T
truelove_88
Guest
I did read what you posted. IT IS WRONG. Did you even read the article by Archbishop Chaput? He stated quite clearly and definitively that it was immoral and bafflingly naive. This is coming from a Church shepherd. And the church teachings are guidelines for each catholic to live there lives by. Not the other way around.First, you do not know where I am coming from, you haven’t read the article.
Second, not all “Church teaching” is rigid and inflexible. It was “Church teaching” that said betrothal would allow for pre-ceremonial sex, not pre-marital sex, and if you bothered to read the article, you would know where I was coming from, and what “Church teaching” was before the Council of Trent.
Third, it takes time for the Church to digest new information, and the statistics show those who are unofficially betrothed but intend to marry don’t suffer the same consequences(high divorce rates) as those who are FORNICATING without intent to marry. THAT is new information that renders the current pastoral approach to be outdated.
Its a subject for discussion, not for gouging each others eyes out with proverbial “Church teaching”. Church teaching is made to serve the people of God, the people of God are not made to serve church teachings.
A proposal is not an attempt to change Church teaching, but to have them clarified and make them speak to our world in our time, without making any compromises. There is nothing in this article that is radically liberal or “against Church teaching”, before you go jumping to legalistic conclusions - at the risk of alienating weak Catholics permanently.
Thae article is not focused on those “playing house” or “shacking up”, it’s about Catholics caught between a rock and a hard place.
uscatholic.claretians.org/sit…rp4kdy3.app14b