Pretty much. As noted earlier in this thread, the denial of Holy Communion is itself, an act of Mercy. The unworthy reception of Holy Communion damages the soul even further. It is not a medicine at that point and the Church is 100% pastoral and merciful when it holds the Sacrament back from those who would be damaged by it.
No one said CRS was talking to people about using condoms as a form of contraception. Sometimes things we use or things we do have some contraceptive properties. For example, full on breast feeding. Or estrogen/progesterone therapy (the pill or mini pill) for treatment of AVB. Or sterility causing prostate treatments. At that point, contraception is not even a consideration. But it is a side effect. If someone uses a condom to stop the spread of disease (just like stopping the spread of prostate cancer) and not as a contraceptive device, than there is room for consideration. I think that’s where the bishops were coming from.
God is merciful to the repentant; his mercy does not reach the unrepentant.*However, in the logic of the covenant, which is the heart of the whole economy of salvation, this gift does not reach us without our acceptance and response. In the light of this principle, it is not difficult to understand how reconciliation with God, although based on a free and abundant offer of mercy, at the same time implies an arduous process which involves the individual’s personal effort and the Church’s sacramental work. *(JPII, General Audience, 1999)
I’m not quite sure why you addressed these teachings of the Church to me. Do you think I am disagreeing with them? Or are you using my post as a launching pad to elaborate on this?
Thank you, Jim.
It is necessary to be very clear that mercy is not always applicable, and in fact does not apply to those who will not renounce their sins. The call for mercy for those who are divorced and remarried is misplaced. If they repent of their sins mercy is already available in the form of confession and absolution; if they will not repent then mercy is no more available to them than communion, and for exactly the same reason.
Yes, but.
This is the point too often lost in generic calls for mercy, and it is the point that is ignored in the assertion “the church is moving from legalism to mercy.”
But, we should be aware that legalism is not the same thing as God’s justice, so the AB probably has a good point. I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
The words and parables Jesus used to demonstrate what mercy is seem to very clearly make a distinction between mercy and just desserts though. Otherwise the unmerciful servant would not have been condemned by the Master for merely trying to follow the law in his dealings with his fellow servant. Otherwise the prodigals Father would have just accepted the son back as a lowly servant as the son had hoped. Mercy seems clearly to manifest in being apart from eye for eye justice and the logical consequences we deserve.
Eye for eye justice is not God’s justice.
What is your take on the parable of the unmerciful servant? He was only trying to appeal to the law and facilitate the logical consequences of his fellow servants debt. Why do think that the Master so forcefully condemned him for that?Eye for eye justice is not God’s justice.
The Gospel makes it clear that is not who God is, that is who we are.
God is just. God is merciful.
We on the other hand have a hard time grasping the two in their mutual goodness.
We cannot see that the two can be compatible attributes of the one God, who has no division and is unchanging.
As far as “logical consequences”, sin has “logical consequences”. We suffer them when we sin.
If we accept God’s mercy these consequences don’t cause us to die.; But we still suffer consequences according to God’s will.
The logical consequence of sin does not have to be hell, if we choose to accept God’s justice and mercy. If we don’'t choose to accept God’s justice and mercy, then well, we have made our choice and suffer the logical consequences.
If you go to hell, is God still a merciful God?
The unmerciful servant is unmerciful. He does not act in virtue in a Godly way, as God would. He is unjust. God is always just. The servant is condemned because:
The wicked servant is wicked because he does not understand the relationship between justice and mercy and carries out his own warped sense of justice.
You seem to be trying to make the story complicated and relative. ie. mercy can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean. It is a very clear message. The unmerciful servant was not acting outside of the legal boundaries by following the letter of the law in his dealings with the fellow servant. His sin was knowing that his own debt was forgiven him he didn’t pay it forward and forgive the debt he was owed. ie. he didn’t show mercy by forgiving the debt. The Master was pretty disgusted by that.
We are talking past one another.
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/justmercy.htm
Maybe because mercy is sort of a two-way street? One shouldn’t EXPECT mercy if he’s not willing to do the same (“as we forgive those who trespass against us”).