Synod's final report shows nuance on homosexuality, remarriage [CNA]

[JimG]

No it doesnt, im not suggesting that the church allows same sex marriages, I just don’t think it is a choice, we cant just ignore them . As for contraception, ii has its place, I cannot agree that it is wrong, I will have to leave the church, its not right for me to stay.

Of course we can’t ignore anyone. Neither can the Church approve of everyone’s sexual practices or change it’s doctrines. Heck, there are doctrines that every one of us would be more comfortable with if they were just dropped. There are tenets of moral theology that bug everyone, me included, because they mean we have to keep working on aligning our behavior to the moral good. It’s often said that the Church is not a hotel for saints but a hospital for sinners. That’s true. But it’s a hospital because we are ill; otherwise we don’t need a hospital.

 

[ProVobis]

How is it that the will of God is transmitted by a 2/3 majority vote? Surely an omnipotent God would directly reveal the correct position on divorce, communion, homosexuals in the church etc.; not by some political and clumsy “synod” with delegates “voting” on important issues.

You are right, it isn’t. God didn’t put the Ten Commandments up for a vote.

 

[johnnyc176]

As for contraception, ii has its place, I cannot agree that it is wrong, I will have to leave the church, its not right for me to stay.

This article might interest you because it has to do with a person who entered Jesus’s Church largely on the strength of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae which turned out to be very prophetic.

ncregister.com/daily-news/the-courage-of-pope-paul-vi

 

[Seraphim73]

I think the difficulty I have with statements like this is that it belies–or you can say, I perceive in your statement, take your pick of terminology–an attitude that the Church can “wind up accepting” just whatever.

You are reading your own prejudices into what I am saying. The Church is the Church, it is not one single bishop or any group of bishops. It is a mystical body. Sometimes bishops are right, sometimes they are wrong and the Church over time sorts that out. The Church is not an institution with sacraments, it’s a sacrament that happens to have institutions. That’s a critical distinction.

Talk about “limiting God’s ability to speak with us” leaves a very bad taste in my mouth because it is so strongly associated with leftist Catholic ideologues and I think the only reason they use it is because it makes them look morally superior to the uninitiated onlooker. “Oh look how nice that person is, that other guy is such a meanie!”

Well again that’s your personal hang up. What I mean is exactly what I said, that you can’t limit God’s ability to speak by saying that He only speaks through one bishop or only speaks through a group of bishops. Sometimes God does speak through one bishop, sometimes through many bishops and sometimes He speaks through individual holy people. So the idea that if 2/3 of the synod reflects God’s will and 58% doesn’t is simply preposterous. It could just as easily be the case that 99% of the synod is wrong and 1 lone bishop is right. The Church will either come to accept the findings as God’s will or it won’t.

It’s sort of like talk about “limiting God’s mercy.” When people say, “Don’t limit God’s mercy,” I always want to ask, “Who made you the arbiter of what, exactly, God’s mercy is in the first place?” Statements like that presume that the speaker can determine what is God’s mercy, which he very often is not qualified to do. I’m not saying we can’t make conscience determinations about when to be severe and when not to, I’m just saying that the language is manipulated by ideologues and, therefore, I always have to wonder about the motivations of people who use such language.

/rant

Well I would say anyone who seeks to limit God’s mercy is simply wrong because He has mercy on everybody.

 

[JimG]

Well I would say anyone who seeks to limit God’s mercy is simply wrong because He has mercy on everybody.

One cannot, of course, limit God’s mercy, which is infinite. It is possible, however, for one to improperly presume upon God’s mercy, which is the opposite sin of despairing of God’s mercy.

 

[Seraphim73]

One cannot, of course, limit God’s mercy, which is infinite. It is possible, however, for one to improperly presume upon God’s mercy, which is the opposite sin of despairing of God’s mercy.

That’s true, but we can’t make that judgement about somebody else.

 

[on_the_hill]

since it is acceptance of contraception that ultimately leads to acceptance of same sex marriage. You might want to review Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Even After the Pill.”

I really, really don’t like it when people, regardless of who they are, attempt to tell me what I’m thinking and why I’m thinking it.

Whether it’s corporate push marketing that tracks my buying habits, or salespeople who tell me what I want to wear, friends who told me who I should or shouldn’t date, or people who write books.

 

[Burdock]

This article might interest you because it has to do with a person who entered Jesus’s Church largely on the strength of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae which turned out to be very prophetic.

ncregister.com/daily-news/the-courage-of-pope-paul-vi

I have read this and im sorry but it hasnt changed my mind.

 

[Brendan]

You are reading your own prejudices into what I am saying. The Church is the Church, it is not one single bishop or any group of bishops. It is a mystical body. Sometimes bishops are right, sometimes they are wrong and the Church over time sorts that out. The Church is not an institution with sacraments, it’s a sacrament that happens to have institutions. That’s a critical distinction. .

Actually no, the Church itself IS an institution. It was instituted by Christ at the foot of the Cross.

That Instiution was entrusted with 7 other institutions, the Sacraments. You are correct, that they too are institutions of the their own, as they too were institutied by Christ. Like Christ, the Church is fully human and fully Divine.

But so was the Church, and the Church was instituted first,as to recieve custody of the Sacraments as it’s greatest treasures.

 

[Seraphim73]

Actually no, the Church itself IS an institution. It was instituted by Christ at the foot of the Cross.

That Instiution was entrusted with 7 other institutions, the Sacraments. You are correct, that they too are institutions of the their own, as they too were institutied by Christ. Like Christ, the Church is fully human and fully Divine.

But so was the Church, and the Church was instituted first,as to recieve custody of the Sacraments as it’s greatest treasures.

The Church is a mystery my friend. It can’t be any other way. God doesn’t fit into the neat little categories we think up for Him.

 

[on_the_hill]

It’s too bad the final report didn’t reflect more of the interim report. I’m praying the process gets back on track and gets the Church moving in the right direction.

 

[JimG]

I really, really don’t like it when people, regardless of who they are, attempt to tell me what I’m thinking and why I’m thinking it.

Whether it’s corporate push marketing that tracks my buying habits, or salespeople who tell me what I want to wear, friends who told me who I should or shouldn’t date, or people who write books.

The reason I recommend Ms. Eberstadt’s book is not because she attempts to tell anyone what they are thinking or why they are thinking it. She merely analyzes the statistical results of the sexual revolution. Even as a historical study or an analysis of social trends, I think that is worthwhile.

 

[on_the_hill]

The reason I recommend Ms. Eberstadt’s book is not because she attempts to tell anyone what they are thinking or why they are thinking it. She merely analyzes the statistical results of the sexual revolution. Even as a historical study or an analysis of social trends, I think that is worthwhile.

Fair enough.

 

[YoungTradCath]

You are reading your own prejudices into what I am saying. The Church is the Church, it is not one single bishop or any group of bishops. It is a mystical body. Sometimes bishops are right, sometimes they are wrong and the Church over time sorts that out. The Church is not an institution with sacraments, it’s a sacrament that happens to have institutions. That’s a critical distinction.

Well again that’s your personal hang up. What I mean is exactly what I said, that you can’t limit God’s ability to speak by saying that He only speaks through one bishop or only speaks through a group of bishops. Sometimes God does speak through one bishop, sometimes through many bishops and sometimes He speaks through individual holy people. So the idea that if 2/3 of the synod reflects God’s will and 58% doesn’t is simply preposterous. It could just as easily be the case that 99% of the synod is wrong and 1 lone bishop is right. The Church will either come to accept the findings as God’s will or it won’t.

Well I would say anyone who seeks to limit God’s mercy is simply wrong because He has mercy on everybody.

Then I think we basically agree though we have radically different emphases!

I think this may be a case of the Latin’s (me) parsing of tiny morsels of stuff and the Orthodox’s (you, or East in general) swishing the wine around in his mouth to taste all the flavors at once.

In other words and in specific, I tend to look for hidden motivations behind people’s use of certain language. That can be a weakness for me in that it may lead me to presume certain things about people. At the same time, I do think motivations end up being showcased in certain patterns of language, so I think it is fair, to a degree, to work backwards.

 

[Seraphim73]

Then I think we basically agree though we have radically different emphases!

I think this may be a case of the Latin’s (me) parsing of tiny morsels of stuff and the Orthodox’s (you, or East in general) swishing the wine around in his mouth to taste all the flavors at once.

In other words and in specific, I tend to look for hidden motivations behind people’s use of certain language. That can be a weakness for me in that it may lead me to presume certain things about people. At the same time, I do think motivations end up being showcased in certain patterns of language, so I think it is fair, to a degree, to work backwards.

I didn’t mean prejudices in the common very negative understanding of the term. So I hope you didn’t take offense, I didn’t intend it that way. As you say we all have prejudices and perspectives. I was simply commenting on the fact that according to my prejudices (), it seems silly to be excited that only 58% of the bishops at the synod agreed to something instead of 67%.

 

[Brendan]

The Church is a mystery my friend. It can’t be any other way. God doesn’t fit into the neat little categories we think up for Him.

I know, but it is factual that the Church was instituted by Christ. Therefore, by definition, it is an institution.

A Mystery is something that we cannot have complete knowledge of, but something being a mystery does not preclude us of having ANY knowledge of.

And the truth of the institutional nature of the Church a knowledge that we do possess.

 

[clem456]

I know, but it is factual that the Church was instituted by Christ. Therefore, by definition, it is an institution.

A Mystery is something that we cannot have complete knowledge of, but something being a mystery does not preclude us of having ANY knowledge of.

And the truth of the institutional nature of the Church a knowledge that we do possess.

Supporting background for this topic:
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb97.htm

1. The sacrament of redemption—the fruit of Christ’s redemptive love—becomes, on the basis of his spousal love for the Church, a permanent dimension of the life of the Church herself, a fundamental and life-giving dimension. It is the mysterium magnum (great mystery) of Christ and the Church. It is the eternal mystery actuated by Christ, who “gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). It is the mystery that is continually actuated in the Church, because Christ “loved the Church” (Eph 5:25), uniting himself with her in an indissoluble love, just as spouses, husband and wife, unite themselves in marriage. In this way the Church lives on the sacrament of redemption. In her turn she completes this sacrament just as the wife, in virtue of spousal love, completes her husband. In a certain way this had already been pointed out “in the beginning” when the first man found in the first woman “a helper fit for him” (Gn 2:20). Although the analogy in the Letter to the Ephesians does not state it precisely, we can add also that the Church united to Christ, as the wife to her husband, draws from the sacrament of redemption all her fruitfulness and spiritual motherhood. The words of the letter of St. Peter testify to this in some way when he writes that we have been “reborn not from a corruptible, but from an incorruptible seed, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pt 1:23). So the mystery hidden in God from all eternity—the mystery that in the beginning, in the sacrament of creation, became a visible reality through the union of the first man and woman in the perspective of marriage—becomes in the sacrament of redemption a visible reality of the indissoluble union of Christ with the Church, which the author of the Letter to the Ephesians presents as the nuptial union of spouses, husband and wife.

New actuation of the mystery

1. The sacramentum magnum (the Greek text reads: tò mystérion toûto méga estín) of the Letter to the Ephesians speaks of **the new actuation **of the mystery hidden in God from all eternity. It is the definitive actuation from the point of view of the earthly history of salvation. It also speaks of “making the mystery visible”: the visibility of the Invisible. This visibility is not had unless the mystery ceases to be a mystery. This refers to the marriage constituted in the beginning, in the state of original innocence, in the context of the sacrament of creation. It refers also to the union of Christ with the Church, as the great mystery of the sacrament of redemption. The visibility of the Invisible does not mean—if it can be said this way—a total clearing of the mystery. The mystery, as an object of faith, remains veiled even through what is precisely expressed and fulfilled. The visibility of the Invisible therefore belongs to the order of signs, and the sign indicates only the reality of the mystery, but not the unveiling. The “first Adam”—man, male and female—created in the state of original innocence and called in this state to conjugal union (in this sense we are speaking of the sacrament of creation) was a sign of the eternal mystery. So the “second Adam,” Christ, united with the Church through the sacrament of redemption by an indissoluble bond, analogous to the indissoluble covenant of spouses, is a definitive sign of the same eternal mystery. Therefore, in speaking about the eternal mystery being actuated, we are speaking also about the fact that it becomes visible with the visibility of the sign. Therefore we are speaking also about the sacramentality of the whole heritage of the sacrament of redemption, in reference to the entire work of creation and redemption, and more so in reference to marriage instituted within the context of the sacrament of creation, as also in reference to the Church as the spouse of Christ, endowed by a quasi-conjugal covenant with him.

 

[Tigg]

Well I would say anyone who seeks to limit God’s mercy is simply wrong because He has mercy on everybody.

Notwithstanding His perfect justice, of course which is necessarily intertwined with His mercy? Mercy is so misunderstood because it presupposes a conviction of wrongdoing and a subsequent change of heart. And then there is that little problem of presumption!

The Modern Error of Preaching Mercy without Repentance
blog.adw.org/2013/11/a-reflection-on-the-modern-error-of-preaching-mercy-without-repentance/

 

[TMC]

It’s too bad the final report didn’t reflect more of the interim report. I’m praying the process gets back on track and gets the Church moving in the right direction.

Two steps forward, one step back. The problem is that I am not sure how much longer the Church can take such slow progress.

 

[Seraphim73]

Notwithstanding His perfect justice, of course which is necessarily intertwined with His mercy? Mercy is so misunderstood because it presupposes a conviction of wrongdoing and a subsequent change of heart. And then there is that little problem of presumption!

The Modern Error of Preaching Mercy without Repentance
blog.adw.org/2013/11/a-reflection-on-the-modern-error-of-preaching-mercy-without-repentance/

I’m afraid there’s more misunderstanding of God’s justice than there is of His mercy. God’s is just because of His mercy. Why? Because He offers mercy to everyone without exception. If He offered His mercy to some and not to others we would have a case against Him but since He offers His mercy to all no one can say God is unjust. In fact God doesn’t really deal with us according to justice at all.