Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookcat said:
No.

See the Catechism, the the Compendium of the Catechism, countless editions of the Scriptures and countless documents and homilies from the Popes…etc etc etc…
Click to expand...
I do. And I am Catholic with sound conviction.

But I also see what is around me. I see how my Bishop removed our pastor who was unanimously loved and gained strong relationships with all, but for a few strange complaints decided to relocate him. Now we are with an inconsistent fill of various priests, one which is extremely elderly. We have no pastor. It hurts.

We are without pastoral care on a personal level. Encyclical and the Catechism goes so far. But we need fatherly love and direction.

I am not blaming only the hierarchy, but all of us, myself included. We are struggling with sin issues.

I’m sorry my good friend. I am heavy now, and should take some time to be encouraged. I seek admonition for myself and the whole Church.
 
It wasn’t the Catholic Church which declared marriage to be permanent, lasting until death. It was Jesus Christ. Even his disciples found it to be a hard teaching. They had been accustomed to allowing for divorce. Jesus said no.

So the only way that a second (or third or fourth) marriage can be found to be valid is to first determine whether previous marriages were NOT valid. That’s the purpose of the tribunal process. The Church gets a lot of complaints about the tribunal process. The only reason there is a tribunal process is that the Church does not recognize divorce. That is from Jesus. The alternative would be to say, fine–a valid marriage can be extinguished by human beings; but that is precisely what Jesus said we can not do.
 
JimG said:
It wasn’t the Catholic Church which declared marriage to be permanent, lasting until death. It was Jesus Christ. Even his disciples found it to be a hard teaching. They had been accustomed to allowing for divorce. Jesus said no.

So the only way that a second (or third or fourth) marriage can be found to be valid is to first determine whether previous marriages were NOT valid. That’s the purpose of the tribunal process. The Church gets a lot of complaints about the tribunal process. The only reason there is a tribunal process is that the Church does not recognize divorce. That is from Jesus. The alternative would be to say, fine–a valid marriage can be extinguished by human beings; but that is precisely what Jesus said we can not do.
Click to expand...
Can the Tribunal make mistakes? Can they abuse the position and give silly reasons. What if a reason is simply, one of the couples did not fully intend to be faithfull? That could be used for millions of marriages. But one of the vows is precisely to be faithfull. 🤷
 
This is getting rather off topic…

Again I remind all to read the document and any further documents that pertain. And not get side tracked or misconstrue what was noted.

Rather particular complex cases are just that.

Just as a Priest counseling a penitent who has lost much of their freedom with particular sexual sin - discerning that that person is not committing mortal sin in their case - does not effect the reality of the sinfulness of sexual sin or what the Teaching regarding the gravity of the sin. It only goes to the culpability of the person in question and is restricted to their particular case.
 
JimG said:
It wasn’t the Catholic Church which declared marriage to be permanent, lasting until death. It was Jesus Christ. Even his disciples found it to be a hard teaching. They had been accustomed to allowing for divorce. Jesus said no.

So the only way that a second (or third or fourth) marriage can be found to be valid is to first determine whether previous marriages were NOT valid. That’s the purpose of the tribunal process. The Church gets a lot of complaints about the tribunal process. The only reason there is a tribunal process is that the Church does not recognize divorce. That is from Jesus. The alternative would be to say, fine–a valid marriage can be extinguished by human beings; but that is precisely what Jesus said we can not do.
Click to expand...
What are the implications now because of this document? If a couple goes through the tribunal and the result is that a “declaration of nullity” is not given, what then in light of this document in regards to reciprocation of Communion for those who will not live as brother and sister?
 
rcwitness said:
What if a reason is simply, one of the couples did not fully intend to be faithfull? That could be used for millions of marriages. But one of the vows is precisely to be faithfull. 🤷
Click to expand...
Yes unfortunately some basically “lie” and do not intend to be married…and thus no matter what words they say - there is no marriage. They do not intend their “vows” (promise).
 
This is getting rather off topic…

Again I remind all to read the document and any further documents that pertain. And not get side tracked or misconstrue what was noted.

Rather particular complex cases are just that.

Just as a Priest counseling a penitent who has lost much of their freedom with particular sexual sin - discerning that that person is not committing mortal sin in their case - does not effect the reality of the sinfulness of sexual sin or what the Teaching regarding the gravity of the sin. It only goes to the culpability of the person in question and is restricted to their particular case. So too does such discernment in this sort of complex marriage case not effect the realities of what marriage is etc.
 
Bookcat said:
This is getting rather off topic…

Again I remind all to read the document and any further documents that pertain. And not get side tracked or misconstrue what was noted.

Rather particular complex cases are just that.

Just as a Priest counseling a penitent who has lost much of their freedom with particular sexual sin - discerning that that person is not committing mortal sin in their case - does not effect the reality of the sinfulness of sexual sin or what the Teaching regarding the gravity of the sin. It only goes to the culpability of the person in question and is restricted to their particular case. So too does such discernment in this sort of complex marriage case not effect the realities of what marriage is etc.
Click to expand...
What does “lost much of their freedom” mean?
 
_Abyssinia said:
What are the implications now because of this document? If a couple goes through the tribunal and the result is that a “declaration of nullity” is not given, what then in light of this document in regards to reciprocation of Communion for those who will not live as brother and sister?
Click to expand...
They are* not* to receive the Sacraments.

In some very particular complex cases lacking culpability etc - there can be possibility of further discernment -but such wound not be the norm but only certain very particular cases.
 
Bookcat said:
This is getting rather off topic…

Again I remind all to read the document and any further documents that pertain. And not get side tracked or misconstrue what was noted.

Rather particular complex cases are just that.

Just as a Priest counseling a penitent who has lost much of their freedom with particular sexual sin - discerning that that person is not committing mortal sin in their case - does not effect the reality of the sinfulness of sexual sin or what the Teaching regarding the gravity of the sin. It only goes to the culpability of the person in question and is restricted to their particular case. So too does such discernment in this sort of complex marriage case not effect the realities of what marriage is etc.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly! This is why I think this is good.

An example I use, a person gets sterilized. They later learn it was wrong and are forgiven and reconciled through the sacrament of reconciliation.

We do not say they are in a state of sin perpetually because of this. We do not say, well you are forever sterile and this not open to life and thus every marital act is a sin.

I believe there is a parallel for the remarriage issue. It doesn’t mean that one can be married multiple times, but it is meeting people where they are at and helping them convert to Christ.

In my limited study of church history on this issue. I believe the first Christians…in fact the first 1,000 years of Christans, would find this conversation very very strange.
 
_Abyssinia said:
What does “lost much of their freedom” mean?
Click to expand...
It means they are not giving full consent to mortal sin in that situation to that sin…and thus not committing mortal sin. Freedom being greatly impaired.

Catechism:

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm#1734
 
I’ll ask once more…

Is a decree of Annulment from the tribunal infallible?
 
Jon_S said:
Yes exactly! This is why I think this is good.

An example I use, a person gets sterilized. They later learn it was wrong and are forgiven and reconciled through the sacrament of reconciliation.

We do not say they are in a state of sin perpetually because of this. We do not say, well you are forever sterile and this not open to life and thus every marital act is a sin.

I believe there is a parallel for the remarriage issue. It doesn’t mean that one can be married multiple times, but it is meeting people where they are at and helping them convert to Christ.
Click to expand...
Yes meeting them they are at - within right limitations- and helping them to convert to Christ and the way of life in him.
 
rcwitness said:
Maybe only on account of the information provided? Or are we free to question the reasons for Annulment?

Perhaps. I can digress. 😉
Click to expand...
Yes we are digressing…

But briefly - it is not infallible for only certain things are infallible and this is not one of them- and yes one may challenge such - all the way to Rome…
 
Jon_S said:
In my limited study of church history on this issue. I believe the first Christians…in fact the first 1,000 years of Christans, would find this conversation very very strange.
Click to expand...
Yes even second (valid!) marriages were* not favored *among the early Christians. It was better to not remarry after the death of ones spouse.
 
rcwitness said:
I’ll ask once more…

Is a decree of Annulment from the tribunal infallible?
Click to expand...
No it is not infallible.

If they are wrong though, the person whose marriage was declared null does not have culpability although the situation may in fact be grave matter still.

I think that’s important to know because the new proposal operates under similar parameters.
 
_Abyssinia said:
What does “lost much of their freedom” mean?
Click to expand...
I’m always very taken with this quote from Simone Weil’s The Love of God and Affliction (from the book Waiting for God) that touches on this and explains it so beautifully. I just read this quote to my wife over the weekend when we were talking about sex offenders that claim the urges are uncontrollable. I argue that they cultivated the urges to the point where they took over.

“God has provided that when his grace penetrates to the very centre of a man and from there illuminates all his being, he is able to walk on the water without violating the laws of nature. But when a man turns away from God he simply gives himself up to the law of gravity. He then believes that he is deciding and choosing, but he is only a thing, a falling stone. If we examine human society and souls closely and with real attention, we see that wherever the virtue of supernatural light is absent, everything is obedient to mechanical laws as blind and as exact as the laws of gravitation. To know this is profitable and necessary. Those whom we call criminals are only tiles blown off a roof by the wind and falling at random. Their only fault is the initial choice by which they become those tiles.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top