Vatican’s legal chief says desire to change enough for Communion

[Mongo]

…I don’t see why not.

Dan

‘There is love, there is commitment, it is forever.’ Why not?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I wonder if the door is open enough to leave a first marriage, get civilly married in a ssm and then apply this theology?

Not even close.

Marriage according to the Church, will always be between one man and one woman.

Allowing a divorced and remarried Catholic to receive Holy Communion doesn’t point near the direction you’re suggesting.

Jim

 

[RCinMT]

Not even close.

Marriage according to the Church, will always be between one man and one woman.

Allowing a divorced and remarried Catholic to receive Holy Communion doesn’t point near the direction you’re suggesting.

Jim

What if one wants to change but has adopted kids through the process and would be breaking up a marriage if he or she started to practice celibacy because the spouse would leave?

I want to hear the difference because we’re talking about invalid unions or “irregular situations” in both cases. Neither marriage is valid.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not even close.

Marriage according to the Church, will always be between one man and one woman.

Allowing a divorced and remarried Catholic to receive Holy Communion doesn’t point near the direction you’re suggesting.

Jim

Development of doctrine

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Development of doctrine

That would be a new doctrine, allowing SS couples to marry in the Church.

Far different from the topic of this thread.

Jim

 

[Mongo]

That would be a new doctrine, allowing SS couples to marry in the Church.

Far different from the topic of this thread.

Jim

It is a new doctrine to allow people to remarry after having already been married.

 

[pnewton]

I wonder if the door is open enough to leave a first marriage, get civilly married in a ssm and then apply this theology?

Not even close.

Marriage according to the Church, will always be between one man and one woman.

Allowing a divorced and remarried Catholic to receive Holy Communion doesn’t point near the direction you’re suggesting.

Jim

What if one wants to change but has adopted kids through the process and would be breaking up a marriage if he or she started to practice celibacy because the spouse would leave?

I think the question Hoosier has asked should not be dismissed. It is a valid point that should be understood. If one cannot answer the “why”, then the slippery slope is a valid argument.

I believe it to be invalid. Homosexuality remains, as always, gravely disordered. A second marriage, where the first marriage is valid, is sinful, but it is not gravely disordered. In fact, in most circumstances, it is indistinguishable from any other marriage. This is why I do no think the slippery slop applies. Yes, it does have the one commonality that a conscience might lead one to believe that true “love” is all that matters. But one commonality does not a slope make.

 

[dans0622]

It is a new doctrine to allow people to remarry after having already been married.

Hello,

I look at it differently. The people involved (in the Cardinal’s example) are *not *married (to each other) as far as the Church is concerned. Yet, due to various, extraordinary circumstances, they can continue to engage in certain relations with each other.

It seems to me, then, that the marital status of the Parties is secondary. The fundamental principles are related to being unable to act differently because of the danger of falling into further (or another serious) sin.

Dan

 

[RCinMT]

I think the question Hoosier has asked should not be dismissed. It is a valid point that should be understood. If one cannot answer the “why”, then the slippery slope is a valid argument.

I believe it to be invalid. Homosexuality remains, as always, gravely disordered. A second marriage, where the first marriage is valid, is sinful, but it is not gravely disordered. In fact, in most circumstances, it is indistinguishable from any other marriage. This is why I do no think the slippery slop applies. Yes, it does have the one commonality that a conscience might lead one to believe that true “love” is all that matters. But one commonality does not a slope make.

Interesting. However, to my knowledge there is venial sin and mortal sin. There is no further differentiation within those categories: mortal is mortal is mortal. Adultrey used to be a mortal sin. Homosexual acts are for now mortal sins. I have never heard of gravely disordered mortal sin vs. plain old mortal sin. I am not being a facetious. Can you take a stab at that?

 

[pnewton]

Interesting. However, to my knowledge there is venial sin and mortal sin. There is no further differentiation within those categories: mortal is mortal is mortal. Adultrey used to be a mortal sin. Homosexual acts are for now mortal sins. I have never heard of gravely disordered mortal sin vs. plain old mortal sin. I am not being a facetious. Can you take a stab at that?

Well, not even all mortal sins are of the same gravity. In this sense, there is further differentiation. I know that the Catechism refers to homosexuality being disordered (as well as grave). I see what you are saying. There is a sense in which all sin is disordered from our fallen nature.

There is this differentiation. Through history, there have been times before Christ where we had provisions for more than one wife and a writ of divorce. At no time was it morally acceptable, even for the “hardness of heart” for a guy to have sex with a guy or marry one.

 

[pnewton]

By the way, I do not know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but there is a similarity, though not an equivalency between “desire to change” and “firmly resolve”. Both are different ways of expressing repentance.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not even close.

Marriage according to the Church, will always be between one man and one woman.

Allowing a divorced and remarried Catholic to receive Holy Communion doesn’t point near the direction you’re suggesting.

Jim

Sure it does. And four years ago you would have said the same thing about serial adultery.

Does the church recognize the second marriage in the civilly divorced?

 

[RCinMT]

Well, not even all mortal sins are of the same gravity. In this sense, there is further differentiation. I know that the Catechism refers to homosexuality being disordered (as well as grave). I see what you are saying. There is a sense in which all sin is disordered from our fallen nature.

There is this differentiation. Through history, there have been times before Christ where we had provisions for more than one wife and a writ of divorce. At no time was it morally acceptable, even for the “hardness of heart” for a guy to have sex with a guy or marry one.

Thanks, p. I appreciate it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It is a new doctrine to allow people to remarry after having already been married.

But that’s just it, they’re not going to eliminate the current doctrine.

In fact, there are only certain conditions where a divorced and remarried Catholic would be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

It’s merely a modification of the doctrine we have now, not a new one like recognizing SS marriage.

Jim

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think the question Hoosier has asked should not be dismissed. It is a valid point that should be understood. If one cannot answer the “why”, then the slippery slope is a valid argument.

I believe it to be invalid. Homosexuality remains, as always, gravely disordered. A second marriage, where the first marriage is valid, is sinful, but it is not gravely disordered. In fact, in most circumstances, it is indistinguishable from any other marriage. This is why I do no think the slippery slop applies. Yes, it does have the one commonality that a conscience might lead one to believe that true “love” is all that matters. But one commonality does not a slope make.

But it will be applied. And most certainly if we change the three sacraments involved.
One could argue this new theology is already being applied to other situations than the divorced and remarried. Like when the pope says birth control (condoms) can be discerned for the specific case of Zika.
In both situations confused and well meaning Catholics try to contain the theology to the specific case at hand but it quickly unravels.

One need only to look at the blueprint for Ssm that we have seen. Take a small minority and make it about specific cases to advance a cause and destroy a system that the majority holds.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

But that’s just it, they’re not going to eliminate the current doctrine.

In fact, there are only certain conditions where a divorced and remarried Catholic would be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

It’s merely a modification of the doctrine we have now, not a new one like recognizing SS marriage.

Jim

Merely a modification…

I’m gonna use this when I cheat on my wife…
It’s merely a modification of our vows babe…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sure it does. And four years ago you would have said the same thing about serial adultery.

Does the church recognize the second marriage in the civilly divorced?

Serial adultery ?

I don’t know what that means, and you’re making assumptions about what I would’ve said.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Merely a modification…

I’m gonna use this when I cheat on my wife…
It’s merely a modification of our vows babe…

Cheating on your wife is far different and grave sin than what the topic of the thread is about.

Jim

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Cheating on your wife is far different and grave sin than what the topic of the thread is about.

Jim

Nope. I want to change. I wish I didn’t do it. But I just have to!
The only difference between that and the subject of the thread is a paper that any government gives you.

It’s a concession of the church to give the state power over its sacraments.
And it’s really about genital stimulation put above the Eucharist. To me not only is that. Violation of the sixth commandment but the first as well.

 

[St_Francis]

But that’s just it, they’re not going to eliminate the current doctrine.

In fact, there are only certain conditions where a divorced and remarried Catholic would be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

It’s merely a modification of the doctrine we have now, not a new one like recognizing SS marriage.

Jim

What are the “certain conditions” you mention, and where are they mentioned?