Chicago prelate: Let gay and divorced Catholics take part

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
For a sin to be mortal, it must be grave.

Forgetting that its a Friday in Lent and you accidentally ordered a dish with meat at a restaurant but chose to eat it would not be a mortal sin.

Jim
Click to expand...
If you consume meat on Friday and you forget it is Friday, that is not a mortal sin. If you eat meat on Friday or believe Thursday is Friday and eat meat, then that is a mortal sin. As far as I know, the situation you outlined would be a mortal sin since you are intentionally breaking the abstinence.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
No a priest would not tell a mother she must throw out a meal because it was made with meat and she forgot it was Friday during Lent.

Jim
Click to expand...
He should advise her to wrap it up in aluminum foil and serve it on Saturday.

Seriously. Deliberately eating meat on a Friday of Lent is grave.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Criticizing the clergy is against forum rules, and possibly a sin, but you’ll have to discern this part.

Jim
Click to expand...
And thinking like this is what probably led to the priest scandal, where priests molested children. John Paul II said lay people have a duty to correct priests. It is not what the church truly teaches, and it is a sign of manipulation on your part.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
In today’s world, that’s possible.

During the 1929 depression, less likely.

Jim
Click to expand...
That is a completely different situation. In extreme circumstances, it is possible that the consumption of meat on Friday would not have been sinful. The priest’s answer may have changed according to the circumstances. In regular circumstances, the meal should be saved for left overs on another day.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
If you consume meat on Friday and you forget it is Friday, that is not a mortal sin. If you eat meat on Friday or believe Thursday is Friday and eat meat, then that is a mortal sin. As far as I know, the situation you outlined would be a mortal sin since you are intentionally breaking the abstinence.
Click to expand...
No its not, if you think its Thursday and ate meat and then realize its Friday.

If you know its Friday and Lent and deliberately go ahead and order a meat dish or eat meat when you could’ve abstained, then yes it could be, but that person needs to discern the culpability of the sin with the help of a priest.

Jim
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
That is a completely different situation. In extreme circumstances, it is possible that the consumption of meat on Friday would not have been sinful. The priest’s answer may have changed according to the circumstances. In regular circumstances, the meal should be saved for left overs on another day.
Click to expand...
Not what a mother in 1929 would’ve been told.

Believe me, I had many discussions on this with my grandmother who was a devote Catholic and also lived through the 50’s and early 60s when we were still obligated to abstain from eating meat on all Fridays as well as Ash Wednesday.

Jim
 
TheFraggle said:
And thinking like this is what probably led to the priest scandal, where priests molested children. John Paul II said lay people have a duty to correct priests. It is not what the church truly teaches, and it is a sign of manipulation on your part.
Click to expand...
Forum rules say we’re not to criticize clergy in this forum.

Correcting clergy when they are obviously wrong is different than a Bishop expressing an idea during a Synod which is the subject in the Synod.

Also, I’m leery of anything being published about what is taking place and by whom, from the secular media.

Recall the 13 Bishops who supposedly signed a letter to Pope Francis ?

Turns out most of the Bishops never saw they thing

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
No its not, if you think its Thursday and ate meat and then realize its Friday.

If you know its Friday and Lent and deliberately go ahead and order a meat dish or eat meat when you could’ve abstained, then yes it could be, but that person needs to discern the culpability of the sin with the help of a priest.

Jim
Click to expand...
My apologies for the vagueness in my post. What I was trying to say is, if it is a Monday or something and you get the days mixed up and think it is Friday, but eat meat anyway, it is still a mortal sin even though it wasn’t actually Friday. It is always a mortal sin to intentionally eat meat on an abstinence day, there is no need to discern the culpability with a priest.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
For a sin to be mortal, it must be grave.
Click to expand...
Then I guess it depends on how you feel about Canon Law.

Meat abstinence on all Fridays except where the bishops have allowed another form of penance. Lent = no exceptions.
 
gilliam said:
Archbishop Blase Cupich said bishops and other Church leaders should engage those who feel marginalized as the first step of accompaniment.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/10/16/chicago-prelate-let-gay-and-divorced-catholics-take-part/
Click to expand...
Many people feel marginalized. That’s nice that he’s reaching out to people.

However, I am suspicious of organized groups of "marginalized’ people. If you are part of a well-funded organization, I suspect that you might not be truly marginalized.
 
Paganus said:
However, I am suspicious of organized groups of "marginalized’ people. If you are part of a well-funded organization, I suspect that you might not be truly marginalized.
Click to expand...
Interesting point.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
The way I see it, people are upset with the denotation, not the connotation, of the word “indissoluble”. Changing the word is either going to confuse people (changing the wording makes people think you are changing the doctrine, just the discussion of Holy Communion for remarried adulterers made the faithful think they could receive Communion, even priests allowed it) or still have people upset because it is still saying that Holy Matrimony is a permanent bond. If people are upset that the bond they have with their spouse is unbreakable, there is something wrong with them and not the Church. The word “indissoluble” is even in the Roman Catechism, I am sure people were upset with it since then so I don’t see why it should change now.
Click to expand...
From what I gather from Archbishop Coleridges interviews, some countries will even legislate on the notion of indissolubility in a way that harms spouses. Especially in the Middle East and African nations, a woman is not allowed to divorce for any reason, or if she is allowed, it is punished by exclusion and condemnation.

But even I am aware of how ‘indissolubility’ can be wrongly interpreted by spouses, having been involved in the field of marriage and family counselling for a long time. Some spouses do regard the ‘piece of paper’ as a guarantee against accountability for behaviour. A man might deceive a woman prior to marriage into believing she is loved, but then withdraw the attention with the assurance of the marriage certificate. Or sometimes a woman will become pregnant with the confidence of obliging a man to be committed to lifelong marriage.

Lots of the time there is the presumption that a spouse who leaves a marriage is fully at fault for marriage breakdown and that used to legislated in the West. Now there is more understanding that marriage can have broken down and resigned to with hopelessness, long before one spouse leaves.

I worked with a Catholic organisation but still in counselling a spouse who felt trapped in marriage, their was a policy of making a space of allowing a person to experience the freedom to leave a marriage. That’s recognised as a place that marriage can actually be renewed with a more healthy sense of the freedom of your consent and commitment.

There’s a lot of different ways that the notion of indissolubility is exploited by selfishness rather than understood as a covenant of selflessness.
 
nodito said:
… Thus, some people perceive this feature of marriage as less as a gift from God to married couples (which it is) than as an oppressive force at work trapping them to failed marriages. The bishops are looking for new ways of conveying the same truths but in a way that is more relatable.
Click to expand...
My friends were on the point of separating. They heard a “kerygma” and soon afterwards they were comfortable with each other and the family has been radiant ever since.

At the same time two (originally) gormless people got married and are radiant now.

Several families befriended each other to a far greater than average extent.

Somebody must have been praying for it to work.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I have. It’s closed to anyone who does not walk in lockstep with the Catholic Church on what the Catholic Church believes is mortal sin, on what the Catholic Church believes it means to be in a state of grace, and it’s closed in those cases even if one discerns the body and believes in transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
I would like to see the Church talk more to us all about the state of grace. Isn’t that what the Christian life is and it affects all parts of life reportedly and not just sexuality.

If “period of discernment” means spending time looking at trusting in God in our economics, our wider relationships and so on then I am all for it. In fact it was proposed to me and others but went belly up. Do many of us actually know anyone that models trusting in God, for us to see what it looks like?

The Church should not have abolished Spiritual Communion. Well I have reinvented it!
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
My apologies for the vagueness in my post. What I was trying to say is, if it is a Monday or something and you get the days mixed up and think it is Friday, but eat meat anyway, it is still a mortal sin even though it wasn’t actually Friday. It is always a mortal sin to intentionally eat meat on an abstinence day, there is no need to discern the culpability with a priest.
Click to expand...
No its not a sin.

You must have full knowledge for a sin to be mortal.

If its Monday and you think its Friday and eat meat, its not mortal because you did not have full knowledge, but were confused.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top