knowledgable must God be about that aspect of us. Human dignity demands that we show respect and dignity towards ou fellow man as we grow in unity and brotherhood.

And why has that enlightened transformation of the secular justice system occurred in the West and then spread? This is why: The never changing teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Wherever that teaching of God’s law has been prohibited or voluntarily abandoned by a society, another immoral justice system springs up. Think Communism, Nazism and Wahhabism.

If Church teaching could be thought of as a house of cards, the removal (by “progress” , “mercy” or whatever name) of just one teaching would bring the entire house down. Ergo, threads such as this one.

 

[Thomas_White]

The moral fault occurs when the person makes the decision to commit the moral wrong. If one decides to murder another, but mistakenly shoots a mannequin instead, they are still guilty of the sin of murder.

If a married man makes the decision that he would commit adultery with a woman, if given the chance, he is already an adulterer.

This is not what verses 5:28-32 say:

“You have heard that it was said of them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman with lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thou whole body be cast into hell” (Matthew 5:28-29).

This is a new teaching on adultery, and it is far stricter than what “you have heard that it was said to them of old”. It immediately precedes the teaching on divorce and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. But more will follow in Matthew, and it will concern not God’s harsh judgment but his mercy and forgiveness for what in its entirety seems to even the disciples an impossible teaching to follow.

As far as any sexual activity outside of the purpose of procreation, the adultery fits in when one or both parties is married, and the act occurs outside of the marital bond.

Where is this said in the verses?

 

[Ender]

No, Mr. Carlin, it is not the “real meaning” and such lack of charity is appalling in a Catholic blog. One cannot impute to a bishop or this synod, since over two thirds of the bishops agreed to the final document, such a negative view of Jesus our Savior. The real meaning is what was said…

I don’t believe the final document has a real meaning, and that, unfortunately, can be directly attributed to the bishops. The way it was worded makes any number of interpretations possible, and certainly one of them is the one Carlin alludes to. The very fact that within hours of its release contradictory interpretations were already being circulated is proof enough that in this case, meaning is pretty much whatever one wants it to be.

The “Catholic Thing” would be to follow the teaching in the Catechism on rash judgment and slander.

The Catholic Thing could also be said to follow the church’s teaching on who is or is not allowed to receive communion, but apparently that wasn’t done either.

Ender

 

[KSU]

No, Mr. Carlin, it is not the “real meaning” and such lack of charity is appalling in a Catholic blog. One cannot impute to a bishop or this synod, since over two thirds of the bishops agreed to the final document, such a negative view of Jesus our Savior. The real meaning is what was said and if Mr. Carlin lacks the ability to read and understand it, then I understand why he also might have been so confused that he posted a picture of an Episcopal gay wedding, as if that had any bearing on the price of rice in France.

The “Catholic Thing” would be to follow the teaching in the Catechism on rash judgment and slander.

p, have you read the Moderator’s 10/25/15 sticky ?

 

[Thomas_White]

This is not what verses 5:28-32 say:

“You have heard that it was said of them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman with lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thou whole body be cast into hell” (Matthew 5:28-29).

This is a new teaching on adultery, and it is far stricter than what “you have heard that it was said to them of old”. It immediately precedes the teaching on divorce and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. But more will follow in Matthew, and it will concern not God’s unforgiving judgment but his mercy and forgiveness for what in its entirety seems to even the disciples an impossible teaching to follow.

Where is this said in the verses?

 

[LongingSoul]

And why has that enlightened transformation of the secular justice system occurred in the West and then spread? This is why: The never changing teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Wherever that teaching of God’s law has been prohibited or voluntarily abandoned by a society, another immoral justice system springs up. Think Communism, Nazism and Wahhabism.

If Church teaching could be thought of as a house of cards, the removal (by “progress” , “mercy” or whatever name) of just one teaching would bring the entire house down. Ergo, threads such as this one.

well actually the changes that happened here at Port Arthur like the separation on the boy convicts from the men and the rehabilitation initiatives based on the phisophy of mans potential and worth, were done under the eye of the Church of England. This was an English settlement and the Catholics influence on culture came later.

Other humane developments like the abolition of capital punishment which began here in the early 1900s we3re philosophical developments that were affirmed as good by thecatholic church but were not initiated by her.

 

[Brendan]

This is not what verses 5:28-32 say:

What does it mean ‘to look with Lust’?

The CCC defines it as such

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t believe the final document has a real meaning, and that, unfortunately, can be directly attributed to the bishops. The way it was worded makes any number of interpretations possible, and certainly one of them is the one Carlin alludes to. The very fact that within hours of its release contradictory interpretations were already being circulated is proof enough that in this case, meaning is pretty much whatever one wants it to be.

The final document was for Pope Francis, and whatever he might now do is his decision. How would the meaning of “pretty much whatever one wants to do” even be relevant?

 

[LongingSoul]

Enjoy your trip ,Longing Soul !

Thanks, graciew. 2 more days to go and then home. :

 

[Brendan]

Thanks, graciew. 2 more days to go and then home. :

Send us all a postcard

 

[pnewton]

p, have you read the Moderator’s 10/25/15 sticky ?

I agree that the Catholic Thing article does not meet the criteria he gave as it is uncharitably over editorializes and judges the decision of the article. It is not ad hominem to point out methods of propaganda and misdirection, like that absurd picture of a woman Episcopal minister performing a homosexual wedding in conjunction with this synod. I can give many examples in this one article of phrases that should not appear in “news”.

******it’s hard to avoid the impression ******
******said in effect
************the Kaperites didn’t say this in so many words
************But this is the real meaning

******This websites also forbids negative pejoratives, like “Kasperites”.

The synod did not say that Jesus was in error. Anyone capable of the rudimentary understanding of English can read through the whole synod report without seeing this statement or anything that suggests that. The author also clearly said, "It is one thing for liberal Catholicism – that is, heretical Catholicism". Does he really not know that these two words mean drastically different things? A Catholic best understand both theology and language before going tossing around accusations of heresy toward the Catholic Church, any bishop, the pope, or really anyone. It is outside his grade as a lay Catholic. His final statement included the Pope in his slanderous accusations.

It is quite something else for it to flourish among some of the highest officials of the Church, especially when it flourishes under the eyes of the pope – and apparently with papal connivance.

 

[OraLabora]

Do they regret their attempt at marriage while they are married to another?

Do they regret when they are either emotionally or financially compelled to engage in adulterous sex?

Have they come to accept that they are still in a marital bond to their valid spouse?

If so, I can see your point. The civil relationship is, at that point, a type of forced prostitution. And yes, culpability can be reduced.

But absent those recognitions of truth, I would say that they are still on the path to reception of the Sacraments, but not their yet.

The Church is called to accompany them along their journey to the point where they recognize the validity of the marital bond and have regret over entering into a adulterous relationship.

Church should also spare no effort in converting the reluctant party to the truth of their relationship.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting the sacraments for the divorced and unmarried who are not remorseful. So far the cardinals coming down on the “pro” side (Kasper and Tagle that I can think of), have said that readmission to the sacraments should be on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket policy applying to all divorced and remarried.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;13402722:

This is not what verses 5:28-32 say:

What does it mean ‘to look with Lust’?

I believe lust should be understood in relation to Original Sin. It is this way that it is disordered as a result of a free will corrupted by the sin of Adam. An explanation is found in the Confessions of St. Augustine.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan;13402749:

I believe lust should be understood in relation to Original Sin. It is this way that it is disordered as a result of a free will corrupted by the sin of Adam. An explanation is found in the Confessions of St. Augustine

.

I agree, but that does not alter the CCC definition. It is because of Original Sin that our some our appetites are disordered or inordinate.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting the sacraments for the divorced and unmarried who are not remorseful. So far the cardinals coming down on the “pro” side (Kasper and Tagle that I can think of), have said that readmission to the sacraments should be on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket policy applying to all divorced and remarried.

Would not the requirement for remorse be a ‘blanket policy’? It would seem so by your own definition.

So what remains is defining WHAT the remorse entails. My ‘take’ on the Kasper proposal involved remorse that the prior relationship deteriorated. Does it also require that the party or parties express remorse over the attempt at marriage, or remorse over any attempts at sexual congress outside of a valid bond.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;13402957:

I agree, but that does not alter the CCC definition. It is because of Original Sin that our some our appetites are disordered or inordinate.

“Lust is disordered desire for an inordinate enjoyment of sexual please. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes (2528)” (CCC 2351).

CCC 2351 refers directly to 2528:

“2528 ‘Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already comitted adultery with her in his heart’ (Mt 5:28)”.

There is no difference in definition.

 

[OraLabora]

Would not the requirement for remorse be a ‘blanket policy’? It would seem so by your own definition.

So what remains is defining WHAT the remorse entails. My ‘take’ on the Kasper proposal involved remorse that the prior relationship deteriorated. Does it also require that the party or parties express remorse over the attempt at marriage, or remorse over any attempts at sexual congress outside of a valid bond.

I think you’re playing with words here, but to be clear, by “blanket policy” I meant a wide-open door to communion for the divorced and remarried. AFAIK this has never been on the program.

As for the consideration of individual cases, I expect perhaps some guidelines of which remorse for the various sinful acts involved would be a part of; but guidelines cannot always cover all of the many innovative ways in which we manage to screw up our lives, and individual discernment by pastors in the confessional will no doubt be essential… much as it already is to determine culpability for other grave sins.

I regret being dragged into this debate again. I can see little point, in fact, for us as laity to be arguing an issue for which we have little to no influence over the outcome, especially as even cardinals, it seems, can’t agree. The final decision will be in the Holy Father’s hands.

So with that said, I am taking my leave from this issue and will patiently wait to see what the Holy Father comes up with.