Pope Francis "No More Business as Usual"

[JReducation]

Can he really?! Wow. I thought important doctrinal changes had to be done by a council. Before I converted [being the son of an Episcopal Priest] I thought I knew “more than the average convert” but clearly I still have much to learn! I have the “green book” on my beside table, right next to my Catholic study Bible. There is much information to digest.

No one can change doctrine or revealed moral law. Neither the pope nor a council. Councils are not above popes. Popes have to approve what the council decides.

Popes can change laws. As you have seen in my post above, the issue here is one of culpability. A person can be objectively culpable, but not subjectively culpable. At the end day, we are judged according to our conscience.

The person may have a poorly formed conscience, which is often the case in these situations. His or her conscience is not formed according to the faith. There are other things that are influencing him or her that lead him into error. But if the person is sincere, not playing mind games, the Church admits that culpability may be diminished or even non-existent.

The doctrine remains the same. The issue here is that one cannot punish a person for something of which he is not culpable. That’s what the Holy Father is saying that needs to be sorted out.

This probably came from the Council of Cardinals. I know that some of the cardinals on that council have publicly said that they have a problem enforcing this canon, because it’s difficult to ascertain who is culpable and who is not. Some people are of the opinion that you let the person deal with Christ himself at the time of judgment. Others say that you assume that everyone who acts a certain way is culpable since you can’t know what’s in the hearts of men. Both positions have their merit. Which one the Holy Father will choose is anyone’s guess.

Though I would strongly recommend against guessing. Every time we start to guess the mind of the Church, we get it wrong. OK, I get it wrong. There, I said it. LOL

 

[ProVobis]

This probably came from the Council of Cardinals. I know that some of the cardinals on that council have publicly said that they have a problem enforcing this canon, because it’s difficult to ascertain who is culpable and who is not. Some people are of the opinion that you let the person deal with Christ himself at the time of judgment. Others say that you assume that everyone who acts a certain way is culpable since you can’t know what’s in the hearts of men. Both positions have their merit. Which one the Holy Father will choose is anyone’s guess.

From what I heard, they’re also thinking about modifying or expediting the annulment process, which, in the bigger picture, may be the most workable solution. But then I’m no theologian or expert in what can be changed or not.

 

[TimothyH]

Brother mentions culpability. The idea of culpability is not well understood. I never thought of the idea until it was explained to me. Culpability has to do with how much blame we bear.

This is how it was explained to me… Objectively, abortion is always a a sin. But how much blame do people bear for each particular abortion? Consider the two woman below.

A 35 year old woman from an upper-middle class suburban parish who goes to Church with her husband and three children gets pregnant. She does not want the burden of raising another child, knows abortion is a sin, but makes an appointment and aborts anyway.

A poor 16 year old girl who’s father is an alcoholic and who’s mother never takes her to Church gets pregnant. Her boyfriend insists that her life will be ruined if she becomes a teen mother and pressures her to abort. She is scared to death and after much anguish, reluctantly decides to abort.

The 35 year old is more culpable than the 16 year old. The 35 year bears more responsibility for her actions. This is why Brother always says that we can judge the sinfulness of a particular action or behavior but we cannot judge the state of someone’s soul.

There was a woman, I think it was Irena Sendler (forgive me if I am wrong), who became the mistress of a Nazi officer in order to save Jews. Objectively she sinned by having sex out of wedlock, but we cannot judge the state of her soul because we cannot judge her culpability.

A good confessor will ask questions to determine culpability and assign appropriate penance. It is a difficult job. The Bishops who have to discern this have an awesome responsibility on their shoulders. It is not always about objective sin.

Les Misérables presents the classic case. Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread but his family was starving. I remember a big debate on this when we read it in 9th grade.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

This is the context in which I take guidance from the Pope’s “Who am I to judge?” statement.

It implies a knowledge of who we are and who God is. We only have true knowledge of ourselves, our abilities to judge, our own culpability, in relation to God. For me, the first answer to “Who am I…?” is “Who I am not?”. I am not God. God is God, I am a human being, not the judge of others. It is almost (is) impossible for me to judge someone’s culpability.

No worries, God will make all injustices good in his own way (which frightens me just a little )

 

[JReducation]

Brother mentions culpability. The idea of culpability is not well understood. I never thought of the idea until it was explained to me. Culpability has to do with how much blame we bear.

This is how it was explained to me… Objectively, abortion is always a a sin. But how much blame do people bear for each particular abortion? Consider the two woman below.

A 35 year old woman from an upper-middle class suburban parish who goes to Church with her husband and three children gets pregnant. She does not want the burden of raising another child, knows abortion is a sin, but makes an appointment and aborts anyway.

A poor 16 year old girl who’s father is an alcoholic and who’s mother never takes her to Church gets pregnant. Her boyfriend insists that her life will be ruined if she becomes a teen mother and pressures her to abort. She is scared to death and after much anguish, reluctantly decides to abort.

The 35 year old is more culpable than the 16 year old. The 35 year bears more responsibility for her actions. This is why Brother always says that we can judge the sinfulness of a particular action or behavior but we cannot judge the state of someone’s soul.

There was a woman, I think it was Irena Sendler (forgive me if I am wrong), who became the mistress of a Nazi officer in order to save Jews. Objectively she sinned by having sex out of wedlock, but we cannot judge the state of her soul because we cannot judge her culpability.

A good confessor will ask questions to determine culpability and assign appropriate penance. It is a difficult job. The Bishops who have to discern this have an awesome responsibility on their shoulders. It is not always about objective sin.

Les Misérables presents the classic case. Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread but his family was starving. I remember a big debate on this when we read it in 9th grade.

-Tim-

Culpability is a difficult concept for many people. You’re not alone. Yet, in our own legal system, we use it. No jury ever declares anyone to be innocent. The jury finds you 'not guilty." If you kill a person, the objective fact does not change. But you’re not guilty, because the guy you killed was trying to kill you. You’re not culpable of his death. The attacker is culpable for his own death. Had he stayed home and watched TV instead of attacking innocent people, he’d be alive.

The same is true of the girl that you discuss in your example. Her fear is driving her to the abortion mill, not her will.

 

[wcknight]

Remember that a mortal sin requires that the person committing it knows full well that what he is doing is seriously wrong. SOme politicians may have convinced themselves that 'merely voting" for a bill is not seriously wrong, or they may justify it by saying, most of my constituents think this way so I have to vote this way to represent them.

No one know what anyone else is thinking at the time of their committing a sin. To committ a mortal sin, one, has to be aware that what they are doing is in fact a mortal sin, and they do so anyway.

I don’t want to justify politicians voting that way, but we can not ever tell for sure who actually commits a mortal sin and who does not. We may think they are, but if they do not believe it is seriously wrong, then it is not a mortal sin. Some folks may use this to justify everything they do as being minor, but God knows if we are just trying to fool ourselves.

 

[Boulder257]

Than it is fully within the Bishops’s rights to explain to them that they are commiting grave sin and they are not to receive communion.

 

[Bookcat]

Les Misérables presents the classic case. Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread but his family was starving. I remember a big debate on this when we read it in 9th grade.

-Tim-

Such need not involve the question of culpability.

For such can simply be by definition: Not theft.

 

[Ed_Silvia]

Am I the only one who finds that disturbing? To my understanding,** it is an infallible teaching of the Church that we are not to receive communion when in a state of mortal sin. *** I suspect (and hope) that the Holy Father’s words are being misinterpreted (which is more than possible, given that both of the above come from secular sources), but if they are not and this is truly the implication of what he has written, is that not leading people into “eating and drinking judgment upon themselves”?

Amen brother. What also troubles me is I haven’t heard this infallible teaching spoken of at the assembly, a.k.a. the mass, since Paul VI more than 50 years ago.

 

[TimothyH]

Such need not involve the question of culpability.

For such can simply be by definition: Not theft.

I disagree.

He took what was not his without permission. Objectively that is theft and if we look at the ten commandments, it is clear that theft is an objectively sinful act. The question then becomes exactly one of how much blame he bears. His culpability is reduced or eliminated because his family was starving.

The discussion is about a couple who remarried after previous divorce without an annulment. What if they repented, understand what they did was wrong, but are prevented from splitting up because they have children? It would be an injustice to divorce and split the family, to deprive the children of a stable household with both mother and father. The couple wants to do good (split up) but they cannot because they must do a different good (keep the family together for the sake of the children). It is a catch-22. Their heart and will are in the right place but they are prevented from doing good by another, possibly more important thing which is also good.

The issue here is that one cannot punish a person for something of which he is not culpable. That’s what the Holy Father is saying that needs to be sorted out.

Is the couple above culpable? If they are not, as Brother mentioned, the only thing preventing them from receiving is canon law which the Pope can change.

I can barely approach the altar myself each time without fear and trembling. I would hate to have to decide these things for thousands of others, let alone be judged by God for my decision. Only once have I ever insisted to one of my children that they not receive the Eucharist and it broke my heart to do it.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

It would be an injustice to divorce and split the family, to deprive the children of a stable household with both mother and father.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs and getting into matters way over my head here but since there was no valid (re)marriage how can the Church see this as a divorce? Also, shouldn’t any issues of injustice to the first family (through the valid marriage) be considered also if not first?

 

[JReducation]

Than it is fully within the Bishops’s rights to explain to them that they are commiting grave sin and they are not to receive communion.

The bishop has that right. What the bishop cannot do is judge the state of the person’s soul. He does not have a right to do that. This is a judgment that the person and his or her confessor must make.

Amen brother. What also troubles me is I haven’t heard this infallible teaching spoken of at the assembly, a.k.a. the mass, since Paul VI more than 50 years ago.

I think this is where Pope Francis is coming from. His feeling is that we have to stop trying to keep people away from the sacraments, including the Eucharist and encourage people to make use of all the sacraments. The focus must be on the sacraments and God’s desire to have us come to him, not on sins. This is how I’m understanding what he’s saying.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs and getting into matters way over my head here but since there was no valid (re)marriage how can the Church see this as a divorce? Also, shouldn’t any issues of injustice to the first family (through the valid marriage) be considered also if not first?

There are two separate issues here, marriage and family. Both families are his valid or lawful families. He is the father, period. The relationship with the mother does not affect the relationship with the children.

The Church is clear that there is an issue of justice to the children in the case. They do have a right to have both parents. In this case, these children have mom and dad at home. He children from his previous marriage do not. To unsettle one set of children is not the idea here.

The adults involved have a duty to run the first marriage through a tribunal to determine if it was valid or not. In the meantime, they must abstain from sexual intercourse. There is no rule that they must divorce.

The Church does recognize divorce, even in this case. There is a civil contract; therefore, there is a civil process called divorce. The Church expects us to comply with the law whenever possible. What the Church has always taught is that a divorce does not terminate a valid marriage. She certainly recognizes that it terminates a civil contract.

 

[ProVobis]

There are two separate issues here, marriage and family. Both families are his valid or lawful families. He is the father, period. The relationship with the mother does not affect the relationship with the children.

The Church is clear that there is an issue of justice to the children in the case. They do have a right to have both parents. In this case, these children have mom and dad at home. He children from his previous marriage do not. To unsettle one set of children is not the idea here.

The adults involved have a duty to run the first marriage through a tribunal to determine if it was valid or not. In the meantime, they must abstain from sexual intercourse. There is no rule that they must divorce.

The Church does recognize divorce, even in this case. There is a civil contract; therefore, there is a civil process called divorce. The Church expects us to comply with the law whenever possible. What the Church has always taught is that a divorce does not terminate a valid marriage. She certainly recognizes that it terminates a civil contract.

Okay, this is a reasonable approach as long as the couple(s) work with the church on the matter. I’ve known people who have appealed their divorces (and annulments) for whatever reasons. There are almost always hard feelings involved there. To just give a general allowance to their (ex)spouses to follow their own desires, whether to date, cohabit, “marry”, etc doesn’t seem to be right IMO. And that’s even before communion for them is considered.

 

[Cojuanco]

Than it is fully within the Bishops’s rights to explain to them that they are commiting grave sin and they are not to receive communion.

Which they do regularly, usually privately. For example, Governor Cuomo and I believe Secretary Sebelius. They no longer go up for Communion.

 

[esieffe]

Come on. Read the document, this is not hard. The Holy Father speaks about economics through the whole document, it becomes extremely apparent as to what he is saying, as he speaks about the market several times.

An unfettered/unfair free market has never been apart of Catholic teaching, Pope Benedict XVI spoke against the same things several times. As have other Pope’s. The only reason why this has not been stressed in america is because the American Church is infested with “Americanism” and america politics overrules the ideology and teaching of the Church.

The Holy Father has spoken against this view of economics well before he became Pope, as well.

:clapping:

 

[esieffe]

They just might if it would get the Democrat Party more votes.

There is a reason for the “through the floor” approval ratings of the Congress. Both sides have sold themselves to Lobby groups. You have Pro-d**th, excuse me, I meant pro-choice groups on one side of the isle and a pair of brothers on the other side who started their empire on the backs of Stalin’s working class on the other.

I see no Knights in shining armour on the horizon either, save one, and his truly humble servant and protector of his Church, the Holy Father.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Can you direct me to the part where he differentiates and holds up one form of giving over another?

I would think that most effective giving is a priority, not excuse-making to support a certain political ideology.

Do you think the best form of giving is someone who gives because they want to with money they’ve earned or someone is forced to give through taxation that further dilutes what is taken for the end-user?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=esieffe;11468266]There is a reason for the “through the floor” approval ratings of the Congress. Both sides have sold themselves to Lobby groups. You have Pro-d**th, excuse me, I meant pro-choice groups on one side of the isle and a pair of brothers on the other side who started their empire on the backs of Stalin’s working class on the other.

Don’t be bashful. Call it what it is: death.

But just because you find fault with the left doesn’t mean you have to dig out and exaggerate something about the other side.

The GOP has been too moderate, if anything.

I see no Knights in shining armour on the horizon either, save one, and his truly humble servant and protector of his Church, the Holy Father.

Well, my friend, if it’s government corruption and big government taking advantage of people in general you are against, we had those folks in Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Allen West, Herman Cain and Ted Cruz.

But voting for them wasn’t “cool” or would get one rubbing elbows with the elite. In fact their own party and the independent elite worked against them.

It would likely make one either a laughing stock or the target of the same vitriol these brave souls endured to support them.

Just look at the TEA PARTY. The media tried to make them look like the KKK and the GOP party bosses scold them. Even independents will do the dirty work (apparently still thinking they are above the fray) to keep them down.

It’s truly ironic that a lot of the same people who want to weed out scandal in government are the same people who jump on the bandwagon to assail those who would dare try.

Don’t make this mistake.

Democrats have asked me why the push for gay “marriage” or other social issues? Why are you giving away my hard-earned money?

The answer: Because Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Christian African Americans and rural heartlanders in IA, WI, MI, MN and up and down the Mississippi River will still vote for them.

And be assured the Roves, Messinas and Axelrods of the world know that when they see the word “republican” on the ballot what will happen.

 

[RedCaves]

Why post from CNN?

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the problem that some people have with Pope Francis is that he emphasizes the social teachings of the Church, not that he’s saying anything that has not been said before.

However, in the past, the popes wrote about these things, but often spoke more about those issues related to human sexuality: abortion, same sex marriage, divorce, contraception and so forth.

The economically/politically conservative Catholic and other felt safe with those subjects. Either did not know the social teachings or put them in the back of his mind, because they were not very present in the pope’s speeches, sermons and interviews.

Francis speaks less about sexually related issues and more about social issues. But there is no discontinuity in his positions on either set of issues. However, the economically and politically conservative is feeling threatened by this talk about social morality, because it’s an area of his life that he has not had to examine under the microscope of morality. Francis is calling him to do so.

The feeling out there is “Won’t someone shut this pope’s mouth?”