So here is response of the Catholic press to the Holy Father's letter to the Argentinian bishops, explaining, what bishop described as "a subtle document". Yes the sub heading is 'in strict circumstances", but this is not how it will be read, it is the head-line that matters.
30 comments:
what next? Gays can "marry" under "certain circumstances?"
Father, some good news from some Canadian bishops (h/t to the Vox Cantoris blog)
http://caedm.ca/Portals/0/documents/family_life/2016-09-14_PastoralAccompanimenttoDivorcedandRemarried.pdf
And where will all this end? I see the article is written by Greg Daly of Catholic Voices. A few years back he was arguing in favour of Civil Unions and he refused to see that if they are confined to same-sex couples that is blatant promotion of homosexual sexual activity contrary to the instruction of the Vatican on the subject.
As a statement, that headline is a lie. Divorced and remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion other than by incurring a further mortal sin. Those who knowingly assist, whether they be clergy or lay distributers, are complicit in that mortal sin.
This headline is a classic example of Gradualism at work and with many it will work.
That is the problem we have in todays collapsing Church in N America and Europe.
Gem, for some Irish Catholics the answer to you question is 'Yes'. http://www.thejournal.ie/gay-marriage-church-2971486-Sep2016/ But here is a letter from one of the priests concelebrating at the Saturday evening Mass. I read a comment somewhere noting the it was very unusual to have five priests at a Saturday evening Mass, the implication being that they were supporting the two women 'married' to each other. But this letter from one of the priests in question gives the real reason they were there and how he saw the Mass being 'hijacked' by some parishioners. http://www.catholicvoice.ie/index.php/132-latest-on-athy-parish-curate-speaks-out In the past, the priest in Ireland, where I'm from, was put on a pedestal - and usually kept at a distance - but now it is a different group who are put there.
Whatever the ideology of the editors at The Irish Catholic, I don't blame them for the headline. They're only reporting what the Pope has said and done. If the Pope says it's okay for the divorced and remarried to receive communion (and he clearly has), that's a perfectly appropriate headline. Indeed, it's more appropriate than the tip-toeing that is so common now. No use hiding it. It's happening. Blame the actor, not the messenger.
gemoftheocean said... what next? Gays can "marry" under "certain circumstances?"
They may not be permitted to marry in the Catholic Church, but their civil "marriage" is not an impediment to the reception of Holy Communion.
This has already begun, is accepted by some priests and bishops alike, and is accelerating.
Some instances:
1. Recently, a lesbian couple in Ireland.
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/irish-lesbians-honored-in-return-as-parishoners-face-more-ira-death-threats
2. Archbishop Blasé Cupich made a public statement that sodomites can receive Holy Communion if their consciences permit it.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-cupich-lays-out-pathway-for-gay-couples-to-receive-communion
3. Detroit "gay couple" active in their parish, with full knowledge of all.
https://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/faithful-gay-couple-experiences-warm-welcome-from-detroit-parish/
4. Several dioceses in the U.S. have "gay-friendly" parishes. Openly sodomite couples have been receiving Holy Communion there for years.
In Cleveland, Saint Malachi's. In Atlanta, Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. In San Francisco, Holy Redeemer. The list could be expanded.
I have read the article in The Irish Catholic.
As I understand the situation regarding a divorced man who re-marries - they can either live like "brother and sister" with his second wife if he wishes to take Communion; or, he can have sex with her and say that she insists upon it otherwise she will divorce him and thus adversely affect the children.
I.E. It is not my fault. It is her who gave me the apple from the forbidden tree.
God bless.
Fr Sean: Thank your for that link. Utterly amazing and descriptive of the total mess that is being created.
Presumably the Nuncio has seen the article. He could ask for confirmation from the Holy See about whether the report is accurate. Inter Mirifica paragraph 20 states that bishops are responsible for the Catholic press.
We can encourage the Nuncio to act by writing to him.
His Excellency The Most Rev Charles John Brown
The Apostolic Nunciature
183 Navan Road
Dublin 7
Tel: +353 (0)1 838 0577
Fax: +353(0)1 838 0276
Should he fail to issue a correction to the story we will know that it truly reflects the actions of the Pope.
This is a mess. Mass confusion - no pun intended.
Francis has much to answer for.
Our parish priest, about two weeks ago, who is a young priest, even removed the pope's picture from our church hall.
This is very sad. But, papacies have time limits....lets us pray for a restoration to clarity and truth in the times ahead.
Still we pray.
Forgive me Father for returning with another comment.
It seems to me that if a divorced person re-marries, what is needed here is some sort of reconciliation, forgiveness and healing; not condemnation and excommunication. Christ came to forgive and welcome sinners; not to condemn them and cast them to eternal damnation.
As I understand it, and I am sure you'll correct me if I am wrong, if a person divorces he cannot re-marry unless his previous marriage is annulled by our Church. However, if the previous marriage was not in a Catholic church, it is not recognised by our Church and therefore he is free to re-marry and indeed receive Communion. This implies that we believe that only Catholic marriages are valid in the eyes of God and all others are somewhat sinful.
If the vow of marriage is for life, then surely so is the vow of chastity taken by priests and nuns. What happens when a priest leaves our Church to get married and start a family? Is he excommunicated and condemned to an eternity in sin? Or is he ever forgiven?
I am genuinely so confused about our Church's teachings on this and other matters. The sheep are all over the place because the shepherds' messages are not clear and consistent.
God bless you for all your good works.
"There might, for example, be a situation involving a Catholic who is married for a second time to someone who is not willing to cease sexual relations and if the Catholic spouse insisted that they live like ‘brother and sister’, the marriage would come to an end adversely affecting their children." This is the example quoted in the article. Some of us who lived in these situation cried out to God to break up an adulterous civil marriage and longed for real parents to move back together or just remain single with us. Our skins crawled as we lay in bed knowing an intruder had been invited to share the bed with our real parent. Civil marriage is a usurpation. Bergoglio civil marriage is a generic that abuses children in many levels. It teaches all ethics are just situational and we call all deceive or turn a blind eye to inconvenient truths. The Pope has no authority to weasel his way around the Lord's command. I speak as a child of a thrice divorced and remarried mother with one annulment. This Pope is naïve and the idea that those living in an adulterous civil marriage can receive Holy Communion is a pure 1960's fabrication. Yes smack in the middle of Bergoglios' formative period. Rage on Beroglio! The trendy Fr Kennedy... yes the priest who approached my mother and her partner back in 1968 saying since they had stable civil marriage they could both receive Communion. He did not care to ask me! I was nine. My Mother and I were regularly being beaten and she forced into sex with a violent man himself a divorcee. She was forced to contracept which was his wish. Do not drag the Sacraments through the mud of Modernism Bergoglio. I think this Pope is an antiPope and say he tries to manipulate bishops and all of us into his will. No way Bergoglio! You wolf in sheep's clothing!
The obvious answer to this mess is to limit the distribution of communion to children making their first communion, the sick, mentally handicaped and the dying.
There is downs syndrome young woman in our parish. How wonderful would it be if she received communion on behalf of us all at Mass?
Please, anyone troubled to respond. No scripture quotes.
Jacobi,
Truly, I do not want to cavil, but in legal/grammatical terms, that headline is correct inasmuch as divorced Catholics might be physically capable of receiving Holy Communion, but the fact is they MAY not do so. They are forbidden to do so, end of.
You see, in the English language, “may” and “can” are often used incorrectly, it might lead to misunderstanding.
In French and Italian, the distinction does not usually exist – one word for both meanings. In the German language, the word “kann” equals “can” and “darf” equals “may”.
We may be sure the journalists at that Irish newspaper are fully aware of the difference … I hope.
Civil marriage is one of the most diabolical creations of an overreaching State.It allows the married an escape clause and induces adultery. As they say its just a piece of paper! Bergoglio has no power to allow those in objective mortal sin to weasel and prevaricate their way into pretending they have not done the wrong thing. It takes time for these situations to end and often sinners will not cut free of vices until it ends badly or one of the protagonist dies. No person should be encouraged to keep the sin and its allures while defiling Christ. I might add using the Sacrament is not a "medicine" (thanks Bergoglio) rather it is an accusation that brings judgement and illness on those who receive the Sacrament in a state of mortal sin. Christ called us to abandon sin not to be try and have Him and it. Civil marriages are abusive! Better and more honest just to live in sin which is what it is. Children cut your parents off if they do this!
The church's marriage laws are complex. The intent is to ensure the integrity of Jesus' words with reference to marriage -- and God's original design for family life.
IDEAL: A Catholic marries a Catholic in according to the Rites of the Church. This is a valid sacramental marriage.
LESS THE IDEAL: A Catholic marries a baptised non-Catholic, with permission, according to the Rites of the Church, or in a non Catholic ceremony with permission. This is a valid sacramental marriage.
LESSER IDEAL: A Catholic marries a non baptised person, with permission, according to the Rites of the Church or with permission in a non Catholic ceremony. This marriage is valid but not sacramental -- as a sacramental marriage is between two baptised Christians.
NOT ACCEPTABLE; A Catholic marries another -- Catholic or not -- without permission in defiance of Church teaching. The marriage is neither valid nor sacramental.
A Catholic in a failed marriage who wishes to remarry must first CIVILLY DIVORCE the person then apply to the church for an annulment of the fist marriage - providing it was a marriage recognised as valid by the church in the first place.
A catholic who civilly divorces does not incur any church penalty. Divorce is a civil matter not a church matter. The divorced catholic must NOT attempt to remarry until his "church" marriage -- that is his/her valid sacramental marriage is judged to have been defective in the first place under criteria established by the church and rendered invalid.
The church wants no person to be in an adulterous relationship as it endangers the soul and places people's eternal destiny in peril. It is out of charity and love for people that the church may appear intransigent on this issue. So, the church provides a path for persons in these unfortunate circumstances of failed marriages.
Priestly vows or monastic vows are not on the same level as a marriage vow. The marital vow is of divine origin and the bond between husband and wife is of Christ explicitly and grounded richly in scripture and Tradition. It is sacramental in character. A priestly vow of chastity or the promise of celibacy is not sacramental in character and does not have the weight of the marital bond/vow. The church can therefore dispense persons, who as priests, monks, nuns have undertaken vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, though very serious promises, these are not sacramental.
To be dispensed with these religious vows also requires a process.
Gosh J M, and I thought I was being a trifle pedantic.
They, that is D & R Cs can receive Holy Communion and so can my cat. The cat would not invoke any moral implications in eating it. But I, presuming I fed it to the cat, would on account of abusing the Body and Blood of Christ under the outward appearance of bread and wine.
I speak reasonably good English. “can ” in common received English and even Irish parlance means either, capable of doing so, or is permitted to do so. The first meaning could apply here but it is reasonable to assume that the second meaning is what the headline applies to. As such it is knowingly wrong and misleading in that it will cause people to think wrongly.
The Catholic Church is under attack, from without and within. We are at war and one of the main weapons used is language. The English language is so rich, with so many words which have a precise sense. We ought to use specific words whenever we can, it avoids error. That is not being pedantic.
A young man drove his sports car the wrong way down a narrow and crowded one-way street until he was stopped by a policeman.
“Oh ! I’m sorry Constable, can I reverse the way I came to get out of here ?” he appealed.
“You may – if you can”.
May we please delete comments that contain the word "sodomite"? It's dripping with hatred and bigotry. No Catholic Christian should employ such language - certainly not on a respected website.
Deimater,
"Sodomite" seems to be a good scriptural word, admittedly it is not part of my everyday vocabulary but it is a word that describes people who commit a particular act, rather than have a certain predilection for an act, or 'sexual orientation' which is a rather vague term and does necessarily describe a sexual act. It is, in England, a legal term which need not necessarily refer to the sex of those involved, scripture forbids a man to sodomise his wife for example.
So no I won't censor that comment, but perhaps you should say why you find it so offensive?
The word 'homosexual' is a morally neutral term, unburdened of the unmistakably nasty tone of 'sodomite'. Claiming it as a biblical word is a fatuous justification for using it.
I presume there are homosexuals who read this blog - some who want to find out what kind of people we orthodox Catholics are. Some people - like me - have close family members who are homosexual. Imagine these people's reaction in reading the word 'sodomite'. Will they read any further? This only confirms the unpleasant caractures made of us within and without the Church.
Finally, where is our charity, even basic English decency? 'Sodomite' is far more reminiscent of English anti-Catholic bigotry - and its harsh lexicon - than the charity that is meant to be the hallmark of Christians.
Deimater, in my experience there are homosexual men and women who have no interest in sodomy, unfortunately there are heterosexual men and women who regard it as their sexual norm.
I repeat in my dictionary sodomy and sodomite is about an act, which is sinful and a serious means of infection - in the ancient world it was about domination, not necessarily a sexual orientation.
Stand up for clear use of the English language - is it your native tongue?
When people use the word 'sodomite', it is unlikely that they are using it with a careful eye on juridical manuals or dictionaries of sexual practice. And I doubt the Criminal Code speaks of 'sodomites' - if we want to use that as our guiding star, which would surely create one of Fr Hunwicke's argumenta ad hominem.
No, when people use 'sodomite' in place of, say, practising homosexual', in 2016 it is surely meant to hurt and demean. It is a whisper away from 'God hates fags.' I suspect it says more about the individual who uses it than Oxford or the Criminal Code says about its technical meaning.
The catechism is careful about breaking the bruised weed on this highly sensitive question. So must we all be conscious of the dignity of all persons. Certainly, we condemn the sin. But calling people 'sodomites' is just verbal assault. Can you imagine a priest or - anyone trying to reflect the loving gaze of Christ - calling a homosexual a 'sodomite' to their face? I think not.
I've said my piece, Father. God bless.
Deimater,
Last time I respond to you! I presume that sodomite means what the law says it does, I think it is still part of English law, it certainly was until recently. It is specifically an act of anal penetration, that is what scripture understands it as.
Attraction, even same sex attraction is different matter.
Homosexuality, or same sex attraction is one thing and is pretty vague and non-specific. Sodomy is a very different thing, it is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance, if you remember you bible.
DJR seems to be referring not to SSA or even homosexuals a group but to a very particular act, which is contrary to God explicit command.
PS
I hope any priest would be honest enough to call a sin what it is and not to conflate it with an orientation or an attraction, it is often that that causes a very serious damage. Loving someone of the same sex is not necessarily a problem, many of the saints did so, the problem is when penitents or confessors muddle that with a specific act.
Someone with a particular attraction is not necessarily sinful, even someone who describes himself as 'homosexual', that is just a state or a condition, which is a cross but can be a source of heroic sanctification or of sin. Someone who commits sodomy is committing a specific sin, and needs help. Confusing matters and the English language, as you want to, does not help anyone certainly not a penitent!
May I say Father, that I personally believe you are taking the proper and Catholic line in refusing to block the word Sodomy. It is a word that would be perfectly familiar to a Catholic in the 19th, or 16th, or 13th centuries, along with one or two other words or expressions.
True, it is questioned by some these days, but that is a matter of passing fashion and as such will move on.
My own approach is to quote or paraphrase the CCC.
There is nothing wrong with an inclination to homosexuality. However, active homosexual acts, lets call them AHs, are unnatural and “a grave depravity”. They, that is the homosexually inclined are called to chastity.
So your stance is in line with the orthodox Catholic position.
Well explained Father Blake.
For me, it would be grand to see to see no more the weasel word “gay” used as a euphemism for homosexual/lesbian/sodomite.
Many years ago, I was told about its significance by a truly great Pro-Lifer from the USA.
Homosexual protagonists have completely distorted the meaning of this lovely ancient English word.
It’s reached the point where many feel inhibited from using biblical language. Maybe we must now burn our Holy Bibles for fear of offending homosexualists ?
May I say again, we fight a war of words.
"The catechism is careful about breaking the bruised weed on this highly sensitive question."
Not so. What the CCC has to say is: 'Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.'
Which covers homosexual acts more generally, but is clear.
The rather pithier and even clearer Catechism that I was taught and is still in valid use, mentions the sin of Sodom unambiguously by name, and calls it one of the four sins 'crying to Heaven for vengeance'.
'Bruised weeds' need the Confessional.
“Indeed, Catholics have a new teaching now, not only on divorce and remarriage. We have a new vision of the Eucharist.” If we say that certain individuals who are divorced and remarried, and thus living in an adulterous union, can receive Communion, then we have indeed changed our understanding of the Eucharist. No longer is it a matter of discerning the Body and Blood of our Lord (see 1 Corinthians 11:27-29), but rather, the Eucharist becomes “a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (Evangelii Gaudium, art. 47). http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ One of the ways we have seen abuses wangled in is the use of language that is vague. Those living in an objective state of sin should not be told to receive Holy Communion. The whole loss of a sense of reverence for God present in the Sacrament has been lost through Communion on the Hand and abuses in Mass indeed the New Mass itself. Now those who don't go to Confession but are in a state of sin are told you don't have to abandon your sin or even try but you can receive the Holy Sacrament. This is also complicated by frequent Communion as a norm. So many see Holy Communion as just a routine along with living in sin. Francis is proposing a heretical position and he really needs to go.
Post a Comment