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

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why is the solution of abstaining from receiving the Eucharist simplistic? I too know people who have done that.

Apparently, abstaining from God, is easier that abstaining from sex.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Just to be clear on this:

If anyone thinks in proper conscience they should not go to Communion or are confused, then they need to seek spiritual direction from someone they trust.

 

[Ghosty]

Just to be clear on this:

If anyone thinks in proper conscience they should not go to Communion or are confused, then they need to seek spiritual direction from someone they trust.

Sound advice. This does nothing to settle concerns about the direction of the Church, but it will protect your soul.

 

[Ginny89]

That isn’t what I said. I said living with someone of the opposite sex was not objectively disordered. It can be an occaision of scandal, but it is not in itself disordered. There is no sin in sharing a roof, sharing bills, sharing child rearing duties, ect. These acts amount to “simulated marriage” to use your terminology, but they don’t include sex or lust which is where adultery comes into play.

By all means present evidence otherwise, rather than simply throwing out ad hominems.

You should be warned that this poster engages in insulting condenscesion and rude behaviour with almost everyone who disagrees with him or her. I am not sure it is deliberate because I have seen it repeated with impressive consistency with something like 8 posters. Don’t take it personally.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t see it as a sin being treated differently; it’s just that marriage is treated according to Catholic doctrine:

If you do not consider culpability, that is a pretty significant difference.

 

[Ghosty]

You should be warned that this poster engages in insulting condenscesion and rude behaviour with almost everyone who disagrees with him or her. I am not sure it is deliberate because I have seen it repeated with impressive consistency with something like 8 posters. Don’t take it personally.

I don’t take it personally, but thanks for the warning.

I’ve been a member on these forums since they began, and I’ve seen every kind of poster. I just hope to facilitate reasoned discussion if possible; otherwise why are we here?

 

[Mongo]

You should be warned that this poster engages in insulting condenscesion and rude behaviour with almost everyone who disagrees with him or her. I am not sure it is deliberate because I have seen it repeated with impressive consistency with something like 8 posters. Don’t take it personally.

I have experienced this with him/her myself.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If flatmates of the opposite sex living together is not objectively disordered then living together as brother and sister is not objectively disordered.

It may subjectively be a near occaision of sin for the individuals, or a source of moral scandal for the community, but it is not objectively morally disordered.

There are many aspects of marriage that are morally permitted outside of marriage, including living together. We also show affection for eachother outside of marriage, support eachother emotionally and financially outside of marriage, ect. Living together, while not ideal and carrying added risks that may be unwarranted in most circumstances, is simply not objectively immoral; again, if it were then men and women could never be roommates.

Scandal is not adultery, and it depends on outside circumstances as well. You seem to be concerned with scandal, which arises from the appearance of sin, but that is not where the concern over the remarried receiving Communion arises in the current situation.

You are hung up on lust and carnal adultery as the sole reason why the objective situation and condition of irregulars, even allegedly abstaining irregulars, is disordered and at odds with Jesus’s teaching on the meaning of Christian marriage.

It is a nonsense to suggest merely abstaining does anything other than somewhat lessen the gravity of this enduring disorder.
To suggest an irregular union, due to the decision to abstain, somehow becomes comparable to “flatmates” sharing the same roof and child rearing responsibilities is too silly to seriously discuss further sorry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why is the solution of abstaining from receiving the Eucharist simplistic? I too know people who have done that.

You’ve forgotten the original point:

Yes, it is simple. Until the status of the prior marriage is resolved, one in a second marriage simply refrains from communion.

Because the last two Popes, a lot of Cardinals, priests and irregulars otherwise model Catholics realise that many invalid first marriages may never be resolvable by Tribunals.

The consider it an affront to otherwise acceptable Catholics that they be isolated from Communion for life as it is not an award for outward purity but food for the journey and they are in fact likely in a state of grace despite appearances.

Sure you don’t agree.
But please don’t pretend all the above are either inexperienced, unknowledgable about the faith or of the devil.

Given that, it is clearly a complicated issue which is why multiple and interminable topics re AL exist on CAF.

Surely one would have to be blind deaf and dumb to assert, other than rhetorically or blowing steam, that the issue is “simple”.

And given that Pope Francis has already ruled on this and given directives now being implemented in varied fashion throughout the Dioceses of the world that contradict this simplistic solution, then those who object do seem to be on the wrong side of history.

Anyone who continues to think the answer is “simple” is then hardly any different from a “flat-earther” in their opposition to reality.

That’s my “simple” view of the matter anyways.

 

[Ghosty]

You are hung up on lust and carnal adultery as the sole reason why the objective situation and condition of irregulars, even allegedly abstaining irregulars, is disordered and at odds with Jesus’s teaching on the meaning of Christian marriage.

It is a nonsense to suggest merely abstaining does anything other than somewhat lessen the gravity of this enduring disorder.
To suggest an irregular union, due to the decision to abstain, somehow becomes comparable to “flatmates” sharing the same roof and child rearing responsibilities is too silly to seriously discuss further sorry.

If you have facts or reasoned argument then I’m all ears. Do present them and we can discuss.

I will present mine. Men and women living under the same roof while not related is not inherently disorded, or else having opposite sex roomates would be morally wrong. Men and women devoting themselves to eachother when not related and not married is not disordered, or else close friendships between men and women would be wrong. Men and women sharing finances and raising children together when not married is not disordered, or else people with children out of wedlock would be sinning in cooperating in raising children.

None of these things are exclusive to marriage, though they are integral to it. Sex, however, is exclusive to marriage though married life can’t be reduced to sex without becoming lust or objectification. Removing sex is the minimum required of those in such irregular situations, and it may be the most they can do given their circumstances (children, finances, health, ect.). Removing only sex takes away adultery in the moral sense, because being married does obligate one to not devote themselves to others, to not care for children from outside that marriage, to not share finances with someone who is not one’s spouse, but sex is reserved for marriage.

Now, if you have Christ’s teaching that contradicts this, or Church teachings, I’m all ears.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You should be warned that this poster engages in insulting condenscesion and rude behaviour with almost everyone who disagrees with him or her. I am not sure it is deliberate because I have seen it repeated with impressive consistency with something like 8 posters. Don’t take it personally.

It always amazes me how cradle Catholics with some smarts who have no more Catholic training than infant baptism, secondary school RE classes, Sunday homilies and maybe a parish based adult learning Catechetical programme under their belt feel fully qualified by the Holy Spirit to make dogmatic assertions and denials on complicated topics that even Canon Lawyers, Moral Theologians and experienced Pastors fear to tread.

And when somebody dares suggest they are short on the octane needed to make such dogmatic statements they take it as an “ad hominem”.

Being unqualified, less theologically educated or too pastorally inexperienced to understand beyond a certain point or to helpfully enter into a discussion by means of unsupported dogmatic assertions is not a sin.
It is simply a hard fact of life that many young-uns (and even some older uns) on CAF cannot accept for some reason.

Until one does accept this reality about oneself such persons are no more than legends in their own lunch-boxes when they pontificate in the way that they do.
A public embarrassment I try at times to save contributors from, knowing well the messenger usually gets shot .
Gods peace to you all, no offence is ever intended, though I realise it is often an unavoidable side effect of my observations to the stronger Icaruses amongst us.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=23773&stc=1&d=1487466073

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you have facts or reasoned argument then I’m all ears. Do present them and we can discuss.

Sorry, as previously observed you do not seem to have the necessary understanding of the theological concepts and principles required to enter into a fruitful discussion and I do not have time to tutor you in them.

I simply observe your propositions would be considered unlikely by anyone trained in theology or experienced in discussions here on CAF (whether liberal or conservative) with the usual Magisterial docs quoted and argued to death.

Therefore to so dogmatically assert them as you do is somewhat disproportionate.
I refer you to the numerous AL discussions on this Forum.
You may also like to search the phrase “state and condition of life” either here or on the Net.

 

[Ghosty]

Sorry, as previously observed you do not seem to have the necessary understanding of the theological concepts and principles required to enter into a fruitful discussion and I do not have time to tutor you in them.

I simply observe your propositions would be considered unlikely by anyone trained in theology or experienced in discussions here on CAF (whether liberal or conservative) with the usual Magisterial docs quoted and argued to death.

Therefore to so dogmatically assert them as you do is somewhat disproportionate.
I refer you to the numerous AL discussions on this Forum.
You may also like to search the phrase “state and condition of life” either here or on the Net.

If you don’t want to discuss or rebut then by all means don’t reply.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you don’t want to discuss or rebut then by all means don’t reply.

I refer you to the numerous AL discussions on this Forum.
You may also like to search the phrase “state and condition of life” either here or on the Net.

 

[pnewton]

This clarification is yours. It is not implicit in the text. I have to say that I think the inclusion of feelings to be a straw man. No one is claiming feelings have anything to do with this issue. Feelings have nothing to do with conscience.

This is in no way comparable to admitting adulterers to Holy Communion, which is never acceptable.

Begs the question.

Indeed, and I think you will find that the doctrine that adulterers must not be admitted to Holy Communion is settled, and has been for quite some time.

First, just to be clear, we have two issues. The first is that you use the word “adulterers” and it is not established that is the only possible situation that would require a unique solution. To answer the actual question, no I do not believe it is a settled doctrine that one remarried without an annulment cannot be admitted into communion. That is the question, and the proper wording at issue. Any change may also indicate why there is disagreement. But guess what? I am not alone. I will bet that it will be shown that the majority of the Church believes it is practice, not doctrine. We shall see who is right, in time.
.

I cannot understand why there should be need for further debate; the Church has spoken

.Because repeatedly begging the question is not an answer. I have asked for where the above (unchanged and not in a multiple syllogism) has been defined. I have never had anyone give it. Not just that one cannot receive in this situation,* but that it is a doctrine that one cannot receive,* since obviously it is mentioned as a practice. I will be surprised if I see something, since I assumed a man as educated as the Holy Father probably knows as much theology as everyone here.

This is the fourth time I have been over this, since the first synod was announced, then twice after each synod.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the news, not each other.

 

[pnewton]

No, the rhetoric is not too strong. I can filter that easily enough. If it is too ridiculous as to be groundless, I simply do not give it weight. As to you not being a bishop, I meant no disrespect, but was only responding to your quote about resisting a command by a superior. That has a narrow meaning and I do not see it applying much here. I guess if one hypothetically had that pro-abortion bishop who ordered that no pro-life activities take place on church property, there is cause for resisting, but that is rather absurd. I know of no pro-abortion bishop.

 

[pnewton]

If you don’t want to discuss or rebut then by all means don’t reply.

Man, I tell you sometimes I have to do that. I have been around in so many circles over this issue over the last four years I get dizzy anymore. J. Reed is going over some of the same ground, but man, he has a good head for what is happening. It’s just that I am already familiar with the point of view of Cardinal Burke and other theologians from his viewpoint. So I don’t mind a little repeat.

Honestly, I do not know what will happen here. I think all who believe they have it figured out are premature. I see a great deal of validity in pretty much all sides, except the more extreme lenient views. That one I cannot figure out.

Oh, and Mr. Reed, I apologize if I go too far and offend. You are producing quality reading.

 

[JimG]

If you do not consider culpability, that is a pretty significant difference.

Regardless of culpability, one can only be married to one spouse.

If I am to resolve any question of culpability, I first need to know whether I am having sex with someone other than my spouse.

 

[Ginny89]

Regardless of culpability, one can only be married to one spouse.

If I am to resolve any question of culpability, I first need to know whether I am having sex with someone other than my spouse.

I dont understand how that would grant a right to communion. I personally dont understand why doing benign things like occasionally missing Sunday mass results in mortal sin. After this AL saga, I have had a hard time readily submitting to the church’s authority intellectually in all things with the child like trust I had before. Yet, I have never felt the need to set aside the church’s teachings and approach communion based on my subjective hunch that not showing up on all Sundays is not as serious as murder or abortion or fornication. I don’t understand how a person’s subjective conclusion that they are right and the church wrong on a certain position entitles them to approach sacraments contrary to the church’s own positions.