Lifesite News claims: "Bishop apologizes to unrepentant adulterers, invites them back to the sacraments "

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lifesite is exhausting. It requires that I go poking around the Internet for a more reliable source so de-spin their inflammatory, hate-mongering account of something that 9/10 times turns out to be overblown, anti-Catholic, inaccurately portrayed, or all along a non-issue.

This author - who shockingly also writes for Aleteia - fails to provide reliable citations, (only links to her own work), and, as pointed out by @Tis_Bearself completely and uncharitably misrepresents the letters.

I’ve already wasted far too many keystrokes on this thread. CAFers who rely on this site should just be honest and convert to sedavacantism. Or one of those Catholic-bashing Baptist churches.
 
The quotation marked text is accurate, i checked on a italian website
 
I don’t think the Church intends to loose souls. They try to keep a consistent message. What I think happens is their objective viewpoint serves the purpose of limiting confusion or scandal, but it fails often to address what Jesus did with table fellowship, for example.
I see the passages about Jesus dining with tax collectors as a very big challenge to the clergy. Clergy then as well as today have the very same challenges. And I think have similar reaction. Jesus was hated for eating with sinners by his contemporary clergy. Some point out it formed the attitudes that condemned him.
But Jesus understood, you don’t impose burdens on a drowning man and why you don’t. Jesus called them the sick but it is the same idea. Pope Francis spoke of not denying the sick medicine. I think his idea goes beyond the concern of WORTHINESS that supports the push back. ( After all we are all rank unworthy). I think he sees the Eucharist in much the way Jesus saw table fellowship.
And I agree with you and the truth that Jesus was a forgiving victim.
 
Last edited:
Non sequitur. One instance of publishing an unaltered document from another source does not prove overall reliability of the site. And who tried to bury this story and why? Facts, please, not hyperbole.
 
whatistrue said:
One instance of publishing an unaltered document from another source does not prove overall reliability of the site. And who tried to bury this story and why?
Click to expand...
Neither does any suggestions of unreliability concerning LifeSiteNews suggesting burying
  • sans necessary supportive argumentation
  • prove unreliability of LifeSiteNews.
 
Last edited:
Most people who specifically mentioned their opinion on the site’s unreliability cited a history of such. It is not always necessary to exhaustively justify a personal opinion in any case. And I did not myself express any opinion on the site; I only responded to your claim that the letter being verifiable proved the reliability of the site, which does not follow. All done with this one…
 
whatistrue said:
Most people who specifically mentioned their opinion on the site’s unreliability cited a history of such.
Click to expand...
False Argumentum Ad Populum .

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
 
False application of the fallacy. I never said that the opinions expressed were either true or false, and certainly not because of popularity. I said that most who expressed those opinions cited a history of perceived unreliability, and that it is not necessary to exhaustively justify an opinion. If you are going to say I am wrong, at least say it about what I actually said, not what you feel like arguing against.
 
Neither does any suggestions of unreliability concerning LifeSiteNews suggesting burying
sans necessary supportive argumentation
prove unreliability of LifeSiteNews.
whatistrue said:
If you are going to say I am wrong, at least say it about what I actually said,
Click to expand...
What you said in response to what I’d said?

" Most people who specifically mentioned their opinion on the site’s unreliability cited a history of such "

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so.”
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it,
Click to expand...
Show me where I said any of those opinions was true. I specifically noted that they were opinion.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
As usual, a distortion that makes it difficult to take Lifesite and its tiresome perpetual outrage seriously.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I find myself taking seriously some semi imprudent websites I previously ignored due to wildly imprudent antics taking place under official auspices in Rome.
 
Last edited:
I agree that LifeSite is being sensationalistic here, but they are more than likely accurate as well. The Bishop’s statement contains several buzzwords that make me suspicious that he is doing more than inviting divorced/remarried Catholics back to try to get annulments. His use of the word “rigid” is a big red flag here as he is implying that St. John Paul II was being “rigid” when he stated that Catholics who are in invalid marriages cannot receive the Eucharist, a practice that is rooted in Church doctrine and tradition. My guess is that this directive was meant to imply that they will be allowed to receive communion without restrictions and that priests who aren’t accommodating will be told to get in line, or else. It wouldn’t be the first time.
 
DIERM said:
Then, again, please start a new thread on Lifesite, and let this thread be about the Bishop’s statement, regardless of who published it.
Click to expand...
No.

Each thread that starts with an article from LifeSite needs to be analyzed through the lens of LifeSite’s reputation. That’s all that is happening here, and discussing LifeSite is completely appropriate in order to try and parse the message through the fear-mongering and clergy-bashing that they engage in.
 
Weserthy said:
this directive was meant to imply that they will be allowed to receive communion without restrictions and that priests who aren’t accommodating will be told to get in line, or else
Click to expand...
Have you actually read the letter ? It isn’t a “directive” ordering priests to do anything, it is an invitation for couples in an invalid situation to meet with people from the pastoral care of the family.

Nowhere does the Bishop state that these couples will be granted access to sacraments. He apologizes for the hurt felt by people who felt cast out not only from the sacraments, but also from the community and its support at a difficult time, for the lack of pastoral sensitivity some experienced, and he reminds them that Jesus heals broken lives.
 
whatistrue said:
Show me where I said any of those opinions was true. I specifically noted that they were opinion.
Click to expand...
yet… you posted “most…” Why?

in support was it? of your opinion was it? that LifeSiteNews is less than orthodox?

or is it that - some might charge that Bishop in disobedience to Church Teachings re: Communion?

Some aver that LifeSiteNews is despised by the heterodox…
 
Last edited:
This letter is an invitation to a meeting. The point and invitation is right at the bottom of the letter in the appropriate English Translation.
There is no discussion about what will happen or be decided at that meeting.
I am sure we will hear what happens though.

Oops no idea how or why I replied to you Genesis, it is a general reply
 
Last edited:
OddBird said:
Have you actually read the letter ? It isn’t a “directive” ordering priests to do anything, it is an invitation for couples in an invalid situation to meet with people from the pastoral care of the family.

Nowhere does the Bishop state that these couples will be granted access to sacraments. He apologizes for the hurt felt by people who felt cast out not only from the sacraments, but also from the community and its support at a difficult time, for the lack of pastoral sensitivity some experienced, and he reminds them that Jesus heals broken lives.
Click to expand...
This.

I think the rules of posting news articles should be the poster summarises the article with the main points.

The accuracy, credibility , or lack thereof, of the news agency is not in question here because the letter has been printed in its entirety in its English Translation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top