Francis urges priests not to push cohabiting couples away

[JimR-OCDS]

manualman

Perhaps that’s the underlying problem here. Eucharist is indeed a profound and joyful source of Grace in our lives. But a disciplinary decision that prohibits those apparently in a state of stubborn refusal to repent is NOT the same thing as “banning” that person from Christ.

But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m not talking about those who refuse to repent, but those who do repent and seek union with Christ, but are banned from receiving the Holy Eucharist. I can see situations where a couple who are divorced and remarried, and have become repentant, but are not allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. What happens to them ? We all know that they either join another religion or give up religion all together. I think Pope Francis is looking at ways to bring them back into the Church.

I’m not certain you want me jumping into your personal life here, but I do know from personal experience that it can be hard to encourage loved ones to investigate the validity of previous marriages before ‘moving on.’

I only mentioned my marriage of 40 years, so that people aren’t thinking I’m looking at this issue for myself. I’m looking for others and I’m sure you know many like I do, who are divorced and remarried.

Jim

 

[Tomdstone]

I am not the magisterium, and neither is an encyclopedia But now we know what the council said and that should close the discussion.

Not so fast. I still say that there are a few isolated cases that illustrate that the following statements are not true:

What was a mortal sin in the past is still a mortal sin today.
What was not a mortal sin in the past is not a mortal sin today.
Although, generally, these statements are true in almost every case you can think of.

 

[manualman]

It was a mortal sin in the past to charge any interest on a loan. Today it is not.

Principles are harder to understand than rules. Children are taught rules before they are old enough to comprehend and apply principles.

Today and yesterday usury was and is a sin. In centuries past, it was easier to simplify the principle into a “rule” like you did: all charging of interest is usury. That was true in an economic era where cash was a parking place for surplus wealth, but everyday economics was conducted via barter. In such a system, there is no inflation and no economic costs of being “out” of your surplus wealth for a period of time when it is on loan.

It became MUCH harder to define usury when cash transactions became the norm and governments routinely expanded the money supply, which caused continuous inflation. All of a sudden, there IS a substantial downside to lending out cash and the charging of a certain amount of interest to compensate the lender for his opportunity cost is morally justified. Determining the line between fair business and usury also becomes a LOT trickier.

As in a lot of things, it’s easy to pick apart catholic morality if you consider morality and “rules” the same. But if you reason at the level of principles, doctrine is never rescinded. That’s also the same reason the church can never tell people who validly married, got divorced and then married somebody else that it’s OK to continue on that path. There’s no moral way to justify that without denigrating the idea that marriage is a lifetime covenant (unless, of course it is determined that no such union ever really took place in the first putative marriage).

 

[KCT]

They wont see it as that, they’ll see it as condoning what they’re doing. If they’re cohabitating then they’re already not educated in the faith, so they’ll go up and receive communion even though they’re in sin.

Not necessarily. Our pastor tells couples who are either living together, or who are in invalid marriages, that they should refrain from receiving Communion until the situation is rectified.

He does this kindly and in private.

What happens if they present themselves to him at Communion? I don’t know.

 

[KCT]

Hopefully the Pope will open the Eucharist to divorced and remarried couples, who have a desire to get closer to Jesus.

It makes no sense to use the sacrament as a whipping tool to make people conform.

But that’s just me. Jim

When one receives the sacrament in a state of mortal sin, they are bound even more closely to their sin.

So, the Church would have to declare that remarriage w/o annulment is no longer a mortal sin.

 

[Tomdstone]

Principles are harder to understand than rules. Children are taught rules before they are old enough to comprehend and apply principles.

Today and yesterday usury was and is a sin. In centuries past, it was easier to simplify the principle into a “rule” like you did: all charging of interest is usury. That was true in an economic era where cash was a parking place for surplus wealth, but everyday economics was conducted via barter. In such a system, there is no inflation and no economic costs of being “out” of your surplus wealth for a period of time when it is on loan.

It became MUCH harder to define usury when cash transactions became the norm and governments routinely expanded the money supply, which caused continuous inflation. All of a sudden, there IS a substantial downside to lending out cash and the charging of a certain amount of interest to compensate the lender for his opportunity cost is morally justified. Determining the line between fair business and usury also becomes a LOT trickier.

As in a lot of things, it’s easy to pick apart catholic morality if you consider morality and “rules” the same. But if you reason at the level of principles, doctrine is never rescinded. That’s also the same reason the church can never tell people who validly married, got divorced and then married somebody else that it’s OK to continue on that path. There’s no moral way to justify that without denigrating the idea that marriage is a lifetime covenant (unless, of course it is determined that no such union ever really took place in the first putative marriage).

You can always redefine a word so that it meant one thing in the past, and now it means something very different in the present.
I am not convinced by your argument which seems to be based on redefining the word usury.
As I see it, it was sinful to charge interest on a loan in the past. This statement is supported by the link given us by Gilliam. Today it is not.

 

[TMC]

You can always redefine a word so that it meant one thing in the past, and now it means something very different in the present.
I am not convinced by your argument which seems to be based on redefining the word usury.
As I see it, it was sinful to charge interest on a loan in the past. This statement is supported by the link given us by Gilliam. Today it is not.

Of course the Church’s understanding grows and changes over time, and as the Church’s understanding grows and changes, the Church’s teaching must also evolve and change. You are right that the Church used to teach that charging interest was always sinful, and no longer teaches that. The basic principle behind the old doctrine of usury (as I understand it) is that it is sinful to exploit another economically. The Church’s teaching on charging interest has changed because the Church now understands that not all interest-charging is exploitive. As Pope Francis just recently explained [emphasis mine]:

St. Vincent of Lerins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the deposit of faith, which grows and is strengthened with time. Here, human self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. Let us think of when slavery was accepted or the death penalty was allowed without any problem. So we grow in the understanding of the truth. Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment. Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.

The Church is not a static entity - as we grow in understanding the Church’s teachings must necessarily grow and change as well. The basics do not change – they are summed up in Christ’s two Great Commandments (Matt 22:27-40), but the application of those basics to our daily lives and the Church’s doctrines have evolved over time, and will continue to develop.

 

[manualman]

You can always redefine a word so that it meant one thing in the past, and now it means something very different in the present.
I am not convinced by your argument which seems to be based on redefining the word usury.
As I see it, it was sinful to charge interest on a loan in the past. This statement is supported by the link given us by Gilliam. Today it is not.

Again, you are demanding that moral principles operate as rules you can memorize instead of comprehend. Dog don’t hunt.

The ten commandments say “Thou Shall Not Kill” but it is not a violation of that commandment to defend your nation as a soldier in a just war. This is because there are often complex moral principles that underlie the seemingly black and white rule. Will you now accuse me of redefining the word “kill?”

 

[KimberlyCat]

I think he meant to love and welcome cohabitating couples in hopes that they marry in The Church. They can learn about the Sacrament of Matrimony and how important and beautiful it is. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them swim. But at least lead them and welcome them.

 

[Tomdstone]

Again, you are demanding that moral principles operate as rules you can memorize instead of comprehend. Dog don’t hunt.

The ten commandments say “Thou Shall Not Kill” but it is not a violation of that commandment to defend your nation as a soldier in a just war. This is because there are often complex moral principles that underlie the seemingly black and white rule. Will you now accuse me of redefining the word “kill?”

You have mistranslated the commandment. Correctly translated it says thou shalt not murder. Also you are trying to change the subject from the redefinition of the word usury.
In the past the word usury meant charging interest on a loan - any amount of interest.
You have redefined usury to mean today charging exorbitant interest on a loan.
So you can say usury is still a sin. But all you have done is redefine the word usury to mean something different today from what it meant in the past.
Since it is not clear to you, let me elaborate:
Usury was a sin in the past. (Here usury means any interest on a loan).
Usury is a sin today. (Here usury means exorbitant interest on a loan).
Therefore what was a sin in the past is a sin today (Wrong in this particular case, since the word usury refers to something different in the past from what it means today).

 

[Tomdstone]

The Church is not a static entity - as we grow in understanding the Church’s teachings must necessarily grow and change as well.

True. That is why it is not correct to say that in** all **cases:
What was a mortal sin in the past is a mortal sin today.
Although, it is true in most cases.

 

[SaintAugustine]

I think you misunderstand my comments, I am in complete agreement with Pope Francis. He says meet them where they are and teach truth. I’m all over both of these actions!

Jesus would tell this couple just what he told the woman at the well, truth with and in Love!

Years ago, I saved this excerpt from a Benedictine monk on the Rule of St Benedict (I think his name is Brother Jerome?):

“God works slowly, according to our individual needs. Better than anyone, He knows that doing it all at once would reduce us to shivering panic.”

I think that is what Pope Francis is conveying in all of these recent statements. I am a convert. Had I been whacked upside the head with a 2x4 with the birth control, abortion, homosexuality, etc. doctrines, I might not have converted. My faith grew (and continues to grow) deeper with time.

 

[pnewton]

It was a mortal sin in the past to charge any interest on a loan. Today it is not.

No. In the past it was a sin to take advantage of the poor. I understand your point, but you examples are both examples of where the terms change meaning and the purpose change meaning. In a since, slavery and usury (defined as receiving interest) are not and have never been objectively mortally sinful. On can find reasons in the past, and in a fantasy future, why these things could or could not be sinful.

So, cohabitation may fit in this same category if the definition changed just as much. For example, if cohabitation was occurring without sex as a type of betrothal prior to marriage, it might be allowable, as it is the sex outside of marriage part that is sinful.

What was a mortal sin in the past is still a mortal sin today.
What was not a mortal sin in the past is not a mortal sin today.

This is true only when something of substance in either the definition or the practice changes. It is untrue in that the underyling reason behind the sin, if it is evil, stays evil.

 

[Tomdstone]

In a since, slavery and usury (defined as receiving interest) are not and have never been objectively mortally sinful.

“In the Council of Vienne (1311) it was declared that if any person obstinately maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic.” See the link given above by Gilliam.
And of course, I find it **incredible **that you think it is not a mortal sin to enslave people. We have had cases in the news where women have been enslaved recently. So you really think it is not a mortal sin for a man to enslave young women?

 

[pnewton]

“In the Council of Vienne (1311) it was declared that if any person obstinately maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic.” See the link given above by Gilliam.

That in no way invalidates what I said. Let’s look at usury, as practiced then.

"…By these statutes they impose heavy burdens on those claiming the return of usurious payments, employing also various pretexts and ingenious frauds to hinder the return. We, therefore, wishing to get rid of these pernicious practices, decree …that all the magistrates, captains, rulers, consuls, judges, counsellors or any other officials of these communities who presume in the future to make, write or dictate such statutes, or knowingly decide that usury be paid or, if paid, that it be not fully and freely restored when claimed, incur the sentence of excommunication. "

Read the whole section (29) and ask if this sounds like modern banking or loan-sharking.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum15.htm

FYI - The document does not make a declaration of mortal sign. It only assigns a disciplinary punishment and is limited only to that time in which it was written. It is within a conciliar decree, not a solemn declaration.

 

[pnewton]

And of course, I find it **incredible **that you think it is not a mortal sin to enslave people. We have had cases in the news where women have been enslaved recently. So you really think it is not a mortal sin for a man to enslave young women?

I think you lack historical perspective. You are also responding this terms emotional content, not its diversity of meaning. I am not referring to anything recent or any slavery within that has been practiced in the last few centuries, with the possible exception of incarceration and drafted military service, two generally acceptable forms of slavery.

 

[ProVobis]

In the past the word usury meant charging interest on a loan - any amount of interest.
You have redefined usury to mean today charging exorbitant interest on a loan.

Would it be better if we call it “cost of borrowing,” which also includes late fees, risk covering, etc.? Because that’s what it really is. It is sinful if it violates any contracts or is fraudulent. But if it’s something that’s agreed upon by both parties, I fail to see the immorality.

 

[Tomdstone]

I am not referring to anything recent or any slavery within that has been practiced in the last few centuries, with the possible exception of incarceration and drafted military service, two generally acceptable forms of slavery.

In a since, slavery and usury (defined as receiving interest) are not and have never been objectively mortally sinful.

Did you say here that slavery is not and never has been objectively mortally sinful?

 

[Tomdstone]

In a since, slavery and usury (defined as receiving interest) are not and have never been objectively mortally sinful.

It sounds to me like usury (defined as receiving interest) was a mortal sin:

Usury was considered a Mortal Sin in the western Church which could not be removed by penance. In Dante’s Inferno, usurers were in one of the lowest levels of hell.
askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2005/10/never_a_borrowe.html

Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not Paperback
by Michael Hoffman (Author)
amazon.com/Usury-Christendom-The-Mortal-that/dp/0970378491

Lateran 3 decreed persons who accepted interest on loans could receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial. Pope Clement V made belief in the right to usury a heresy in 1311, abolishing all secular legislation which allowed it. Pope Sixtus V condemned the practice of charging interest as “detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity.”
It sounds pretty serious to me. Definitely not a venial sin.

 

[pnewton]

askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2005/10/never_a_borrowe.html

Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not Paperback
by Michael Hoffman (Author)
amazon.com/Usury-Christendom-The-Mortal-that/dp/0970378491

.

Not going to debate anti-catholic literature here. This garbage (especially that last guy who is a fringe, holocaust-denier who admits he wishes to free the world from Catholicism), needs to be taken to the appropriate venue. Oh, and the ask a priest is a non-priest blogger. I answered the first point and linked the entire document. I am not going to go point by point. Living together, having sex outside marriage, is objectively gravely sinful (the sex part). This is the teaching of the Church. You need to go over to the non-Catholic section to argue against Church teaching.