- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Just remember we are still early in this story.
V
Vouthon
Guest
T
Tobias2
Guest
True. So far only a few bishops’ conferences have embraced the clear meaning of AL. Praise to the Germans for doing so. In the US it will take a while but as new bishops come on board I expect the US will formally make the same decision.
Eventually this should become the practice of the whole Church. Some bishops’ conference, like Poland, will not embrace this now but one can’t have different teachings on a core Church doctrine from county to county. The Polish church will come along eventually but it will be a long while.
The German bishops have been prophetic on this insofar as they have been discerning this “issue” for a long while. As they are a the forefront of other issues that require an open discussion in the Church, I look forward to their contribution to the 2018 synod on youth and vocations.
J
JPUSC
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
Even as this story unfolds, I am still hopeful that we can maintains a high level of decorum and proper respect.
D
dans0622
Guest
It seems worth pointing out that a Bishop’s Conference does not have the same role to play here as do the individual bishops in their own dioceses. The Conference can give an indication of a nationwide direction but, ultimately, (according to my recollection of what Amoris laetitia says) the local pastor, under the direction of his bishop, is where the rubber meets the road.
In this case, it is not even the entire German Conference who issued the statement but what is called the “permanent council.”
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/group-of-german-bishops-approve-communion-for-the-remarried/
Dan
In this case, it is not even the entire German Conference who issued the statement but what is called the “permanent council.”
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/group-of-german-bishops-approve-communion-for-the-remarried/
Dan
P
psalm90
Guest
I’m getting old and I thought there was something positive about what the Pope apparently had said. There’s all this clamor and furor. I may be way off, but what seems to be going on is that the Pope is saying that there is the possibility, on a case by case basis, for reconciliation with the Church under this divorce and remarriage situation.
Perhaps what the conservative bishops are stating is that they are concerned about the precedent for doing this, that it will legitimize through the sacrament of reconciliation, what the church has long resisted, common divorce and remarriage – for all the reasons that they would and should oppose that. They are concerned that AL would put the church in a position of sanctioning a marriage while a previous marriage is still an impediment.
Annulment seems to be the only path to leaving one “marriage” and entering into another. The whole thing seems to focus on whether getting a divorce is a sin that can be forgiven. Perhaps there’s more to it than this (well sure, there’s the house, the kids, the dog, the cars, the vacation home, money, pensions, etc.) in the moral and juridical realm.
It seems that the Church’s position is too rigid, and perhaps that is what Pope Francis is saying – what he said, towards the culmination of the Year of Mercy.
Hypothetical question: Can’t the Church forgive the sin of divorce and remarriage? There is so much damage done to people’s lives already, in failed marriages.
Hypothetical question: Would the Church forgiving the sin of divorce and remarriage BE the unforgiveable sin?
Hypothetical question: are there other such unforgiveable sins?
Perhaps what the conservative bishops are stating is that they are concerned about the precedent for doing this, that it will legitimize through the sacrament of reconciliation, what the church has long resisted, common divorce and remarriage – for all the reasons that they would and should oppose that. They are concerned that AL would put the church in a position of sanctioning a marriage while a previous marriage is still an impediment.
Annulment seems to be the only path to leaving one “marriage” and entering into another. The whole thing seems to focus on whether getting a divorce is a sin that can be forgiven. Perhaps there’s more to it than this (well sure, there’s the house, the kids, the dog, the cars, the vacation home, money, pensions, etc.) in the moral and juridical realm.
It seems that the Church’s position is too rigid, and perhaps that is what Pope Francis is saying – what he said, towards the culmination of the Year of Mercy.
Hypothetical question: Can’t the Church forgive the sin of divorce and remarriage? There is so much damage done to people’s lives already, in failed marriages.
Hypothetical question: Would the Church forgiving the sin of divorce and remarriage BE the unforgiveable sin?
Hypothetical question: are there other such unforgiveable sins?
K
Kliska
Guest
As an outsider here’s my take;
The CC is focused on fornication/adultery in these cases, not “so much” on the divorce. Divorce is a one off sin. For there to be an *actual *remarriage that would permit sex between the man and woman, it would have to be shown that either the first “marriage” never really happened OR the first spouse has died. Hence, the answer was that if there had been a civil remarriage, the spouses must live like brother and sister and quit the sex. So, indeed the divorce/remarriage sin can be forgiven.
In other words, the fuss is because there’s not just one sin (divorce and/or remarriage) but ongoing sin (fornication and/or adultery) unless they stop having sex.
As for receiving the Eucharist, it’s tied to that. So, as taught by the CC, if someone is committing the sin of adultery/fornication with no intention to stop, then it is ongoing mortal sin and they should not receive the Eucharist for the sake of their own soul. It’s not so much about one sin that can’t be forgiven but rather ongoing sin with no change.
T
TCEL
Guest
My theological understanding is that marriage is an icon of Christ and the Church. Relations with someone not your spouse is akin to Israel “covenanting,” or “knowing,” false gods.
Whenever I bring this up, I get the vibe that this is just pretty symbology, or too quaint and old-fashioned. It isn’t just about committing sin, or just about sex. There are deeper realities here tied in with our perception of God. To me, these are just as important as the the practical concerns.
Sure, one of my natural impulses is to say, “Aw, come on. Be merciful. Theological significance is one thing, but can you really expect everyday people to care in the midst of their misery? Who are you to judge? Human life is messy. Who are you to lay heavy burdens on others and lift no finger to help them!? Maybe we’re just evolving. You’re just like the prodigal son’s big brother!”
However, the other voice says, “God isn’t arbitrary. Either marriage, our bodies, and sacraments mean something, or they don’t. I see no way this can’t be applied to other areas like contraception. Did God really just use nuptial imagery by mistake, or did he mean it?”
Whenever I bring this up, I get the vibe that this is just pretty symbology, or too quaint and old-fashioned. It isn’t just about committing sin, or just about sex. There are deeper realities here tied in with our perception of God. To me, these are just as important as the the practical concerns.
Sure, one of my natural impulses is to say, “Aw, come on. Be merciful. Theological significance is one thing, but can you really expect everyday people to care in the midst of their misery? Who are you to judge? Human life is messy. Who are you to lay heavy burdens on others and lift no finger to help them!? Maybe we’re just evolving. You’re just like the prodigal son’s big brother!”
However, the other voice says, “God isn’t arbitrary. Either marriage, our bodies, and sacraments mean something, or they don’t. I see no way this can’t be applied to other areas like contraception. Did God really just use nuptial imagery by mistake, or did he mean it?”
A
ARSpade
Guest
Can we get waivers for other sins? I’ve got some I struggle with and it would be just easier, I mean, more merciful if I didn’t have to bother with confession all the time.
P
pnewton
Guest
Well, no one has suggested waivers for any sin. However, can still receive communion after committing sin. Heck, we need to receive communion after committing sin, unless it was mortal (and we are no longer in a state of grace?)
C
Constantin
Guest
The German bishops’ statement published today is nothing but an affirmation of the authentic interpretation of AL as given by cardinal Schönborn and approved by the bishop of Rome. It does not come as a surprise.
Imho the thread title is greatly over-simplifying considering the complexity of the issue at hand.
Imho the thread title is greatly over-simplifying considering the complexity of the issue at hand.
P
Pulvis
Guest
I do agree with you in principle. I also know how many Bishops followed Luther and became Lutheran. I pray for them daily.
T
Tobias2
Guest
Exactly. The Pope is being merciful in allowing individual bishops and bishops’ conferences to gradually discern the truth of AL, as the German bishops did today. As opposed to formally defining this development of dogma.
Hopefully all bishops the world over will take a cue from the German, Maltese and Argentine bishops and embrace AL.
To deny the Eucharist to those who AL clearly says should be able to receive it (after a discernment of conscious) is a grave matter. If some bishops over time do not provide this spiritual nourishment as per AL, then the Pope might have to step in and correct them.
For now it seems the Germans and other bishop groups mentioned above are the forefront of what eventually will be a universal implementation of this development of doctrine re: marriage, divorce and the Eucharist…
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
I think you’re right. Here’s how the Episcopal church handled it in the 1960’s.
"Notorious, and highly charismatic, California Episcopal Bishop James Pike, who graced the cover of Time magazine, embodied this new restlessness. At the church’s 1964 General Convention, he bewailed “outdated, incomprehensible, and nonessential doctrinal statements, traditions, and codes,” having seemingly forgotten his own consecration vows to steadfastly resist all “strange and erroneous doctrine.” Pike urged a “theological revolution” to make the Gospel “relevant,” which entailed junking “myths” of past centuries, like the Virgin Birth and the Trinity, which were “unintelligible.” Eventually Pike pushed so hard that heresy charges were formally pressed. But ultimately, the Episcopal Church nervously shrank from ousting Pike for his apostasies. Pike’s unprosecuted rebellion foreshadowed expanded chaos for the church, as it succumbed to the surrounding secular culture’s demand for personal autonomy, accompanied by moral fragmentation." spectator.org/39147_killing-church/
I pray God that there is strong response against this action and teaching. Otherwise I fear greatly the Catholic Church will go down a similar road.
V
Vouthon
Guest
I think you’re right. Here’s how the Episcopal church handled it in the 1960’s.
"Notorious, and highly charismatic, California Episcopal Bishop James Pike, who graced the cover of Time magazine, embodied this new restlessness. At the church’s 1964 General Convention, he bewailed “outdated, incomprehensible, and nonessential doctrinal statements, traditions, and codes,” having seemingly forgotten his own consecration vows to steadfastly resist all “strange and erroneous doctrine.” Pike urged a “theological revolution” to make the Gospel “relevant,” which entailed junking “myths” of past centuries, like the Virgin Birth and the Trinity, which were “unintelligible.” Eventually Pike pushed so hard that heresy charges were formally pressed. But ultimately, the Episcopal Church nervously shrank from ousting Pike for his apostasies. Pike’s unprosecuted rebellion foreshadowed expanded chaos for the church, as it succumbed to the surrounding secular culture’s demand for personal autonomy, accompanied by moral fragmentation." spectator.org/39147_killing-church/
I pray God that there is strong response against this action and teaching. Otherwise I fear greatly the Catholic Church will go down a similar road.
The Episcopal Church was not and is not an apostolic church.
The Catholic Church does not proclaim doctrinal error and never will.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think you’re right. Here’s how the Episcopal church handled it in the 1960’s.
. That was the Episcopal Church. I see no similarities. Why do you think this story applies?
W
Wesrock
Guest
M
MacBP
Guest
As a younger man, I was hopelessly addicted to both pornography and masturbation. The result was about six years where I did not receive Holy Communion. Eventually, out of a desire to reunite with God, I was forced to amend my life, turn away from my sin, and embrace a life of chastity. I’m not sure that this would have happened without that separation. I’m not sure this is truly merciful if it encourages people to remain in an adulterous relationship. How will someone choose God in the life hereafter if they’ve spent their life choosing against Him?
Moreover, there’s a whole can-of-worms that is opened. Wouldn’t it also be merciful to allow married couples in situations where unprotected sex might transmit STDs, or where an accidental pregnancy might be faithful, to use artificial birth control? What about same-sex couples. How can the Church honestly tell two men, or two women, in love that they absolutely cannot have a romantic relationship when they’re willing to let to unmarried heterosexuals do the same? The logic of allowing communion for sexually active divorcees can be spread pretty darn far.
- Status