Dramatic move as Synod Fathers set out new pastoral care for gays, cohabiting couples and divorcees

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gracepoole said:
The Holy Spirit works through all pontiffs – we need to trust in that in order to be Catholic. If you believe that the Church is inherently the truth, there is nowhere else to go. We are called to trust.
Click to expand...
ProVobis said:
Let’s be careful with these types of arguments. Protestants believe the Holy Spirit guides them too.

Just sayin…
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar with any protestants who accept the authority of popes. And therein lies the difference.
 
JackVk said:
I don’t know where you’re getting this idea of “selling out”. This document affirms the sinfulness of homosexual actions. All it is saying is that homosexual persons are not to be treated like garbage simply because they are gay.

Put yourself in their shoes. Say you were a homosexual wanting the healing of Christ. As you go to the confessional, the priest kicks you out of the church, shouting “get lost, fudge packer!”

Because that is what this document is saying to avoid.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding with this?? The CCC says NO such thing! It teaches respect and compassion! But it does not “value the orientation.” That is the issue here.

You can’t get healed if you’re an “out and proud” homosexual, because you are not repentant. If you or I sin and do not repent, are we forgiven?
 
JimG said:
And that would require the Church to take the Orthodox view of the marriage bond as inherently breakable, and I don’t think that will happen either.

In fact if it did happen, I predict it would result in even more divorces, since couples would in effect say, “wait, we won’t even need an annulment! We, or just I, can break this marriage bond!” Catholic divorce would then in perfectly aligned with civil divorce.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And civil divorce will in turn become even easier.
 
anon99031074 said:
There are not more divorces in the Orthodox Church than in the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Catholic Church already teaches that the marriage bond is “inherently breakable”, since it allows divorce and remarriage when the marriage is not considered sacramental. But Jesus did not single out sacramental marriages as being singularly unbreakable. He was speaking to Jews who were not baptized, when he told them “let no man separate”.
Click to expand...
The Church allows a declaration of nullity for a marriage that is not considered valid. Sacramentality is not an issue in a tribunal decision.

If the marriage was invalid, i.e., it did not take place to begin with, then it is null and can be declared so.
 
anon99031074 said:
There are not more divorces in the Orthodox Church than in the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Catholic already teaches that the marriage bond is “inherently breakable”, since it allows divorce and remarriage when the marriage is not considered sacramental. But Jesus did not single out sacramental marriages as being singularly unbreakable. He was speaking to Jews who were not baptized, when he told them “let no man separate”.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point and it does seem that the convoluted rules to prove a marriage invalid are man-made. And like any man-made laws, prone to error. Which means that some invalid marriages still stand in the Church’s eyes, and some valid ones declared invalid.

Hopefully not very many, but certainly not zero. One wonders what Jesus would make of the marriage tribunals, and the notion of retroactively proving nullity.
 
PeopleB4Things said:
You know I can find quotes from Jesus where he commands us to love each other as he loves us and as we love ourselves. So, when you can bestow upon homosexuals deep, enduring, boundless, unconditional love, the same love Jesus has asked us to give, you’re good to go. If you, in your thoughts or words can condemn people for showing deep, enduring, boundless, unconditional love to others, you might have some work to do. I know I have some work to do. I have a horrible dislike of the Royals right now even though their players have done well. I am but a human. 😉
Click to expand...
Are you prepared to take the position that the love in a gay couple is akin to the love Christ has for us? Or the love we have for one another? Methinks no.

And also, NO ONE here is condemning anyone as long as I’ve been following these threads. The sin is already condemned by God and His Church. We are merely understanding that fact same as any other sin condemned by Him similarly. No one here has cast judgment or hate or vitriol, so I will keep calling that mistake out as I see it because there is a huge difference.
 
JimG said:
The Church allows a declaration of nullity for a marriage that is not considered valid. Sacramentality is not an issue in a tribunal decision.

If the marriage was invalid, i.e., it did not take place to begin with, then it is null and can be declared so.
Click to expand...
Not merely invalid:

“In the Catholic Church and in some Protestant denominations (although most Protestants allow divorce in all circumstances), this is interpreted as allowing the dissolution of a marriage between two non-baptized persons in the case that one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and converts to Christianity and the other partner leaves the marriage. According to the Catholic Church’s canon law, the Pauline Privilege does not apply when either of the partners was a Christian at the time of marriage. It differs from annulment because it dissolves a valid natural (but not sacramental) marriage whereas an annulment declares that a marriage was invalid from the beginning.” - WIkipedia.
 
alwaysthinkin said:
Are you kidding with this?? The CCC says NO such thing! It teaches respect and compassion! But it does not “value the orientation.” That is the issue here.

You can’t get healed if you’re an “out and proud” homosexual, because you are not repentant. If you or I sin and do not repent, are we forgiven?
Click to expand...
All of this is assuming that they will repent. This will be the third time I have said this:

I have a friend who used to be an active lesbian. She has repented of that lifestyle. She now uses her same-sex attraction as her ethos for living a chaste life in Christ. That’s what is possibly meant by “valuing the orientation”.
 
OraLabora said:
That’s a good point and it does seem that the convoluted rules to prove a marriage invalid are man-made. And like any man-made laws, prone to error. Which means that some invalid marriages still stand in the Church’s eyes, and some valid ones declared invalid.

Hopefully not very many, but certainly not zero. One wonders what Jesus would make of the marriage tribunals, and the notion of retroactively proving nullity.
Click to expand...
It was Jesus who declared the permanence of marriage. So perhaps he would not even consider declarations of nullity, tribunals, or divorce.

Alternatively, we could take the EO view and simply allow the husband or wife to declare the marriage permanently broken, by just getting a divorce. That would simplify things.
 
McCall1981 said:
Well these are interesting. It turns out Bp Forte wrote the homosexuality paragraphs himself, and Card Erdo basically disowned them. The plot thickens:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/magister-pitched-battle-on-mad-monday.html?m=1

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/cardinal-on-his-own-reports-paragraphs.html?m=1
Click to expand...
Perhaps your should read the sources, instead of the angry rant of the traditionalist? I do not see any disowning here:

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/sinodo-famiglia-36916/
 
anon99031074 said:
Not merely invalid:

“In the Catholic Church and in some Protestant denominations (although most Protestants allow divorce in all circumstances), this is interpreted as allowing the dissolution of a marriage between two non-baptized persons in the case that one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and converts to Christianity and the other partner leaves the marriage. According to the Catholic Church’s canon law, the Pauline Privilege does not apply when either of the partners was a Christian at the time of marriage. It differs from annulment because it dissolves a valid natural (but not sacramental) marriage whereas an annulment declares that a marriage was invalid from the beginning.” - WIkipedia.
Click to expand...
I was not writing about the Pauline Privilege.
To quote from a Canon Law blog, “Annulments are about the validity of marriage, not about sacramentality.”
 
McCall1981 said:
Well these are interesting. It turns out Bp Forte wrote the homosexuality paragraphs himself, and Card Erdo basically disowned them. The plot thickens:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/magister-pitched-battle-on-mad-monday.html?m=1

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/cardinal-on-his-own-reports-paragraphs.html?m=1
Click to expand...
Gossip. And not very clear gossip at that. Speculating a great deal on a simple phrase expressed by Cardinal Erdo.

The author of this blog obviously doesn’t like the paragraph and is trying to slander who he thinks is the author of the paragraph.

Archbishop Bruno Forte is the synod’s special secretary. He said in a news conference afterward that while the church does not condone gay unions or gay marriage, it must “respect the dignity of every person.” “The fundamental idea is the centrality of the person independently of sexual orientation.” This is in line with Catholic teaching.

Let’s see what happens this week and how the document is modified and what is voted on Saturday.
 
gilliam said:
Gossip. And not very clear gossip at that. Speculating a great deal on a simple phrase expressed by Cardinal Erdo.

The author of this blog obviously doesn’t like the paragraph and is trying to slander who he thinks is the author of the paragraph.

Let’s see what happens this week and how the document is modified and what is voted on Saturday.
Click to expand...
But I thought the cardinals said there was no voting…!😛
 
JimG said:
I was not writing about the Pauline Privilege.
To quote from a Canon Law blog, “Annulments are about the validity of marriage, not about sacramentality.”
Click to expand...
But I was. Here, the CC grants true divorce, in direct violation of Jesus words, who said nothing about “let not man separate” being exclusive to sacramental marriages. It was Paul who felt he had the authority to soften the words of Jesus, but he stated at the outset:* “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)”. *

So, Paul felt he could make an exception, but he was careful to note that it was his words, not those of the Lord. Paul was an apostle. The bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have no less authority than he did. Furthermore, if marriage was truly ontologically indissoluble, it would be impossible to break it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top