On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[LongingSoul]

Reform without change is fine. It is necessary to remain who you are. The Church can’t change its doctrine, although there may be ways in which it changes how it lives out that doctrine. Gay marriage and divorce can never be accepted as catholic doctrine. But maybe the way we deal with gay people or with divorced people can change.

However, one persons ‘reform’ is another persons ‘change’. Take for example Pope Francis comment that we shouldn’t be talking so much about abortion and homosexuality and we should be focusing more on the poor and environmental sustainability issues. People see this as changing the traditional hierarchy of sin and can’t get the essence of it.

 

[Thomas_White]

Adultery. The first marriage is still valid and is inviolable.

How would it be objectively known that the person was in the state of mortal sin as a result of adultery?

 

[Thomas_White]

However, one persons ‘reform’ is another persons ‘change’. Take for example Pope Francis comment that we shouldn’t be talking so much about abortion and homosexuality and we should be focusing more on the poor and environmental sustainability issues. People see this as changing the traditional hierarchy of sin and can’t get the essence of it.

But how is this a change from the ‘traditional hierarchy of sin’? Can nothing other than adultery and homosexuality ever be mentioned? The Catholic teaching on those two sins is already very clear and very well known.

 

[sarah_j]

I haven’t read Cardinal Kaspers full reasoning other than what this article is quoting, but I do agree with that part of what he says. By saying ‘it does more harm than good’ I mean that unless a couple, who’ve obviously had weak or no faith already, suddenly develop the spiritual fortitude to adopt a celibate co-existence, the requirement is going to be damaging to the family unit.

The article I linked to commented on that very point.
Don’t forget, no one forced
these people into a second marriage. The choice to marry outside the church
was made freely.
I don’t understand people wanting the Church to sign off on their sinfulness.
When I was young, I did plenty that wasn’t approved of by the Church…but
I never asked everyone to pretend that what I was doing was a-okay. People need
to accept the consequences of their actions.

Cardinal Kasper was on *World Over* a few months ago and discussed

his ideas on the divorced and remarried.
youtube.com/watch?v=cA76iHWw8BA

 

[LongingSoul]

But how is this a change from the ‘traditional hierarchy of sin’? Can nothing other than adultery and homosexuality ever be mentioned? The Catholic teaching on those two sins is already very clear and very well known.

That’s what I’m saying. I agree with you. There’s a perception in some that to focus on other sins is to somehow give tacit approval to abortion or homosexuality but in reality focusing elsewhere could be the very remedy.

 

[LongingSoul]

The article I linked to commented on that very point.
Don’t forget, no one forced
these people into a second marriage. The choice to marry outside the church
was made freely.
I don’t understand people wanting the Church to sign off on their sinfulness.
When I was young, I did plenty that wasn’t approved of by the Church…but
I never asked everyone to pretend that what I was doing was a-okay. People need
to accept the consequences of their actions.

Cardinal Kasper was on *World Over* a few months ago and discussed

his ideas on the divorced and remarried.
youtube.com/watch?v=cA76iHWw8BA

I’ll have to watch the video later and make comment. The issue of divorced/remarried and homosexuality are different from other sins in that they require heroic sacrifice to be lived as Cardinal Kasper noted. That is why they have continually come to the discussion table within the Church for at least 30 or 40 years. It’s an issue over and above the regular problems of chastity that most people face because the only way is radical and permanent abstinence. Even as a long married person, I know of the difficulty involved in periodic abstinence… and can’t help but feel for others in the aforementioned group. The fact that Pope Francis allows the discussion… nay, is encouraging the discussion, tells me that they may be more to learn and discover theologically that could help us address it in better ways.

 

[Thomas_White]

That’s what I’m saying. I agree with you. There’s a perception in some that to focus on other sins is to somehow give tacit approval to abortion or homosexuality but in reality focusing elsewhere could be the very remedy.

Now I understand. Thanks. What I’ve thought is that there is much more to CatholicIsm and spirituality and that a wider understanding really does seem necessary. I felt the question of the OP, ‘How would the liberal bishops respond?’ did not become the actual discussion on the thread at all.

 

[I_trust]

On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

BUT…

In Cauda Venenum (The venom is in the tail)…

corbiniansbear.blogspot.com/2015/10/in-cauda-venenum-popes-homily.html

Fr Z linked the above blog here:

wdtprs.com/blog/2015/10/the-synod-begins-a-few-notes/

 

[I_trust]

What is the objective sin in living in a second union?

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

The wider culture has a different understanding of what the word “objectively” means.
Perhaps a better question would be …what is the moral object which makes the second union “objectively sinful”?..

Adultery

 

[I_trust]

CCC…

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

If the object is not good, the end in view/intention or circumstances can not make it moral.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, they are not presumed to be in a state of mortal sin. They are presumed to be in an invalid marriage. The question becomes, should one in a presumptively invalid marriage be considered free to receive the Eucharist?

It would seem the question should be if they are not presumed to be in a state of mortal sin should they be denied the Eucharist. In any event, the reality is they are presently presumed to be in an objective state of mortal sin.

It seems to me that if they do consider themselves free to receive the Eucharist, they must also by that fact presume their first marriage to be invalid. That’s a pretty broad short circuiting of the tribunal process, effectively delegating decision authority to one of the spouses involved. It would have in practice the same effect as no fault divorce. Either party might decide, at some point after the vows were recited, that the marriage was in fact null and thus they were free to marry again. The tribunal process could be replaced by a simple statement signed by one of the parties decreeing that the marriage is null. Is this where we are headed?

The difficulty of a marriage tribunal judging what is the equivalent of the superposition of a cat both alive and dead is one thing, but what of the denial of communion on the presumption that a divorced and civilly remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment is in the state of mortal sin when in fact he or she is not in a state of mortal sin?

 

[LongingSoul]

Cardinal Kasper was on *World Over* a few months ago and discussed

his ideas on the divorced and remarried.
youtube.com/watch?v=cA76iHWw8BA

sarah j, you can’t seriously think this is a Catholic show!! I’ve watched till the 21st minute and have to go have an antiseptic bath to remove the barnyard bull excrement from myself. This is a disgusting and odious interviewer. Is that the quality of Catholic media in America?? Even his non verbal mmms and aaahhhs are dripping with condescension and superiority. I’m sorry but that show and the interviewer are just too anti Catholic for me to take seriously.

 

[I_trust]

It would seem the question should be if they are not presumed to be in a state of mortal sin should they be denied the Eucharist. In any event, the reality is they are presently presumed to be in an objective state of mortal sin.

The difficulty of a marriage tribunal judging what is the equivalent of the superposition of a cat both alive and dead is one thing, but what of the denial of communion on the presumption that a divorced and civilly remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment is in the state of mortal sin when in fact he or she is not in a state of mortal sin?

I am not trying to be argumentative, but…
Where in official Church teaching does it say that the prohibition on civilly remarried Catholics receiving is based on a presumption of mortal sin?

The Church can set her own disciplines on who may receive…correct?
Such as:
-Observe the fast
-Be above the age of reason
-Be a baptized Catholic
-Receive no more than 2 times a day

None of the above prohibit based on a presumption of a state of mortal sin, and the Church NEVER assumes a baptized soul to be in a state of mortal sin. Even if one has publicly committed an objectively grave sin, the Church does not presume intent so does not presume it is a mortal sin.

So I ask again: Where in official Church teaching does it say that the reason for the prohibition is based on a presumption of mortal sin?

 

[Thomas_White]

i am not trying to be argumentative, but…
Where in official church teaching does it say that the prohibition on civilly remarried catholics receiving is based on a presumption of mortal sin?

The church can set her own disciplines on who may receive…correct?
Such as:
-observe the fast
-be above the age of reason
-be a baptized catholic
-receive no more than 2 times a day

none of the above prohibit based on a presumption of a state of mortal sin, and the church never assumes a baptized soul to be in a state of mortal sin. Even if one has publicly committed an objectively grave sin, the church does not presume intent so does not presume it is a mortal sin.

So i ask again: Where in official church teaching does it say that the reason for the prohibition is based on a presumption of mortal sin?

In CCC1650

 

[sarah_j]

The article I linked to commented on that very point.
Don’t forget, no one forced
these people into a second marriage. The choice to marry outside the church
was made freely.
I don’t understand people wanting the Church to sign off on their sinfulness.
When I was young, I did plenty that wasn’t approved of by the Church…but
I never asked everyone to pretend that what I was doing was a-okay. People need
to accept the consequences of their actions.

Cardinal Kasper was on *World Over* a few months ago and discussed

his ideas on the divorced and remarried.
youtube.com/watch?v=cA76iHWw8BA

sarah j, you can’t seriously think this is a Catholic show!! I’ve watched till the 21st minute and have to go have an antiseptic bath to remove the barnyard bull excrement from myself. This is a disgusting and odious interviewer. Is that the quality of Catholic media in America?? Even his non verbal mmms and aaahhhs are dripping with condescension and superiority. I’m sorry but that show and the interviewer are just too anti Catholic for me to take seriously.

You’ve never seen EWTN ? It’s very orthodox Catholic.
I know that Mother Angelica was quite fond of Raymond Arroyo and certainly
didn’t consider his show to be “barnyard bull excrement”.

 Perhaps you should alert EWTN to the "anti- Catholic" programs

which are being aired on their channel.

 

[Morwenna]

sarah j, you can’t seriously think this is a Catholic show!! I’ve watched till the 21st minute and have to go have an antiseptic bath to remove the barnyard bull excrement from myself. This is a disgusting and odious interviewer. Is that the quality of Catholic media in America?? Even his non verbal mmms and aaahhhs are dripping with condescension and superiority. I’m sorry but that show and the interviewer are just too anti Catholic for me to take seriously.

Hi LS, I can tell that you’re passionate about this topic!

Let me begin by saying that I’m not a fan of this particular interviewer’s verbal ‘style’ myself, however I think it’s important to clarify for readers that (regardless of my own personal stylistic preferences), the show certainly is Catholic. It is produced by EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network), which was founded by the wonderful Mother Angelica.

For anyone who would like to learn more about EWTN, here is a link with a bit of history:

ewtn.com/media/ourStory.htm

It’s also interesting to note that the interviewer in question (Raymond Arroyo) was chosen by Mother to write her biography, which was done via interviews over a period of five years. I have a copy of this biography in my collection, and found it to be a pleasant read.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread!

 

[KSU]

sarah j, you can’t seriously think this is a Catholic show!! I’ve watched till the 21st minute and have to go have an antiseptic bath to remove the barnyard bull excrement from myself. This is a disgusting and odious interviewer. Is that the quality of Catholic media in America?? Even his non verbal mmms and aaahhhs are dripping with condescension and superiority. I’m sorry but that show and the interviewer are just too anti Catholic for me to take seriously.

JackVk, somehow your Shaun of the Dead approach, viz:

1.Get in the car
2. Pick up mum
3. Kill Philip (Sorry Philip)
4. Go and get Elizabeth
5. Head for the Winchester
6. Grab a pint and wait for all of this to blow over

seems to be the best approach to deal with this after all.

I would, however, forego the pint and substitute a snifter of that papist elixir, B&B (Benedictine and Brandy). You can see what pints have done to some Aussies and Brits.

 

[I_trust]

In CCC1650

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Yes, adultery is a grave sin. But in order to be mortal, a grave sin also requires full knowledge and deliberate consent, which the Church does not presume. So, She (The Church) does not presume mortal sin as you asserted…

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."13

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, adultery is a grave sin. But in order to be mortal, a grave sin also requires full knowledge and deliberate consent, which the Church does not presume. So, She (The Church) does not presume mortal sin as you asserted…

“If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.”

It says what it says, and we accept the standard definition of ‘objectively’. What is it that objectively contravenes God’s law and can be reconciled only by complete continence? Is it to be divorced and remarried civilly? Or is it adultery? Adultery is this instance is actually a presumption and would not likely be objectively known.

So now I ask you a question: Where in the Gospels does Christ say the one who is “put aside” commits adultery? I suggest you begin by carefully reading the biblical quotation in CCC 1650.

 

[LongingSoul]

You’ve never seen EWTN ? It’s very orthodox Catholic.
I know that Mother Angelica was quite fond of Raymond Arroyo and certainly
didn’t consider his show to be “barnyard bull excrement”.

 Perhaps you should alert EWTN to the "anti- Catholic" programs

which are being aired on their channel.

I was genuinely taken off guard by the condescension and hostility of this interviewer. Being here and discussing for a couple of years now, I’ve always given benefit of the doubt to peoples ‘tone’ when I’m reading along. When I listened to this character, I don’t think I’ll be able to do that anymore. The tone is just as “I’m so superior, you can kiss my ring and bow as you crawl away from me” if ever I heard it. Why did he keep trying to twist the Cardinals comments and force words into his mouth? Hmmm suspicious much.