There are more ways to learn about a topic than just experience. A person who has studied child development/parenting/whatever the discipline has knowledge and should not be dismissed out of hand.Ever take parenting advice from a childless person?
Well , you can extend this to male gynecologists.Her question is “how can a celibate person offer reliable counselling to couples?”
I actually think what you saw and experienced growing up, during your formative years, has more of an effect on your knowledge of marriage and children than being married or a parent yourself.The single and childless aren’t all that ignorant and clueless about marriage and children.
I fail to see how this is on the priest. Are you expecting them to be human lie detectors? The problem here was her friend and her friend’s family lying to get their way.To her first point, she related how her friend who got married in the church had to go to extensive counseling with a priest prior to getting married. Her friend had already been cohabitating with her fiance, having sex, and had an alcohol problem to boot. The friend not only lied to the priest, but coerced her family and his into lying on their behalf so they could have the wedding. The “counseling” was a sham process.
One does not have to have children to be able to understand the problem. One does not need to be married to understand marriage either. To argue otherwise is a fallacy of relevance.Had the bishop’s been family men with children of their own, they would not have been so cavalier about the problem.
Her way of thinking is at odds with the Church, not the other way around. They do not have to bow to what people believe, the Church is not a democracy where things are voted upon and changed.Her third point was that the bishops tend towards political positions at odds with her own. The Pope has come down against the death penalty and life imprisonment, punishments she herself believes in the justice and practicality of.
I’m not sure what the point of the “counselling” is then. It’s obviously not a vetting process, if they’ll marry a couple even if the couple is living in sin and also lying about it.
I dont think your points and criticism are coming across well. Yes the church will marry those who are “living in sin” and seeking to remedy their situation. As the church did to me. Lying was not necessary. Because she could have approached the priest with the truth. She was living in a sexual relationship with a man, and seeking out to remedy her situation with receive the sacrament of marriage. Which would have been the truth It would have given the priest an honest starting point to discuss their living situation, their relationship, and the sacrament of marriage.I’m not sure what the point of the “counselling” is then. It’s obviously not a vetting process, if they’ll marry a couple even if the couple is living in sin and also lying about it.
When she brings the church up I presume she is considering it as something worth thinking about… so I do my best to address what I can and when. But it sometimes goes really badly for me!My question for you is why you are so concerned with her thinking process. She is not Christian and I doubt you will change her mind.
My civil marriage was convalidated in the church. So I know what you mean. Like you, we didn’t go in lying about being civilly married or living together. I guess I just thought that a sacrament obtained through deceit would be potentially invalid, and that the Church wouldn’t indulge a lying couple in performing it. Maybe not. That’s an interesting discussion.Yes the church will marry those who are “living in sin” and seeking to remedy their situation. As the church did to me. Lying was not necessary. Because she could have approached the priest with the truth.
Same here. I was de facto “living in sin” when engaged. We had arranged a technicality to make it appear we weren’t (I won’t go into details) to avoid issues with my mother. Father never asked for details of our living situation. Since he was an older priest and no fool, I suspect he was much more focused on just getting us married than quizzing us on our moral life. He could see we were 30 years old and responsible, and that I despite my secretly sinful life was at Mass on Sunday and throwing envelopes in the collection weekly for months, I think he just took that and ran with it.Yes the church will marry those who are “living in sin” and seeking to remedy their situation. As the church did to me.
Priests can counsel in the spiritual domain - they are not deeply skilled in marital Counselling nor in parenting, but this weakness is not Primarily rooted in their lack of a wife nor lack of children.Her observation was that, not having children or spouses of their own, they are in a very poor position to offer marital or parental counseling, unable to appreciate the gravity of clergy sex abuse, and also because of their celibacy tend towards progressive political stances, which due to their great influence over Catholics, is foolish to support.
Why are these things branded as an outcome of a political preference rather than views arrived at on the basis of judging their morality and/or what serves the common good best?Her third point was that the bishops tend towards political positions at odds with her own. The Pope has come down against the death penalty and life imprisonment, punishments she herself believes in the justice and practicality of. The USCCB is also pro gun-control and liberal immigration policies, positions she is also against.
Then the bishops must have been quite unreasonable men.The gravity of child sex abuse is well understood by any reasonable person
I would prefer that you did rather than simply dismiss it. I can’t make headway in an argument by being dismissive.The statement about politics is just too ridiculous to comment on.
I suppose because they are positions that don’t have to be accepted as dogma; one is free to disagree with the bishops on their policy positions, and if you are free to disagree then you are also free to come to the conclusion that those policies are not moral or in service of the common good.Why are these things branded as an outcome of a political preference rather than views arrived at on the basis of judging their morality and/or what serves the common good best?
There is no basis to assume gravity was not understood. Some bishops simply did the wrong thing, and should be punished appropriately.Then the bishops must have been quite unreasonable men.
Do you think of all morally-based judgements as a “policy position”.one is free to disagree with the bishops on their policy positions
In evaluating morality of acts, each person gets to judge those matters which are a matter of judgement, by applying relevant moral principles. Most commonly that entails judging whether foreseeable outcomes are likely to do more harm than good. A bishop and I might come to different conclusions, and thus arrive at a different view on the morality (or otherwise) of an act or policy.if you are free to disagree then you are also free to come to the conclusion that those policies are not moral or in service of the common good.