On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[ProVobis]

And for degrees of the same sinful matter that cross between venial and mortal, there is, at some point, a line that is crossed. What was venial becomes mortal.

But that’s just it. Does God say to us at judgement and say “I drew the line at $99 and you stole $100.”? I think the commandment says no stealing, period.

But if you do, go to confession.

 

[ProVobis]

I would note that the Latin version of the 1983 code of Canon Law is the only authorized text. How many members of marriage tribunals have even read and comprehended the technicalities of the complex law they are applying? I will say this concerns what one might know about the intricacies of canon law and the difficulty of translation from Latin to English which is often awkward.

This is true, but it won’t stop the Anglophones from trying to apply English law, with its may’s and should’s and must’s and this’s and that’s in their communications and interpretation of Canon Law. .

 

[Thomas_White]

This is true, but it won’t stop the Anglophones from trying to apply English law, with its may’s and should’s and must’s and this’s and that’s in their communications and interpretation of Canon Law. .

The U.S. English translation of canon law is only approved for study purposes and consultation and does not have “force of law”.

 

[Thomas_White]

Like stated above, it involves two people making public vows to each other. The tribunal exists to see the validity of the vows to the couple, and the community as a whole.

I understand Catholic teaching, have no personal concern and have only presented questions for discussion. I don’t wish to belabor the point. Simply stated, I cannot see how a tribunal could grant immunity from final judgment should it err. Each person is ultimately responsible for their own salvation, and it is this I do not believe can be delegated.

 

[JimG]

. . .

I know it happens but also that it did not happen in this instance. Could I be wrong in believing the marriage was valid? There is the possibility, but **I am also persuaded the tribunal would not have found the marriage null and void had it known what I knew. **Beyond that, there was also a technically under canon law where the distant marriage tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the case anyway. Only I could have known why, but again I said nothing. But in fact, I knew it was the Decree of Nullity that was null and void.

I understand that you did not wish to participate in the process, and that it was your right not to do so. Yet, in this case the tribunal would have reached a different decision had it known what you knew. So in fact, you did participate in influencing the outcome.

 

[Thomas_White]

I understand that you did not wish to participate in the process, and that it was your right not to do so. Yet, in this case the tribunal would have reached a different decision had it known what you knew. So in fact, you did participate in influencing the outcome.

Well, that was an overstatement on my part, I guess, since I really don’t know it for a fact. It is thus hypothetical. This all occurred some years ago when annual marriage annullments in the U.S. were very high as tribunals had begun granting annullments on grounds that were inferred from written testimony concerning alleged behavior sometimes occurring long after the marriage ceremony. Those many cases would never have been granted under the 1917 code of Canon Law where marriage was in essence a contract concerning conjugal relations. If a couple agreed during the marriage ceremony, it was a done deal absent a defect of form. It seems to me what has occurred has become a mess.

I don’t doubt my non-participation was an influence, but the fact there was a reconcilliation that endures years later cannot be ignored either, and upon reflection I realize this fact has influenced my thinking–what I then thought was the reality. The point was really that tribunals do err and error has consequences, the example presented beside the larger point. If a person or couple can’t make the determination of validity themselves, considering they were the two persons who made the agreement, I just don’t see how others who have no prior knowledge of the marriage could do it better. It seems as though the grounds for annullment have expanded way beyond the consent of the couple at the time the Sacrament of Marriage occurred and that this could ever expand. “I only thought it was what I thought.”

Anyway, the intent was only to present a question. Not in this instance, but there is a bit of a tendency to at once view any question presented for discussion as a disagrement with Church teaching. So I presented it in some detail while trying to make it clear as only in the context of a question before the synod.

 

[pnewton]

Here is one of many reports. I always respect Archbishop Chaput.

lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-chaput-synods-working-text-risks-compromise-with-sin

There are many reports pointing to the same direction.

The article says nothing about gettin rid of the word and the concept of sin.

 

[sarah_j]

Here is one of many reports. I always respect Archbishop Chaput.

lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-chaput-synods-working-text-risks-compromise-with-sin

There are many reports pointing to the same direction.

You’re right about that.
Here’s a report which was posted this morning on another thread. It isn’t only
Archbishop Chaput who is critical of the “working document” of the Synod.

** ‘Flawed, inadequate’ – bishops skewer synod’s working doc in new report

The document – officially called an Instrumentum Laboris – also fell short “especially in its theology, clarity, trust in the power of grace, its use of scripture and its tendency to see the world through overwhelmingly Western eyes,” the bishops said Friday.**

When the bishops are saying that the working document of the synod falls short
in theology, trust in grace, and its use of scripture, there is reason for concern.

 

[PTL]

You’re right about that.
Here’s a report which was posted this morning on another thread. It isn’t only
Archbishop Chaput who is critical of the “working document” of the Synod.

** ‘Flawed, inadequate’ – bishops skewer synod’s working doc in new report**

The document – officially called an Instrumentum Laboris – also fell short “especially in its theology, clarity, trust in the power of grace, its use of scripture and its tendency to see the world through overwhelmingly Western eyes,” the bishops said Friday.

When the bishops are saying that the working document of the synod falls short
in theology, trust in grace, and its use of scripture, there is reason for concern.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.
catholicphilly.com/2015/10/news/world-news/archbishop-chaput-joins-in-synod-observation/

And sodomy is being pushed big time currently. They don’t have to literally “say” that they want to get rid of the word or concept of “sin”. They push to give the Holy Eucharist to the active homosexuals is an undeniable fact that they think what used to be mortal sin is no longer a sin. The teaching from both the New Testament and the Catechism are very clear that we must receive the Lord worthily. To promote receiving the Eucharist with active homosexual behavior is saying to get rid of the concept of sin and everything goes.

Please pray the Rosary for the Synod.

 

[Thomas_White]

The article noted above concerning Archbishop Chaput states that “the John Paul II Institutes on Marriage and Family” said a passage of the Instrumentum Laboris contradicts “Catholic teaching against the intrinsically evil act of using contraception”. There have been a number of comments quoted in other articles derivative of a comment by I believe Cardinal Kasper concerning “Intrinsic evil” where in essence the notion of intrinsic evil was questioned. It seems it has proven controversial.

In Genesis, God says his Creation is good, very good. In God’s very good Creation there cannot be intrinsic evil and to maintain there is would be to say God created evil. That’s it in a nutshell. Evil is the misue by man of God’s creation and so would be contraception.

lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-chaput-synods-working-text-risks-compromise-with-sin

 

[simple_soul]

Yes, I agree with you 100%.
catholicphilly.com/2015/10/news/world-news/archbishop-chaput-joins-in-synod-observation/

And sodomy is being pushed big time currently. They don’t have to literally “say” that they want to get rid of the word or concept of “sin”. They push to give the Holy Eucharist to the active homosexuals is an undeniable fact that they think what used to be mortal sin is no longer a sin. The teaching from both the New Testament and the Catechism are very clear that we must receive the Lord worthily. To promote receiving the Eucharist with active homosexual behavior is saying to get rid of the concept of sin and everything goes.

Please pray the Rosary for the Synod.

I’m not sure but I don’t believe this is the whole of the understanding of how to receive the Eucharist. Yes we are to receive the Eucharist worthily and if we don’t we receive Our Lord worthily it is to our own detriment or damnation. So the actual teaching is if we choose to receive Jesus unworthily we damn ourselves. So I guess the question really is what exactly makes us worthy?

 

[sarah_j]

Paragraph 137 of the working document seems particularly troublesome:

**Major appeal by theologians urges Pope to delete ‘seriously defective’ Synod text on contraception

ROME, September 14, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – As many as 60 highly distinguished Catholic moral theologians and philosophers are appealing to Pope Francis to delete a controversial paragraph from the preparatory document for the Synod of the Family that they say “contradicts” Catholic teaching against the “intrinsically evil act” of using contraception.

They say if the text is approved during the Synod next month in Rome, it could have “devastating consequences for the faithful.”

“As Catholic moral theologians and philosophers, we feel morally obligated to speak out against the distortion of Catholic teaching implicit in paragraph 137…

While paragraph 137 calls conscience “God’s voice resounding in the human heart which is trained to listen,” the authors note how the text easily lends itself to an interpretation that “God’s voice” at times “speaks against an objective norm taught by the Church” or is “detached from the moral law.”

“The ‘voice’ of God does not tell one person one thing about morality and another person another,” the appeal states. “Once conscience is separated from the law, it is no longer a way of standing before God. Rather, by this way of thinking, in one’s conscience one will stand only before oneself.”**

read more:
lifesitenews.com/news/major-appeal-by-theologians-urges-pope-to-delete-seriously-defective-synod

 

[ProVobis]

So I guess the question really is what exactly makes us worthy?

Sacramental confession?

 

[PTL]

I’m not sure but I don’t believe this is the whole of the understanding of how to receive the Eucharist. Yes we are to receive the Eucharist worthily and if we don’t we receive Our Lord worthily it is to our own detriment or damnation. So the actual teaching is if we choose to receive Jesus unworthily we damn ourselves. So I guess the question really is what exactly makes us worthy?

You can read the Catechism about the difference of mortal sin and venial sin. It is very clear of the Church’s teaching that people in mortal sin should not receive the Eucharist unless they go to confession and resolve to change their life style. Unless you disagree with the Catechism, it is very clear and should not be in question.

 

[simple_soul]

You can read the Catechism about the difference of mortal sin and venial sin. It is very clear of the Church’s teaching that people in mortal sin should not receive the Eucharist unless they go to confession and resolve to change their life style. Unless you disagree with the Catechism, it is very clear and should not be in question.

And what exactly constitutes mortal sin? Even this gets debated endlessly on these forums…

 

[pnewton]

I’m not sure but I don’t believe this is the whole of the understanding of how to receive the Eucharist. Yes we are to receive the Eucharist worthily and if we don’t we receive Our Lord worthily it is to our own detriment or damnation. So the actual teaching is if we choose to receive Jesus unworthily we damn ourselves. So I guess the question really is what exactly makes us worthy?

The answer is that mortal sin, actual real and active mortal sin, makes us unworthy, if we go by what St. Paul wrote. This is applied everywhere, except in the case of divorce and remarriage, where it is the presumed objective state that bars one from communion.

 

[sarah_j]

There have been a number of comments quoted in other articles derivative of a comment by I believe Cardinal Kasper concerning “Intrinsic evil” where in essence the notion of intrinsic evil was questioned. It seems it has proven controversial.

No doubt !
I haven’t seen the comments you cited by Cardinal Kasper. But if he is
questioning the notion of intrinsic evil, it should come as no surprise that
his comment has proven controversial.

Do you know where his remarks questioning intrinsic evil can be found?

 

[PTL]

Latest Synod news from Rome:

churchmilitant.com/news/article/synod-showdown-reportoctober-10-2015

 

[graciew]

But that’s just it. Does God say to us at judgement and say “I drew the line at $99 and you stole $100.”? I think the commandment says no stealing, period.

But if you do, go to confession.

Plain and simple. Agree .

 

[pnewton]

Latest Synod news from Rome:

churchmilitant.com/news/article/synod-showdown-reportoctober-10-2015

Just to be clear, that is from some guy name Michael Voris, and is commentary, not news. Yes, it appeared to be filmed in Rome.