C
carn
Guest
From synod reports of various “liberal” ("" because actually catholics should not be divided in political blocks, but the word is useful so everybody knows what i am talking about) catholic media soureces (e.g. National Catholic Reporter) i get the impression, that those bishops sceptical about admission of remarried to communion and absolution of their sins have
more or less no real good reason to be sceptical
except for misguided clinging to more or less outdated rules.
I do get, why some might against the position of such bishops. What i do not understand is why seemingly “liberal” catholics cannot formulate, think of and/or imagine a reason beyond hateful dogmatism for being sceptical/against change in this respect.
Because all catholics, so also “liberals” and “trads”, agree that Jesus words should be honored as they are meant.
If i look now at the following words:
"3 Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, ‘Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?’
4 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’
7 They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’
8 He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.
9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’"
(catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=47&bible_chapter=19)
i cannot avoid concluding that these words - independent upon exact interpretation and translations (e.g. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A9&version=KJV ; catholic.com/quickquestions/does-jesus-leave-a-loophole-for-divorce-in-matthew-199) - strongly indicate that divorcing and remarrying can EVEN IF DONE ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED RULES be adultery.
And also, since filling/handing out divorce papers does usually not include sexual activity, the adultery lies not only in what happened between husband and “former” wife, but also depends/lies in the sexual activities he has with the “new” wife, because adultery clearly means some sin in respect to sexuality and therefore cannot mean the asexual legal divorce proceedings alone.
Therefore, potentially some/many/all sexual activities with the “new” wife might include sinning.
I understand, that some might disagree, that after some time, reconcilation and so on, Sex with “new” wife might be possible without sinning. But that wouldn’t not change that there is undoubtly according to Jesus himself at least the risk of sin in sexual activities with a “new” wife.
And if there is at least the risk of sin, why cannot it be formulated, thought of and/or imagined that some those evil, dogmatic, close hearted “trads” besides their disregard for mercy might actually have a valid reason for being sceptically, since handling situations which carry a relevant risk for sin MUST be done with great care?
Obviously, such great care would include considering Pauls letter indicating people being distanced by sin from God in a somewhat serious way, should not try to receive communion, and considering Jesus example of handling an adulter, which not only included not stoning her to death but also included ordering her not to sin again, which both together make receiving communion and confession at least tricky for remarried as it would have first to be understood unambigiously to what extent their rather likely future sexual activity might be adultery.
I realy do not get, why this cannot be understood and instead only a lack of mercy is seen in opposed “trads”.
more or less no real good reason to be sceptical
except for misguided clinging to more or less outdated rules.
I do get, why some might against the position of such bishops. What i do not understand is why seemingly “liberal” catholics cannot formulate, think of and/or imagine a reason beyond hateful dogmatism for being sceptical/against change in this respect.
Because all catholics, so also “liberals” and “trads”, agree that Jesus words should be honored as they are meant.
If i look now at the following words:
"3 Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, ‘Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?’
4 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’
7 They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’
8 He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.
9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’"
(catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=47&bible_chapter=19)
i cannot avoid concluding that these words - independent upon exact interpretation and translations (e.g. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A9&version=KJV ; catholic.com/quickquestions/does-jesus-leave-a-loophole-for-divorce-in-matthew-199) - strongly indicate that divorcing and remarrying can EVEN IF DONE ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED RULES be adultery.
And also, since filling/handing out divorce papers does usually not include sexual activity, the adultery lies not only in what happened between husband and “former” wife, but also depends/lies in the sexual activities he has with the “new” wife, because adultery clearly means some sin in respect to sexuality and therefore cannot mean the asexual legal divorce proceedings alone.
Therefore, potentially some/many/all sexual activities with the “new” wife might include sinning.
I understand, that some might disagree, that after some time, reconcilation and so on, Sex with “new” wife might be possible without sinning. But that wouldn’t not change that there is undoubtly according to Jesus himself at least the risk of sin in sexual activities with a “new” wife.
And if there is at least the risk of sin, why cannot it be formulated, thought of and/or imagined that some those evil, dogmatic, close hearted “trads” besides their disregard for mercy might actually have a valid reason for being sceptically, since handling situations which carry a relevant risk for sin MUST be done with great care?
Obviously, such great care would include considering Pauls letter indicating people being distanced by sin from God in a somewhat serious way, should not try to receive communion, and considering Jesus example of handling an adulter, which not only included not stoning her to death but also included ordering her not to sin again, which both together make receiving communion and confession at least tricky for remarried as it would have first to be understood unambigiously to what extent their rather likely future sexual activity might be adultery.
I realy do not get, why this cannot be understood and instead only a lack of mercy is seen in opposed “trads”.