K
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
To be clear, I’m just searching for examples to demonstrate the different approach of the Church… not that I experienced these things personally. Well the Sisters of Mercy were a bit lacking in mercy I’ll grant that.Originally Posted by LongingSoul
The teachings of Jesus aren’t being referred to as ‘severe’… it is the way that the Church imparted those teachings that was severe. Think of a parent who is very severe in teaching a child compared to one who does so with tenderness. I don’t know if the 1957 in your name is birth year, but if so you’ll remember the severity of a few of the nuns and brothers in imparting knowledge!
**Au contraire, Pier! The sainted Sisters and clergy who suffered with my “spirited” youth from elementary up through Ha Scrool in 1957 were the ones who had to put up with severe childishness. Yes, there were the occasional rulers skillfully applied across the knuckles in elementary school, but they were hardly severe, and they were appreciated by my parents (and after I grew up, by me). **
Divorce is an offense to the indissolubility of marriage. That’s a fact but we are able to understand and feel compassion about the realities that surround it now. When I was young, a woman was expected to stay with a husband who may occasionally hit her or drink all his money away. Today, the Church is much less ardent about the evil of divorce when ministering to such a woman.
I am beginning to understand why you take some of the positions you take today. In my neighborhoods, priests had no problem with allowing/helping abused women to divorce such men.
I do remember the different teachings about Heaven, hell and purgatory as being places that we go to after death, as having a different effect on me than the teaching of Pope St John PaulII that they are ‘states’.
*Heaven “is neither an abstraction not a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit,” *
“hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.
I believe that this understanding given by the Church is much more effective to the spiritual growth than the old teachings.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, but I do not believe that is even a question here. The Church teaching on this is not what is up for debate at this synod or what is being discussed. If you were applying your point to communion, then we have to think about the other things that Jesus condemned much more harshly. We do not apply those. As said above, the communion with God is not cut off for the remarried. There may not even be mortal sin on his soul, or possibly, any sin. The Church does what it must, but is it really, or are there other options, such as we use for every other sin.The main issue that I was addressing was the issue of divorce. Do you believe that Our Lord was wrong to condemn divorce?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Part of what Cardinal Kasper said in the interview that has become ‘controversial’ was that with respect to Humanae Vitae there already exists a practical schism between doctrine and pastoral practice (in the sense that many Catholics have in effect rejected the teaching of the encyclical).Yes, the explosion in the numbers of annulments follows from an acceptance of the divorce culture, which implicitly rejects the permanence of marriage. And it was the rejection of Humanae Vitae which directly led to the divorce culture by separating the procreative aspect of marriage from the unitive. Contraception un-linked children from marriage, making marriage just an agreement between adults, with children as potential adjuncts who could be litigated later, should the couple break up. Children now had no expectation of a permanent home and family. They could be moved around at will like pawns in a chess game. Not only that, contraception actually unlinked permanent love from marriage by making it all about physical sex, often premarital, and not about commitment, let alone permanence.
The rejection of Humanae Vitae enabled the sexual revolution and the ills that followed.
K
KSU
Guest
I’m lost. I doubt that JP II, if read in full context, taught that after we are reunited with our bodies in heaven or hell, we will not be in a physical place..
I do remember the different teachings about Heaven, hell and purgatory as being places that we go to after death, as having a different effect on me than the teaching of Pope St John PaulII that they are ‘states’.
*Heaven “is neither an abstraction not a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit,” *
“hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.
I believe that this understanding given by the Church is much more effective to the spiritual growth than the old teachings.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
3 of his Wednesday audiences were devoted to the three states back in 1999.I’m lost. I doubt that JP II, if read in full context, taught that after we are reunited with our bodies in heaven or hell, we will not be in a physical place.
The give a fuller meaning to it. Here’s a link for your info…
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM
K
KSU
Guest
As I suspected, JP II is not saying our souls will not be reunited to our corporeal bodies in heaven or hell.3 of his Wednesday audiences were devoted to the three states back in 1999.
The give a fuller meaning to it. Here’s a link for your info…
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM
Here, I think, is the confirmation of that :
QUOTE In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him.
“Incorporeal things [my bold] are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us.” [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Q69, a1, reply 1] END QUOTE
A
Alan55
Guest
No, he didn’t. The Pill didn’t exist in 1951. Nowhere did I say that any Pope had said that artificial contraception is a morally acceptable means to limit family size.Did pope Pius in 1951 say that artificial contraception was a legitimate means to limit the family size?
However, Pope Paul VI should have done so, in my opinion. Taking the advice of Cardinal Ottaviani, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Pope Paul VI ignored the majority of the Papal Commission and prohibited artificial contraception for Catholics in Humanae Vitae. Note that the Papal Commission included 72 members from five continents that were chosen by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and five women without medical credentials, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including seven cardinals). Not a radical bunch out of step with the Church.
The result has been an almost complete rejection of papal teaching on the subject by Catholic families (whose use of artificial contraception is virtually indistinguishable from non-Catholics) and a decline in the influence of official Catholic teaching on this and other subjects. In the end, it will go the way of the Church’s teaching on usury (supported by no less a theologian than St. Thomas Aquinas), but for now it remains official Catholic teaching.
J
JimG
Guest
I don’t know that a direct causal link can be drawn; however, the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception paved the way for every aspect of the sexual revolution, up to and including same sex marriage, by first delinking sex from procreation.The sexual revolution was enabled by the discovery of effective means for preventing births, namely the birth control pills. Even Pope Pius in 1951 acknowledged that it was morally neutral for Catholic families to limit their family size. The Pill gave Catholic families a safe, effective and convenient means to do. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI decided to reject the advice of the majority of cardinals, bishops and lay people on the Papal Commission and teach that artificial contraception was immoral – even though he also taught that limiting family size was not only a right but also a responsibility for Catholics under the right circumstances.
I’d be interested in any objective evidence you could provide that demonstrates that artificial contraception caused divorce rates to increase. There were many other changes in society that are more likely suspects, although neither of us is an expert in the matter.
Mary Eberstadt does a good job of cataloging the effects of the sexual revolution in her book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” which contains an abundance of data.
The Lambeth conference of 1930 began the deluge by being the first time since the Reformation that the Protestant doctrine against contraception was changed. Prior to that, every Protestant denomination had the same doctrine as the Catholic Church. Pius XI responded with his encyclical “Casti Connubii,” reaffirming the doctrine against contraception.
The inventor of the birth control pill carried on a campaign to convince Catholics that his product was not really birth control. Indeed, there was an intense campaign to change Church doctrine, but Paul VI once again reaffirmed the constant teaching in Humanae Vitae. I would note that the ill effects he predicted in the encyiclical have not only been realized in full, but much worse has followed, because of the rejection of Humanae Vitae and the acceptance of contraception. The results have been a sociological disaster. Which is one reason for the Synod on the Family.
J
JimG
Guest
"The latest apologists for the Sexual Revolution – that great swamp of sewage backup, human misery, family breakdown, squalid entertainment, and lawyers – have been saying that the most radical anthropological breach ever known to man, the detachment of marriage from childbirth and the plain facts of nature, will have no effect (none at all, not to worry) on marriage and childbirth and family and community life.
To which I reply, “Haven’t you said that before?” About what exactly have the sexual revolutionaries been right? Which of their non-predictions has been confirmed?"
Continued here: thecatholicthing.org/2015/04/30/fools-or-liars/
To which I reply, “Haven’t you said that before?” About what exactly have the sexual revolutionaries been right? Which of their non-predictions has been confirmed?"
Continued here: thecatholicthing.org/2015/04/30/fools-or-liars/
P
ProVobis
Guest
From Populorum Progressio:even though he also taught that limiting family size was not only a right but also a responsibility for Catholics under the right circumstances.
- There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.
There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.
Seems like priests and bishops were heavy on this conscience clause and expanded its meaning before Humanae Vitae was issued.Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him. (39)
D
Denise1957
Guest
I’m not sure that I’m understanding what you are getting at, but I read on another blog that pastoral practice subsists in doctrine. Doctrine IS changed if the pastoral practice attached to it is changed.Yes, but I do not believe that is even a question here. The Church teaching on this is not what is up for debate at this synod or what is being discussed. If you were applying your point to communion, then we have to think about the other things that Jesus condemned much more harshly. We do not apply those. As said above, the communion with God is not cut off for the remarried. There may not even be mortal sin on his soul, or possibly, any sin. The Church does what it must, but is it really, or are there other options, such as we use for every other sin.
If the synod allows for the change in practice in order to allow divorced and remarried to receive communion, then it says effectively that the Church was wrong all along in not allowing this. And…if the Church was wrong about this, then it can be wrong about other things as well. If our Lord Jesus commanded against divorce, and the Church allows divorced and remarried to receive, then it says too that there is no such thing as grave sin attached to this situation. It weakens the idea that there is such thing as sin. That a main criteria in Modernism - the idea that there’s no such thing, really, as sin. Just luv.
There needs to be a proper balance between God’s Justice and Mercy.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Good article. That’s what it comes down to, really. Sex…as in the Sexual Revolution…and the idea of being able to do what one wants without guilt or repercussions, or worrying about what God thinks or wants."The latest apologists for the Sexual Revolution – that great swamp of sewage backup, human misery, family breakdown, squalid entertainment, and lawyers – have been saying that the most radical anthropological breach ever known to man, the detachment of marriage from childbirth and the plain facts of nature, will have no effect (none at all, not to worry) on marriage and childbirth and family and community life.
To which I reply, “Haven’t you said that before?” About what exactly have the sexual revolutionaries been right? Which of their non-predictions has been confirmed?"
Continued here: thecatholicthing.org/2015/04/30/fools-or-liars/
P
pnewton
Guest
No, it is not. I will give you two examples of pastoral practice being changed without changing doctrine. The first is when the Church went from communion under two species to communion in one species. This change, to teach that the single species contained both the body and blood of the Lord, did not change any doctrine. Then again, the Church reverted back to two species. At not time did doctrine change.Doctrine IS changed if the pastoral practice attached to it is changed.
Another example is the recent decision by the Pope to change the process for annulments. This will change the pastoral practice for granting annulments in some cases without any change in doctrine.
This is true only if your statement above is true, which I believe I have shown does not have to be true. There is a third option, that which Cardinal Kasper has been suggesting needs to be examined. He is not denying an doctrine with his proposal.If the synod allows for the change in practice in order to allow divorced and remarried to receive communion, then it says effectively that the Church was wrong all along in not allowing this.
P
pnewton
Guest
I read the article. I still do not know who is speaking of. Perhaps “they” and “them” are just a literary device to cover the history of the sexual revolution, which was well-presented. I have always considered no-fault divorce as much of the part of the beginning of this movement as birth control. I noticed that was his starting point as well."The latest apologists for the Sexual Revolution – Continued here: thecatholicthing.org/2015/04/30/fools-or-liars/
M
Michael1978
Guest
This in incorrect. Each species has always been taught to contain the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. There have been times where it was limited to distribution to one species or the other to combat heresies or for practical matters. catholic.com/quickquestions/when-did-the-church-come-up-with-the-doctrine-that-each-species-contains-both-the-bodNo, it is not. I will give you two examples of pastoral practice being changed without changing doctrine. The first is when the Church went from communion under two species to communion in one species. This change, to teach that the single species contained both the body and blood of the Lord, did not change any doctrine. Then again, the Church reverted back to two species. At not time did doctrine change.
Another example is the recent decision by the Pope to change the process for annulments. This will change the pastoral practice for granting annulments in some cases without any change in doctrine.
The annulment process is a matter of Canon Law. Pope Francis changed some of the processes, not the doctrine underlying the validity or invalidity of marriages.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Your example of communion under one species or two isn’t even remotely similar to the issue of communion for the divorce and remarried.No, it is not. I will give you two examples of pastoral practice being changed without changing doctrine. The first is when the Church went from communion under two species to communion in one species. This change, to teach that the single species contained both the body and blood of the Lord, did not change any doctrine. Then again, the Church reverted back to two species. At not time did doctrine change.
Another example is the recent decision by the Pope to change the process for annulments. This will change the pastoral practice for granting annulments in some cases without any change in doctrine.
This is true only if your statement above is true, which I believe I have shown does not have to be true. There is a third option, that which Cardinal Kasper has been suggesting needs to be examined. He is not denying an doctrine with his proposal.
Either a Catholic is for Jesus, or for Cardinal Kasper. There’s really no in-between, IMO.
P
pnewton
Guest
What is incorrect? I said, “to teach that the single species contained both the body and blood of the Lord…” Do you not understand the word “each”? I said each species has both. You said each species has both. There you go.This in incorrect. Each species has always been taught to contain the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. There have been times where it was limited to distribution to one species or the other to combat heresies or for practical matters%between%
Exactly my point. the change in practice did not change doctrine.The annulment process is a matter of Canon Law. Pope Francis changed some of the processes, not the doctrine underlying the validity or invalidity of marriages.
P
pnewton
Guest
Because? Okay, let me try another approach, since examples that contradict your statement did not work. Can you show many anywhere the Church has ever taught that whenever a pastoral practice is changed, that doctrine is also changes as a result?Your example of communion under one species or two isn’t even remotely similar to the issue of communion for the divorce and remarried.
M
Michael1978
Guest
Here’s what you said:What is incorrect? I said, “to teach that the single species contained both the body and blood of the Lord…” Do you not understand the word “each”? I said each species has both. You said each species has both. There you go.
Exactly my point. the change in practice did not change doctrine.
There was not a change in teaching, it has always remained the same. But a change in practice from both species to one and back to both has no effect on the doctrinal teaching that both species contain the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ—an unchanging and unchangeable doctrine. A change in practice from not admitting divorced and remarried to receive communion, to a practice admitting divorced and remarried to communion, would in fact be a practical change in doctrine, unlike the other two examples you gave, because the substance of the prohibition on reception of communion----namely that a person is still validly married to their first spouse and living in an adulterous relationship in an invalid marriage----is being altered. A valid marriage is either indissoluble or it isn’t.The first is when the Church went from communion under two species to communion in one species. This change, to teach that the single species contained both the body and blood of the Lord, did not change any doctrine.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.