On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[LongingSoul]

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!

It doesn’t really make a difference who he schmoozed up to, he is not an interviewer I’d ever give a tap of credit to. I’ve added him to my list of ‘characters to avoid’ for lack of Catholic perspective, along with the journalist Edward Pentin.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

It doesn’t take beer at 3pm on a Tuesday afternoon to see a pile of sewage for what it is! :tsktsk:

 

[KSU]

It doesn’t take beer at 3pm on a Tuesday afternoon to see a pile of sewage for what it is! :tsktsk:

Correct! It takes a serious deficiency in authentic Catholicism and a lot of nerve to post such hatred of Catholic orthodoxy on an orthodox Catholic website. EWTN will do just fine without your viewership.

 

[CaptFun]

Re: the warlike headline:

A film clip

youtube.com/watch?v=WnxJyEF4qLE

I also thought of “The Imperial March” from “The Empire Strikes Back” at seeing this headline.

Striking first I guess is restating existing realities!

npatrol:* - that’s all, move along, nothing to see here!*

 

[LongingSoul]

Correct! It takes a serious deficiency in authentic Catholicism and a lot of nerve to post such hatred of Catholic orthodoxy on an orthodox Catholic website. EWTN will do just fine without your viewership.

Correction. My comments are in regard to Raymond Arroya, the supposed orthodox Catholic interviewer. I’ll reserve judgement on the site itself.

 

[KSU]

Correction. My comments are in regard to Raymond Arroya, the supposed orthodox Catholic interviewer. I’ll reserve judgement on the site itself.

No doubt EWTN is greatly relieved. But, Dear Heart, you can’t separate Arroya from EWTN. He is far too deeply involved.

Now, if I may finish my bedtime B&B in peace, I’ll soon be dreaming of Cardinal Wuerl on a white steed vanquishing Liberals from the Synod (especially the bier drinkers). Or maybe not.

 

[Vouthon]

I also think that Arroyo could have been more respectful towards Cardinal Kaspar in this interview.

Would people here have been pleased if Cardinal Burke had been subjected to similar verbal interrogation?

I see factionalism on the loose, of the kind St. Paul warned against in 1 Corinthians 1.12: “Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and "I of Christ.”

It’s almost as if lay Catholics looking at our hierarchy at the Synod are divided amongst ourselves and saying, “I am of Cardinal Kaspar” and “I am of Cardinal Erdo” or Mueller or Burke.

 

[LongingSoul]

No doubt EWTN is greatly relieved. But, Dear Heart, you can’t separate Arroya from EWTN. He is far too deeply involved.

Now, if I may finish my bedtime B&B in peace, I’ll soon be dreaming of Cardinal Wuerl on a white steed vanquishing Liberals from the Synod (especially the bier drinkers). Or maybe not.

I’ll prolly be useless in the battle because in Australia we get jailed for speaking up. It’s true. This American journalist said it was true. This is what we are getting today. What the heck.

theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/06/australia-has-no-freedom-fox-news-host-claims-in-discussion-on-gun-laws?CMP=soc_567

 

[LongingSoul]

youtube.com/watch?v=cA76iHWw8BA

I’m forcing myself to rewatch the Cardinal Kasper part to reassure myself I didn’t rush to judgement and form the very first questions I knew I was spot on. Arroya continually calls this ‘a proposal’ when the Cardinal specifically says it is not a proposal. It is questions. Some agree and some are critical but this is the way of councils. Very next question Arroya starts ‘the proposal’. So disrespectful. I’m going to make a note of all the devious tactics to inform me going forward over the next 2 weeks watching the synod news.

Edit… just watching the next bit. Annoya says to the Cardinal that he said the Pope approved of his proposal but Card. corrects him and says the Pope approved of the debate and not certain proposals. And listen to Annoya’s hmm hmm. So disrespectful.

And keep listening to the deliberate reiteration of the ‘proposal’ over and over again.

Nup. Thought I might be able to rewatch with some preparation… but I can’t. It’s just disrespectful, deceiving rubbish.

 

[OriginalJS]

When it comes to a Catholic who attempts a civil marriage (which is the basic context of the Cardinal’s remarks, it seems to me), there is never any question about the validity of that union. It’s clearly and certainly not valid.

Dan

Then is a civil marriage the same as a second marriage in that the parties are living in sin? Could a Catholic in a civil marriage get divorced an marry in the Church without having the civil marriage annulled? This seems complex.

 

[Mongo]

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

So are you distinguishing based on whether their conscience pricks them? The fact is that they are committing adultery, and it doesn’t matter what their personal feelings are toward it. Whether they feel like they committed adultery or not is irrelevant. Adultery is grave matter despite an individual persons conscience and their feelings. A second marriage isn’t an isolated act that happened in a moment and then is done. It is a state of life, so they can’t fall back on an uninformed conscience as an excuse. They have now been informed.

 

[Brendan]

“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.

By the very defintion

CCC 2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery.

Adultery is this instance is actually a presumption and would not likely be objectively known.

Since there is an objective definition (CCC 2380) the act can be objectively known to be adultery.

 

[pnewton]

Seriously?
It could mean to strike physically, but it is not it’s only meaning.
Strike has various meaning not just to hit someone. It also means- to take a course, or to raise a flag. etc. It’s use in the title could mean to make a beginning or to engage in (a battle) : fight.

You are right, of course, but military assault does not seem to be an improved position. Even the idea of ideological posturing or “raising a flag” runs counter to what the Pope has requested.

 

[pnewton]

sarah j, you can’t seriously think this is a Catholic show!!

Yes, it seriously is a Catholic show. The better question is whether it is seriously journalism. I agree with you that the interviewing technique of Arroyo is more about presenting his opinions and beliefs, than giving the guest a chance to speak. Just listen to the number of leading questions asked. Yes, he is in line with Church teaching, but so is (in the case) the Cardinal, who could hardly get a word in edgewise without being challenged. An interviewer should be more about what the guest is saying, not the interviewer, unless the interviewer has a really, really high opinion of his own opinion.

I watch EWTN, but gave up on World Over a long time ago over the style of leading interviews.

 

[simple_soul]

youtube.com/watch?v=cA76iHWw8BA

I’m forcing myself to rewatch the Cardinal Kasper part to reassure myself I didn’t rush to judgement and form the very first questions I knew I was spot on. Arroya continually calls this ‘a proposal’ when the Cardinal specifically says it is not a proposal. It is questions. Some agree and some are critical but this is the way of councils. Very next question Arroya starts ‘the proposal’. So disrespectful. I’m going to make a note of all the devious tactics to inform me going forward over the next 2 weeks watching the synod news.

Edit… just watching the next bit. Annoya says to the Cardinal that he said the Pope approved of his proposal but Card. corrects him and says the Pope approved of the debate and not certain proposals. And listen to Annoya’s hmm hmm. So disrespectful.

And keep listening to the deliberate reiteration of the ‘proposal’ over and over again.

Nup. Thought I might be able to rewatch with some preparation… but I can’t. It’s just disrespectful, deceiving rubbish.

I don’t normally like weighing in on these things but…
It wasn’t just disrespectful. It was a seemingly deliberate intent, either intentionally or unintentionally, to try and “entrap” him to try and prove to the world that the Good Cardinal is really out to corrupt the Church’s teachings. The fact that the Good Cardinal endured through the interview even after he realized what the interviewer was doing and enduring the interviewers condescending “ahmmms” and being cut off so many times from what he was trying to explain that were seemingly being done with a deliberate intent to convey the “insightful” mentality that some people claim to have of how the Good Cardinal is trying to corrupt the Church’s teaching, by saying with those “ahmmms”; “Oh Good Cardinal that’s what you say but I know what your real purpose is!” The fact that the Good Cardinal endure through that interview, shows me how much compassion and love he has even for those trying to crucify him for things he is not even guilty of and his sincerity in just being open to God’s guiding light and just trying to do God’s will and trying to understand His will more perfectly and trying to help implement His Will more perfectly. For me the interviewer, if it was the intent, failed to put the Good Cardinal in a bad light with me. For me he was able to actually put the Good Cardinal in a good light and. I will be paying closer attention to him in the days ahead to try and truly understand what he is saying verses what every one else, but mostly people of like mind with the interviewer, is claiming he is saying or trying to indirectly imply what he is saying.
It just goes to show me how much our Church Leaders need our prayers.

 

[pnewton]

So are you distinguishing based on whether their conscience pricks them? The fact is that they are committing adultery, and it doesn’t matter what their personal feelings are toward it. .

It matters to God. In fact, it is critical to God. What the Catholic Church views as a state of mortal sin may not actual involve even actual venial sin. This is a natural consequence of the approach to re-marriage that defines this irregular situation as a** state **of sin. There is no parallel in the rest of moral theology. We do not define the habitual pornography addict as being in a state of sin as long as he keeps internet, or a glutton in a state of sin until they lose weight.

Yet someone in a second marriage, who perhaps did not commit sin in marrying a second time because of invincible ignorance, cannot simply confess that he repents of what he did, and that he would not have re-married if he had known fully the nature of marriage. No, this person, who might believe his actions was right at the time, must confess that he repents of being married, and agree to live as not married.

Yet, I do not see how canon law could address the issue differently. I am somewhat of the mind, that as we discuss what is pastoral, that we lose sight of the pastoral nature of canon law. How could any proposal out there not do more harm than good? And if the underlining reason for canon law may be pastoral as well as doctrine, then this synod might produce new possible pastoral solutions.

 

[exnihilo]

With all due respect to the Cardinal, he is simply wrong here. If what he says is true then my experience as a Christian is false. Maybe I should have packed it in a long time ago?

If what he said was wrong then what does your sentence ‘if what he says is true then…’ mean? Is it partially true and partially false? If you are suggesting that in the complexity of the individual man we find a mix of truth and falsehood or goodness and badness then I agree, and I’m sure the Cardinal does as well. But in looking at individual claims they are either true or false. When looking at individual acts they are either good or bad.

No new ideas???!!!
That’s not good.
Our society will die without innovations and new ideas!

The innovations called for are not innovative, they are returns to old ways. The new ideas are actually bad old ideas. Our society is dying and it is precisely because we have chosen to descend via bad ideas known to be bad from experience.

 

[pnewton]

youtube.com/watch?v=cA76iHWw8BA

I’m forcing myself to rewatch the Cardinal Kasper part to reassure myself I didn’t rush to judgement and form the very first questions I knew I was spot on.

Ironically, I found listening to Fr. Murray’s response convinced me that Cardinal Kasper has a good grasp of the issues. Fr. Murray’s lack of understanding of the proposal("I don’t see where the Cardinal finds justification…), which may be because Raymond Arroyo did not give him a chance. I also do not like that the he said Cardinal Kasper was “confusing subjective culpability for sin”. No, he was not confused

Fr. Murrays said (the first time I actually heard what I believed) that since Jesus said that when one remarries he commits adultery (I noted that the word used is an aorist, meaning Jesus referred to the sin as a single action), that we deduce that one cannot receive communion. Not that this is a deduction. Now, since Fr. Murray disregards the difference between objective sin and actual sin, and that Jesus referred only to the action of marrying, not the state of marriage of marriage, as a sin of adultery, then it is the only action that can be taken.

Now, I have serious doubts about the Kasper proposal, but from a view of pastoral prudence, but I tend to agree with Kasper that the doctrine does not mandate a single disciplinary course of action. Fortunately for me, this is one area where there is some leeway for disagreement.

 

[pnewton]

The innovations called for are not innovative, they are returns to old ways. .

Old ways? When has the Church allowed for easier annulments. I thought it used to be more of a rarity.

 

[Thomas_White]

So are you distinguishing based on whether their conscience pricks them? The fact is that they are committing adultery, and it doesn’t matter what their personal feelings are toward it. Whether they feel like they committed adultery or not is irrelevant. Adultery is grave matter despite an individual persons conscience and their feelings. A second marriage isn’t an isolated act that happened in a moment and then is done. It is a state of life, so they can’t fall back on an uninformed conscience as an excuse. They have now been informed.

No, that is not the point. It is two-fold. How would an observer (let’s say at Church during Mass) objectively know that the presumption of adultery was true of the person in question, and, in particular, how would the observer know it was objectively true if in fact it were not?

I have responded to your questions but you have not responded to mine. So I ask again where in the Gospels does it say that the person who is “put aside” (divorced) commits adultery?