tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post5777763862384676716..comments2023-12-16T16:17:43.886+00:00Comments on Fr Ray Blake's Blog: A Pastoral Problem - part 2Fr Ray Blakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05584140126211527252noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-72399573288959061062014-05-15T07:19:15.972+01:002014-05-15T07:19:15.972+01:00@ Liam Ronan
One thing about Pope Francis' st...@ Liam Ronan<br /><br />One thing about Pope Francis' style is that he wants it be inclusive. As his recent comments about baptising martians if they presented themselves at the Vatican. From his comment that atheists could taste God's mercy if they're true to their conscience, to to his non judgemental comments on gay lifestyles, he wants the faith to embrace as many people as possible.<br /><br />Whether or not, behind this apparent bonhomie, he would still require these lost sheep to assent to the faith before they can taste the fruits of God's mercy, I haven't yet fully understood. Casting the net as wide as possible is just an invitation. Many may be called but few may be chosen.<br /><br />I can't see how Cardinal Kasper's long term wish to extend mercy to remarried divorcees can result in them being admitted to communion, except under the guidelines of Familaris Consortio, but it's obvious that the Holy Father wants to achieve something from the Extraordinary Synod, and the Synod to follow in 2015. <br /><br />But I see a fault line opening up between the strict and the liberal. Do we only embrace people who get it right, or should God's mercy extend to those who've failed to live up to the perfection of the Sermon on the Mount?pablitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16990670185818586526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-84095321729384550952014-05-14T20:32:49.820+01:002014-05-14T20:32:49.820+01:00@pablito,
Thanks for clarifying your take on matte...@pablito,<br />Thanks for clarifying your take on matters.<br /><br />Isn't it ironic that if you want to file for a Declaration of Nullity you are required (by the Church, as I gather) to first obtain a civil divorce?Liam Ronanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01376666519733160167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-26443588740596978572014-05-14T09:55:39.783+01:002014-05-14T09:55:39.783+01:00@ Liam Ronan
"Or do you believe the 'wro...@ Liam Ronan<br /><br />"Or do you believe the 'wronged spouse' is capable of and practising life-long continence?"<br /><br />I think anyone is capable of practicing lifelong continence provided they avoid any "attachments" which could lead them astray. Sexual activity for the "wronged spouse" would be considered as adulterous as it is for the cheating spouse, a fact which totally baffles those who don't fully grasp the Catholic doctrine of marriage.<br /><br />The people I was referring to are those who have already formed an irregular union, such as the fictitious Sam and Mary, and may for whatever reason, wish to return to the Church. The options available to them at present, are quite unrealistic, even where they believe they are doing their best to comply. Pope Francis has stated that he wants greater pastoral outreach to such families. Even if it means that they can't receive communion, they need to be made to feel part of the Church.pablitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16990670185818586526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-54233678310073611482014-05-13T22:26:54.715+01:002014-05-13T22:26:54.715+01:00@pablito,
While it seems no one can believe that t...@pablito,<br />While it seems no one can believe that the divorced and civilly remarried couple can refrain from sexual relations or affection, is there something that gives the 'wronged spouse' an inoculation so as to abstain from sexual relations for the rest of their lives? <br />Or do you believe the 'wronged spouse' is capable of and practising life-long continence?<br />Aren't sexual relations for the 'wronged spouse' adulterous too?Liam Ronanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01376666519733160167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-89738145225441573972014-05-13T20:03:48.448+01:002014-05-13T20:03:48.448+01:00There is much nonsense talked about so called &quo...There is much nonsense talked about so called "brother and sister" relationships. Even if the couple succeed in the gargantuan task of avoiding sex, there's much more to human sexuality than just "doing it." Are they likely to avoid all touch, all tenderness and all natural affection? Even there. there's likely to be adultery in the heart. The part of Familiaris Consortio which deals with this was a brave attempt by Pope St John Paul II to reconcile the irreconcileable.<br /><br />Prior to that, remarried divorcees would have considered themselves banished from the Church, with the result that future generations would likely be lost to the Church. It was also a recognition of what had become an enormous pastoral problem. Those in irregular unions were henceforth to consider themselves still part of the Church. They should attend Mass, pray, be part of Adoration etc and raise their families in the Church, but were still banned from receiving the Eucharist unless they can show that their relationship is no longer sexual. This is next to impossible IMO, even for couples who refrain from penetrative sex.<br /><br />Pope Francis, in calling his Extraordinary Synod in October is having to come to terms with the fact that the problem has probably doubled since Familiaris Consortio, and that the present arrangements don't do anything to offer the support intended by Pope St JP II of Pope Benedict XVI. However his room for manoeuvre are probably limited to a recognition, even shared by Cardinal Mueller of the CDF, that our Western society has so deformed the understanding of marriage, that many marriage vows may be defective: in practical terms it means easier, cheaper and quicker annulments. No attempt can be made to change doctrine.<br /><br />I'm unconvinced whether such changes will do more harm of good. The major battle lines seem to be between those who would accept a smaller, but more pure Church, and to hell with all those who fall from grace, and those who believe that mercy trumps justice and that the Church should encompass as many people as possible.pablitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16990670185818586526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-61993636477644025612014-05-06T01:33:00.625+01:002014-05-06T01:33:00.625+01:00Lynda,
I think your thought process holds up in a...Lynda,<br /><br />I think your thought process holds up in a system that is rational.<br /><br />If you saw the first instance decision in our case, from 1993 in America, you would understand that rational thought may have little to do with a tribunal decision when the decision has been reached before the evidence has been gathered. Then it becomes a matter of selective use of facts while excluding the testimony of others, in this case an expert witness with more than two decades of tribunal consultation, because his written staements contradicted their working hypothesis, directly and insurmountably. So, it was discarded.<br /><br />Ultimately, I made the choice to present the decision to three of our children's godparents, who knew both my wife and myself well and for numerous years. Independently, each of them adamantly indicated that neither of the characters described, in detail, within this canonical legal decision resembled either my wife or myself. They insisted that something very wrong was at hand.<br /><br />So, I know, first hand, that there are corrupted canon lawyers, throughout the system, as I know of numerous other cases, scattered about, at least in the United States, wherein similar "fantasies" have been put forth as a caonical legal decision.<br /><br />I have told our children that I will consider it a minor miracle if our marriage is upheld in this court of second instance. I will be surprised but it is far, to little, too late. It will not change my opinions of what I have seen.<br /><br />I doubt there could be enough change to make me admit that the Church had moved in the proper direction, in these matters.<br /><br />You and most rational Catholics give far too much credit to canon lawyers, who are just as corrupted as anyone, but in positions to do much more harm.<br /><br />And they do, much more harm!<br /><br />It is irrational to believe that they are not just as "pastoral" in their views as rank and file Catholics who, survey after survey shows believe precious little of what the teachings of the Catholic Church actaully says in most matters that are related to these issues. But these men and women pervert their expertice to destroy families, routinely, everyday!<br /><br />This is known, top to bottom, in the hierarchy and is used, intentionally, by the bishops to keep people in the pews through serial monogamy, "Catholic Style".<br /><br />John Paul II knew of it but did nothing significant to address it. He did window dressing. But he oversaw the gutting of the 1917 code of canon law when the 1983 code replaced it. He knew, exactly, what he was doing. He knew he was destroying marriages. <br /><br />To claim otherwise is preposterous.Karl Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506039683289055856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-8619820454581220242014-05-05T17:37:20.061+01:002014-05-05T17:37:20.061+01:00No one, save Christ and His Blessed Mother were wi...No one, save Christ and His Blessed Mother were without sin. Logic, even in the best of hands, is subject to errors of judgement.<br /><br />Either there is fidelity to a promise, or there is not.<br /><br />To me, this becomes: If even a little compromise is allowed, then any compromise MAY be allowed(with sufficient justification). This is no answer, I know, and personally I mean you no disrespect but<br />If my wife is allowed such, then so am I. This does not end well.<br /><br />I do not claim more intellect or more authority than the CDF. I simply have not heard a thorough, consistant, rational and just description of how this accomodation is, so, nor how it does not violate, knowingly and intentionally and gravely, the positive obligations of one spouse to another.<br /><br />Forgive me for the emotion I attach to this. My brother in Christ, Paul, I have lived this Purgatory for more than two decades without a solitary explanation why my wife is justfied in her unrepentant adultery, for the sake of her two, precious(yes, precious to me) children, to have taken our five from me with no say in their lives(sacramentally) when the Catholic Church ruled, at the level of the Roman Rota that our marriage was abandoned for my wifes adultery, and it is good for her to give what she promised to me to the man who has never repented of nor accepted responsibility for the desecration of our marriage?<br /><br />Please pray for me. A Church that cares nothing for the suffering of an abandoned spouse or the children of a valid abandoned sacrament, is who or what I have faced for decades, even though I have begged its intercession for decades!<br /><br />This is my Cross. To me, it is nearly unbearable. Not simply over our wounded marriage but for the reality that those whose JOB it is to imitate Christ, can ignore my pleas for decades. DECADES!<br /><br />My precious little faith seems based upon nothing.Karl Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506039683289055856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-22249374202816243942014-05-05T16:28:44.288+01:002014-05-05T16:28:44.288+01:00@Lynda,
I always have a close read of your commen...@Lynda,<br /><br />I always have a close read of your comments as they are usually pithy and insightful.<br /><br />Would you be so kind as to grant me a boon (I'd vowed to use that word one day)?<br /><br />Could you use the @ sign so that I might know precisely who you are replying to? It helps to put the topic(s) in context.<br /><br />Peace.Liam Ronanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01376666519733160167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-74007947362887201092014-05-05T15:12:41.786+01:002014-05-05T15:12:41.786+01:00Just a point on your expectation re the second ins...Just a point on your expectation re the second instance marriage tribunal: if the ground for finding the marriage null were to be as you say, that the petitioner deceived you into marriage - that would be absurd on its face. It would be accepting the petitioner's averment that she deceived you into marrying her, so as to get the annulment she wants. Now, if her averring that she deceived you to such an extent as to vitiate consent at the time of entering marriage, were against her interests, then yes, it might be credible even against your testimony - but in this situation where it would mean the petitioner getting what she is petitioning for, it would not be just and would bring the tribunal into disrepute. Why would the tribunal accept the credibility of the petitioner's contention which is reliant on accepting deception by her to the point of vitiation of the marriage contract - when that is to give her what she seeks, contrary to the testimony of the innocent party to the marriage? That would be to reward the person who comes to court with "unclean hands" - against a fundamental tenet of justice. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-64731171762172052852014-05-05T14:52:30.771+01:002014-05-05T14:52:30.771+01:00You speak the truth. With so many deadened conscie...You speak the truth. With so many deadened consciences today, the truth is not acknowledged, or even despised. You are giving great example, and your faithful suffering is the kind of virtuousness we are all called to aim for. Example like yours is so badly needed for the good of souls. Your time in purgatory is being foreshortened. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-66894932958592542072014-05-05T14:32:20.846+01:002014-05-05T14:32:20.846+01:00"And it does not matter if this has been the ..."And it does not matter if this has been the practice from the time of the apostles....it is wrong."<br /><br />I admire Mundabor's passion, and I advocate for neither lukewarmness nor niceness.<br /><br />My question is about authority and trust. If a certain position in moral theology has been officially endorsed by the C.D.F., what is the basis for saying, "No, that's wrong. Those people are all mortal sinners. Etc.?" If only "Eternal Rome" (as privately interpreted) is actually reliable, what of the Catholic Church? Why bother with it at all?Paul Goingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06479425203740052841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-55233869558443596792014-05-05T09:28:51.792+01:002014-05-05T09:28:51.792+01:00Lining as brother and sister is just wishful think...Lining as brother and sister is just wishful thinkng and is not 'avoiding the occasions of sin' It may try to address the 6th commandment but it completly ignores the 9th commandment and this is patently wrong. The second spouse is coveting the wife of the first husband. As for the children. Well they always suffer at the hands of their unfaithful parents.Paul Hellyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12155821750459419187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-54980792152791153652014-05-05T08:11:39.484+01:002014-05-05T08:11:39.484+01:00Mundabor is great. He is 'hot' not like th...Mundabor is great. He is 'hot' not like the English who tend to be 'lukewarm' and we know what the Lord thinks of the lukewarm. <br />Karl : I agree with you. If the Church overturns its attitude to divorce it betrays the party to the first marriage and this is wrong.Paul Hellyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12155821750459419187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-84639367146836000282014-05-04T18:41:42.107+01:002014-05-04T18:41:42.107+01:00Mundabor was one of many banned on Holy Smoke. The...Mundabor was one of many banned on Holy Smoke. The problem with his blog is that it seems a mishmash of American style neo-conservatism and traditional Catholicism. It's not clear that he understands that the two might even be mutually exclusive. Although he thinks in sectarian terms, he avoids ethnocentricity, an understanding of which is key to grasp modern American conservatism.Sadie Vacantisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04823532366874114366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-69064995186349843372014-05-04T15:41:15.206+01:002014-05-04T15:41:15.206+01:00Is this the same Mundabor who was banned from comm...Is this the same Mundabor who was banned from commenting Damian Thompson's blog? He was never actually wrong, but he liked to tell it as it is - Anglicans were told they had a Mickey Mouse religion. I wonder how many that converted? It was as if he came upon a heated but convivial discussion in a pub, picked up a chair and trashed all the furniture. <br /><br />For all that he upholds the traditional teaching of the Church, his style is often that of the bar room bully. I am not saying that I want 'niceness', which we can do without, just common courtesy. Having said that, his illustration of Campbell's soup tins made me laugh. But it's not edifying....<br /><br />Keep up the good work. I find your blog helpful and challenging. It must be difficult to have a successful blog without falling into egotism (one reason why I don't blog), and yours is one of those which gets it right in that regard.Clare Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11257887592420328999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-46977698522880392672014-05-04T15:17:16.386+01:002014-05-04T15:17:16.386+01:00Paul Goings,
The truth stands.
Nor do I falsify...Paul Goings,<br /><br />The truth stands. <br /><br />Nor do I falsify the scandal I see, which the Catholic Church IS.<br /><br />I know what I face, I have addressed it, everyday, since my wife abandoned our common life. I know, intimately, the injustice involved in "brother and sister" accomodations. I know how perilously close I have come to giving up. All of it is a living Purgatory. It pastorally codifies injustice and infidelity, sexual or not.<br /><br />The marital promises are not just in the negative. They are in the positive as well. A person who gives their support and love to one who is not their spouse commits grave, deadly sin. When the Church tells them it is ok, then the Church blesses sin and takes that sin upon itself, unrighteously. Thus, it mocks the very sacrificial death of its Savior, who took upon Himself, all sin, but righteously and without fault. It does not imitate Him. It executes Him. <br /><br />I will neither make you, nor Father Blake, nor Father Z nor Benedict nor Francis, nor any cleric see what is so very, clearly, wrong on the part of the Catholic Church. That is simply reality. I do not know why they are blind. But they are.<br /><br />I did not understand any of this. It had never crossed my "radar", until I was abandoned. Living it has made what I have learned, very clear.<br /><br />I, as much as anyone, understand lonliness. My closest friends are women. I am not, at all, without great empathy for those who face temptation , literally, all their waking hours.<br /><br />But, God willing, I will never allow myself to be positioned to "consider", living as "brother and sister" with another woman, with the exception of my wife.<br /><br />It simply is not "neutral". It is<br />always harmful, when it is not your spouse you are living with and your spouse is living. As much as my wife is an unrepentant adulterer, I, nevertheless, promised her a spouse's love and support. I am doing my best to live up to that. One living as "brother and sister", has, by definition, already given that promised love to another. They cannot maintain that violation, even if sex is excluded completely and honestly. They owe, in justice, what they are sharing with their "non-spouse", to their rightful spouse, alone, even if that rightful spouse no longer wants it.<br /><br />It is that simple.<br /><br />Poverty, nor other children, nor threat of incarceration, justify such a marital violation. Fidelity is fidelity or it is not.<br /><br />Adulterers must repent and separate. The Catholic Church cannot white wash it, as it has tried. And it does not matter if this has been the practice from the time of the apostles....it is wrong. <br /><br />Justice requires the marital promises to be honored, even in absentia and not "shared" with another, even the most wonderful, loving person one could imagine.<br /><br />Period.<br /><br /><br />Karl Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506039683289055856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-91178523589324570372014-05-04T13:59:06.253+01:002014-05-04T13:59:06.253+01:00For those of you who might be interested in readin...For those of you who might be interested in reading a word-for-word translation of a 1972 analysis of then-Father Joseph Ratzinger "On the Question of the Indissolubility of Marriage" I offer the following link:<br /><br />http://www.pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/<br /><br />I suggest you might want to read the publication in its entirety with attention to "Conclusions" while bearing in mind this was the thinking of the future head of the CDF and Papacy 42 years ago.<br /><br />Peace!Liam Ronanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01376666519733160167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-28867054209133956752014-05-04T13:57:14.984+01:002014-05-04T13:57:14.984+01:00Yes Liam, but the problem is that the Church's...Yes Liam, but the problem is that the Church's teaching has not been taken seriously, there is great gulf between the Magisterium and pastoral practice of most bishops/priests.<br />I think Pope Francis, I hope, wants to heal this breach.Fr Ray Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05584140126211527252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-66707331542822385722014-05-04T13:31:54.603+01:002014-05-04T13:31:54.603+01:00Not to over-egg the pudding, but it ought be noted...Not to over-egg the pudding, but it ought be noted too that on the June 24, 2000 Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts published “Concerning The Admission To Holy Communion Of Faithful Who Are Divorced And Remarried”<br /><br />The Pontifical Council stated:<br /><br />“c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.<br />Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives – such as, for example, the upbringing of the children – “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo.”<br />Liam Ronanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01376666519733160167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-85659227985724284522014-05-04T12:45:23.171+01:002014-05-04T12:45:23.171+01:00@ Father Ray Blake,
I have read Mundabor's lin...@ Father Ray Blake,<br />I have read Mundabor's link that you offered, Father Ray, and can only point out that contra Mundabor is not only Pope St. John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and:<br /><br />The fact that on 14 September 1994 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF issued a letter to all of the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried members of the Faithful within which letter Cardinal Ratzinger stated:<br /><br />"The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only "to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'"(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal."<br /><br />Under such conditions the faithful may receive Holy Communion. It does not preclude those who form such intention from subsequently receiving sacramental absolution should their resolve weaken and they sin only to renew their resolve to live a life of marital continence. Unless there are those who would argue that absolution may be given only once in a lifetime for this particular sin.<br />Liam Ronanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01376666519733160167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-5426930181293371842014-05-04T12:07:26.406+01:002014-05-04T12:07:26.406+01:00Your great witness to the truth is extremely edify...Your great witness to the truth is extremely edifying and will have saved souls I am sure. You are a light in the darkness. Thank you. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-77631279332940840682014-05-04T12:00:11.476+01:002014-05-04T12:00:11.476+01:00The Deposit of Faith and the natural moral law do ...The Deposit of Faith and the natural moral law do not - can not - change. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-36641946988704434062014-05-04T09:39:43.904+01:002014-05-04T09:39:43.904+01:00A field hospital?http://mundabor.wordpress.com/201...A field hospital?http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/the-field-hospital-according-to-sound-teaching/Fr Ray Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05584140126211527252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-34360150842551479302014-05-04T03:10:06.788+01:002014-05-04T03:10:06.788+01:00"...no theologian or Pope will ever, ever, ev..."...no theologian or Pope will ever, ever, ever change my opinion on this..."<br /><br />No offense intended, but how is this any different, in principle, from the Me-n-Jesus approach to religious truth espoused by some Protestants, or even the position of the Sedevacantists, who are also convinced of their position and unwilling to consider any refutation?Paul Goingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06479425203740052841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-80619286805662690432014-05-04T01:14:25.222+01:002014-05-04T01:14:25.222+01:00@Father Ray Blake,
Whaaa! The library is destroye...@Father Ray Blake,<br /><br />Whaaa! The library is destroyed? THE LIBRARY IS DESTROYED?? <br /><br />Awww gee, Father I was just at that point in the book...LOL...sorry, I'm just having a laugh. Feels good too.<br /><br />I'll get my hands on Umberto Eco's book and have a read. Thanks for the suggestion. God bless you.Liam Ronanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01376666519733160167noreply@blogger.com