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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Havard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
I do not really care for the Arian comparison, as that was a matter of doctrine. The comparison, by its nature, begs the question, as it assumes that this disagreement is a matter of doctrine, thus using the point of disagreement as one point in the argument that is used as evidence against it. The logic becomes a nice circle.
Click to expand...
I wonder if we have any evidence that Arians thought it wasn’t a matter of doctrine. I’m inclined to think this is about doctrine. If this is only about practice, then we should allow Communion for stable, committed cohabiters with children. They’re becoming more common. Why insist they be regularized, if divorced and remarried don’t need to be?

This isn’t directed at you, but at any rate, do we really want to be like the Jews of Jesus’ day, who quibbled over the technicalities of divorce? I feel like that’s where this is headed. Even if divorce was allowed by Moses, Jesus apparently wasn’t a fan.
 
pnewton said:
I do not really care for the Arian comparison, as that was a matter of doctrine. The comparison, by its nature, begs the question, as it assumes that this disagreement is a matter of doctrine, thus using the point of disagreement as one point in the argument that is used as evidence against it. The logic becomes a nice circle.
Click to expand...
I don’t mind the comparison as long as I get to picture who arius is and who Santa is in this situation…😉
 
St_Francis said:
No, it’s because marriage is a sacrament. In marriage, each person in the couple gives him- or herself completely to the other. Scott Hahn explains that marriage is more a covenant than it is a mere contract; and he does it better than I can. If you are interested, I will look into getting you more info.
Click to expand...
Yes, but why is this one so public?
 
pnewton said:
I do not really care for the Arian comparison, as that was a matter of doctrine. The comparison, by its nature, begs the question, as it assumes that this disagreement is a matter of doctrine, thus using the point of disagreement as one point in the argument that is used as evidence against it. The logic becomes a nice circle.
Click to expand...
Well, this does show an apparent difference in understanding of Church doctrines related to marriage and sin, but the main reason I brought the Arian heresy up was to show that the Church has had huge problems before, not to bring Arianism per se into the discussion, for someone whomis disturbed by the disruption in the Church.
 
pnewton said:
You are not alone. Yet when I have mentioned that marriage and the sin of adultery, that is the state of adultery by being in a second marriage, is different than the way the Church treats other sin, I get usually am bombarded by the argument that it isn’t. 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t see it as a sin being treated differently; it’s just that marriage is treated according to Catholic doctrine: that is, one can’t be married to another person while an existing marriage remains valid.

Adultery can be confessed and forgiven like any other sin. But if one living in an invalid marriage (or for example, one living in a cohabiting relationship) confesses the same sin of adultery or fornication weekly with the clear understanding and intention that the sexual relationship will continue, a purpose of amendment is lacking. And while it’s true that anyone might confess the same sin repeatedly, a clear intention NOT to discontinue the sin seems at odds with the purpose of the sacrament.

My problem with the discussion of culpability alone is that the fact of a prior marriage is treated as irrelevant. But the marriage is either valid or not. And that’s a determination that needs to be made.
 
pnewton said:
You are not alone. Yet when I have mentioned that marriage and the sin of adultery, that is the state of adultery by being in a second marriage, is different than the way the Church treats other sin, I get usually am bombarded by the argument that it isn’t. 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t know that the sin is treated differently as much as it is a little more unique in its public appearance as well as its perpetuity. Is not the Church’s position the same for any other grave matter that is committed in perpetuity?
 
JimG said:
I don’t see it as a sin being treated differently; it’s just that marriage is treated according to Catholic doctrine: that is, one can’t be married to another person while an existing marriage remains valid.

Adultery can be confessed and forgiven like any other sin. But if one living in an invalid marriage (or for example, one living in a cohabiting relationship) confesses the same sin of adultery or fornication weekly with the clear understanding and intention that the sexual relationship will continue, a purpose of amendment is lacking. And while it’s true that anyone might confess the same sin repeatedly, a clear intention NOT to discontinue the sin seems at odds with the purpose of the sacrament.

My problem with the discussion of culpability alone is that the fact of a prior marriage is treated as irrelevant. But the marriage is either valid or not. And that’s a determination that needs to be made.
Click to expand...
Very well said, which is why the practice actually does touch on doctrine.
 
well, I’m totally bowled over by your post! Welcome to CAF! (Sorry to be a little late with the welcome ;))
 
You say it is an error. I say it is true. The Church has never taught all Christians have to agree on everything. For example, at the end of her earthly life, Mary was assumed into Heaven. Did she die? Some say yes, some so now, which is why the Dogma of the Assumption is worded as it is. We only have to agree on doctrine that has been defined.

You may apply that to this topic, but that is the very question at hand, so such an application is begging the question. We have to agree, for example, on the permanence of marriage.
Observe secondly that St. Paul tells us not agree not in the name of the Supreme Pontiff, but in the name of “our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Click to expand...
And where Jesus personally speaks, we listen. So, what would Jesus say about this? That is the question, is it not. By what authority do we determine this?
 
Surely you aren’t implying that some people receiving our Lord in the most Blessed Sacrament while in a state of grace while others do so in a state of mortal sin somehow constitutes healthy “diversity” of some kind, in any way comparable to the diversity of the Saints.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But it takes more than grave matter to be out of a state of grace, which is why we accept non-Catholics may go to Heaven.
As St. Thomas Aquinas rightfully teaches us, a superior who commands something contrary to the will of God is to be resisted.
Click to expand...
I have not been commanded by any bishop to take any sort of action in relation to Amoris Laetitia. If you are ever given such a command, ant you believe it to be contrary to the will of God, then by all means, I understand.
 
pnewton said:
Of course not. But it takes more than grave matter to be out of a state of grace, which is why we accept non-Catholics may go to Heaven.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? You seem to be relating the possibility that non-Catholics might be able to attain Heaven with the situation in which irregularly situated people find themselves?
I have not been commanded by any bishop to take any sort of action in relation to Amoris Laetitia. If you are ever given such a command, ant you believe it to be contrary to the will of God, then by all means, I understand.
Click to expand...
 
JimG said:
I don’t see it as a sin being treated differently; it’s just that marriage is treated according to Catholic doctrine: that is, one can’t be married to another person while an existing marriage remains valid.

Adultery can be confessed and forgiven like any other sin. But if one living in an invalid marriage (or for example, one living in a cohabiting relationship) confesses the same sin of adultery or fornication weekly with the clear understanding and intention that the sexual relationship will continue, a purpose of amendment is lacking. And while it’s true that anyone might confess the same sin repeatedly, a clear intention NOT to discontinue the sin seems at odds with the purpose of the sacrament.

My problem with the discussion of culpability alone is that the fact of a prior marriage is treated as irrelevant. But the marriage is either valid or not. And that’s a determination that needs to be made.
Click to expand...
It may seem compassionate to avoid making determinations, or minimize a determination made by a supposedly Cold, Legalistic, Bureaucracy such as a tribunal. But tribunals were put in place not to safeguard rules, but to protect ****people ****from some unhappiness. Centuries ago the Church saw the heartbreak that usually came from second or third marriages after divorce, all of which is confirmed even by secular sources today. The Church saw that children and adults preparing for marriage in their future life are affected by how “indissolubility” of marriage is treated today, if not in society at least in the Church.

Suppose someone smokes. On the one hand we don’t want their doctor to judge and condemn them - keep the door open for communication and care. But on the other hand, the doctor should gently keep leading them to stop, not because smoking is against the rules, but it hurts them. It’s not enough to get the patient to acknowledge smoking is unhealthy. They need (with gentle assistance) to get out of that situation, so it does not hurt them going forward.

It would be a false compassion for the AMA to announce that “Doctors should no longer cause stress by mentioning smoking as being unhealthy. We want people to feel loved and accepted when they come to the doctor’s office”. But just getting smokers to come often to the doctor’s office, with no personal change, does not really cause them to be healthy, or benefit their health in any way; even if they feel comfortable and accepted there.
 
commenter said:
It may seem compassionate to avoid making determinations, or minimize a determination made by a supposedly Cold, Legalistic, Bureaucracy such as a tribunal. But tribunals were put in place not to safeguard rules, but to protect ****people ****from some unhappiness. Centuries ago the Church saw the heartbreak that usually came from second or third marriages after divorce, all of which is confirmed even by secular sources today. The Church saw that children and adults preparing for marriage in their future life are affected by how “indissolubility” of marriage is treated today, if not in society at least in the Church.

Suppose someone smokes. On the one hand we don’t want their doctor to judge and condemn them - keep the door open for communication and care. But on the other hand, the doctor should gently keep leading them to stop, not because smoking is against the rules, but it hurts them. It’s not enough to get the patient to acknowledge smoking is unhealthy. They need (with gentle assistance) to get out of that situation, so it does not hurt them going forward.

It would be a false compassion for the AMA to announce that “Doctors should no longer cause stress by mentioning smoking as being unhealthy. We want people to feel loved and accepted when they come to the doctor’s office”. But just getting smokers to come often to the doctor’s office, with no personal change, does not really cause them to be healthy, or benefit their health in any way; even if they feel comfortable and accepted there.
Click to expand...
Very good.
It is good for everyone to keep in mind that pastoral practice has the good of the person as it’s focus, not the mere imposition of doctrine or the massaging of conscience. The healthy conscience is united to Truth.
The fact that pastoral practice is seen as “torture” speaks as much to our modern frame of mind, which avoids pain at all costs, as it does to the practices/disciplines.
 
goout said:
Very good.
It is good for everyone to keep in mind that pastoral practice has the good of the person as it’s focus, not the mere imposition of doctrine or the massaging of conscience. The healthy conscience is united to Truth.
The fact that pastoral practice is seen as “torture” speaks as much to our modern frame of mind, which avoids pain at all costs, as it does to the practices/disciplines.
Click to expand...
The Church is often referred to as a “field hospital”. It is a place where people who fall down are given aid. But even field hospitals are not oblivious to the changing environment. If they notice lots more people falling in the back lot, and they find the cliff there has big holes in the fence that people fall through, the solution is not just to hire more nurses.

Part of the solution is to rebuild that fence, or in this case, restore the sacramental understanding of the permanency of marriage. It does not help much to point out other churches are not restoring their fences. If a fence does its job, it gets no credit, though some complain about fences because they are “rigid”. But preventing people from falling over the cliff is just as important as rushing out with the medical equipment to the fallen.

There is no way to adequately measure how many millions of people did not get injured because of the fence of indissolubility that was kept up by Catholics and Protestants until several decades ago. Isn’t ****that ****healing, as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top