"Sacramentum Caritatis" presented on March 13, 2007

[Vonier]

Advocating abortion, euthanasia and homosexual marriage are 3 very clear ways to be out of communion with Christ’s Church. If divorced Catholics are regularly refused communion how can the Catholic politicians who openly espouse positions so diametrically opposed to the doctrines of the Church continue to receive?

I can only assume that the bishops are more comfortable refusing divorced Catholics than they are facing the ire of those who support the murder of children in the womb. Makes no sense to me as a Catholic. No sense.

 

[Unitas]

Any latin buffs here? I’m still a wee learner.

The part in paragraph 62 where it says,“such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin.”

On the cafeteria is closed, it’s mentioned that in the german and italian translations, that “it is good/favorable” for the liturgy to be celebrated in latin. This is very different than “could be.”

The original latin of this sentence is,“aequum est ut huiusmodi celebrationes fiant lingua Latina;”

I think it says, “plainly is as such celebrations we encourage/allow/declare the latin language”

I could be way wrong, like I said I’m a newbie to latin, and I’m lacking a decent definition of “fiant”.

Can anyone help me out here?

Ok I found a good reference source for “fiant” the verb in that phrase.

It is the third-person plural (most likely in reference to the celebrations and not the synod since it’s the plural case) of the verb “Fieri” which means “to become, to be made, to come into existence.” Link and Link.

While neither meaning “favorably,” nor does it just mean “could”. The verb itself carries much more authority and pronouncement it seems.

The same verb is used in the book of Genesis when God made the light, firmament, etc. So it carries a weightier meaning than just to make or to create, but rather “to be made fact” (perfect past tense infinitive is “factus”) or “to be made real”

Too bad the english doesn’t convey this.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Advocating abortion, euthanasia and homosexual marriage are 3 very clear ways to be out of communion with Christ’s Church. If divorced Catholics are regularly refused communion how can the Catholic politicians who openly espouse positions so diametrically opposed to the doctrines of the Church continue to receive?

I can only assume that the bishops are more comfortable refusing divorced Catholics than they are facing the ire of those who support the murder of children in the womb. Makes no sense to me as a Catholic. No sense.

Its apparent to me that some of these so-called Catholic politicians dont fear the Bishops or priests who are trying to make them more accountable. Simply put, they dont really care about their Catholic upbringing.

 

[katy]

I would definitely have to agree about the public figures who show no interest in their faith, but seem to like to parade as being “Catholic”. Why the Bishops are not more forceful about that is a very good question.

 

[KatieD]

I don’t think these “Catholic” politicians are afraid at all of the bishops or priests. Why should they be? No one ever denies them, and in fact, they appear to be embraced by certain bishops. I understand that bishops have a difficult job, but this seems pretty clearcut to me - a politician who stands for abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage, among other things, is thumbing his or her nose at the Church quite openly.