Pope is accused of heresy (1 Viewer)

Grandadmiral

Infinite Power is da ****
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
18,805
Reaction score
8,681
Age
43
Online
Sticky Post
I will definitely be paying close attention to this. I actually feel that Francis has done his best to bring individuals back to the faith and feel, like stated in the article, that this is a cry from a very vocal minority from the conservative side of the Church. I frankly wish they'd put more effort in stopping the continual burden of the sex abuse scandal than go after a man whose message has been one of acceptance. That's what all faiths truly need right now.

A conservative group of Catholic priests and theologians called for Pope Francis to be declared a heretic because they believed he has softened the Catholic Church's stance on major moral issues.

There were 19 signatories to a letter urging the College of Bishops to denounce the pontiff and even consider stripping him of the papacy if he does not show “true repentance.”

The letter, backed by a Change.org petition, alleged the Pope had “denied truths of the faith” and had not been outspoken enough on key aspects of dogma such as abortion and homosexuality and seems too accepting of other faiths. He was even accused of once using a satanic symbol.

The focal point of the 20-page missive is the Pope’s 2016 document about family life, titled Amoris Laetitia, which has been interpreted by some as suggesting the Pope has softened the church's views on key issues, including whether divorced people can receive communion.

The letter stated: "Pope Francis has protected and promoted homosexually active clerics and clerical apologists for homosexual activity. This indicates that he believes that homosexual activity is not gravely sinful."

It also took issue that the Pope had "failed to speak a word in support of popular campaigns to preserve Catholic countries from abortion and homosexuality, for example, before the referendum to introduce abortion into Ireland in May 2018."
 

Brennan77

Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
46,089
Reaction score
18,072
Location
The Channel
Offline
This is a question I asked earlier that Brennan didn't answer. What if the Church decides that what's been taught has been wrong and has to be looked at differently?

Here's the thing about the Bible and Church doctrine - it's all developed and written by men. Our faith teaches us we have to accept those teachings, even though plenty contradict one another.
His specific question is different than the one you've asked. Perhaps we should have a separate thread to discuss the moral issues involving the human person and homosexual actions. Perhaps we could have a separate forum to discuss religious issues. Perhaps one is coming in some form in the near future. :) But I digress. I'm not ignoring your question. It just deserves more of an answer than I have had time to offer, what with the other discussions going on. I've actually started to respond about three times and then deleted it. Here was your original post...

So let me ask you this...

Not saying this is happening or is going to happen, but what if the Magisterium re-interprets that realigns more to what concerns you with AL? I'm sure there will be chaos as it will change generations of Catholic teaching (several that I disagree with). But what would your reaction be if the Spirit moves the Church to look at things in a different light?
Development of doctrine is different than a violation of established dogma. For example, the Church is not going to decide tomorrow that Jesus' resurrection was only symbolic and not a historical fact. There are people that believe that. But they are rightly recognized as believing in a heresy and find themselves outside of communion with the Church. John Henry Newman is widely recognized for his commentary on this subject. He has several criteria for discerning authentic development/evolution vs devolution. They include things like the preservation of type, continuity of principle, logical sequence etc. http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter5.html

In short, the Holy Spirit cannot lead the Church to violate her own principles and teaching any more than God can contradict his own nature. This is part of the promise of Christ to his Bride that the gates of Hell would not prevail against her. So we have faith that this cannot and will not happen. That said, it is not a guarantee that we will always have good or holy men for bishops or popes, nor does it guarantee that they will be good teachers. And it likely implies that we will come to moments in history where it will appear all is about to crumble and fail.
 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
8,638
Reaction score
14,263
Age
43
Online
The fundamental problem with such a question is the very thought that the Bible and/or the doctrine could be wrong. No matter your religion, the basis for your religion can't be wrong. It must be right. After all, it is the word of God. Otherwise, if they are wrong about something as etched in stone as homosexuality and adultery are in the Bible, then what else could they be wrong about?

This is specially true for things that cannot be apologized for through "historical context" or by simply declaring the problematic passage a parable (like the flood, for example). There is no other context, there is no light you can't shine on the Bible's view of homosexuality other than a grave sin against God.
I agree with you. This is the reason it isn't done and the main fear in posing such a question by those in authority.
 

Brennan77

Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
46,089
Reaction score
18,072
Location
The Channel
Offline
The fundamental problem with such a question is the very thought that the Bible and/or the doctrine could be wrong. No matter your religion, the basis for your religion can't be wrong. It must be right. After all, it is the word of God. Otherwise, if they are wrong about something as etched in stone as homosexuality and adultery are in the Bible, then what else could they be wrong about?

This is specially true for things that cannot be apologized for through "historical context" or by simply declaring the problematic passage a parable (like the flood, for example). There is no other context, there is no light you can't shine on the Bible's view of homosexuality other than a grave sin against God.
It's as if you are unaware that there is an entire system of thought regarding the human person and the purpose of his/her sexuality that is decidedly not equivalent to 'the bible says it'.
 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
8,638
Reaction score
14,263
Age
43
Online
It's as if you are unaware that there is an entire system of thought regarding the human person and the purpose of his/her sexuality that is decidedly not equivalent to 'the bible says it'.
Are you referring to JP II's Theology of the Body? Natural Law? Or something else?
 

Brennan77

Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
46,089
Reaction score
18,072
Location
The Channel
Offline
Ok, if that's the small part you want to focus on.....I'm sure quite a few would.

And you're saying "not the husband" on a technical catholic level, right? They could be a civil marriage, they could be bf/gf. Right? I mean, the argument is that they have kids together and are adulterers, so stop being adulterers, and be chaste.

Am I missing the hypothetical scenario? I mean, it's your scenario. Help me understand.
Well it was a wrinkle that you offered to a scenario some cardinals would like to use in interpreting AL, specifically mentioned in the article you provided. You went a step further to say that one of the reasons a couple might be justified in engaging in adulterous sexual activity would be under the duress of a man who would kick the mother of his children out of his home for not providing him with sexual satisfaction.

Look, I understand that people in such messes of their own creation find immense challenge and heartache in re-ordering their lives to live according to the truth of Christ in communion with his Church. But that difficulty is not cause to undermine our understanding that marriage is indissoluble, that God can provide the grace needed to avoid sin, and that God can never will us to sin. And in that struggle there is assuredly grace, love, hope, redemption, and more.


“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”? - GK Chesterton
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
11,877
Location
Xibalba
Offline
It's as if you are unaware that there is an entire system of thought regarding the human person and the purpose of his/her sexuality that is decidedly not equivalent to 'the bible says it'.
I guess you think your condescending non-responses make a point, but most of the times they don't, and some times work against you.

The Bible is the very foundation of your religion. That, you can't deny. In that, "the Bible says it" is a valid statement.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
22,610
Reaction score
10,158
Age
48
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Online
I guess you think your condescending non-responses make a point, but most of the times they don't, and some times work against you.

The Bible is the very foundation of your religion. That, you can't deny. In that, "the Bible says it" is a valid statement.
I'm not seeing the condescending you're talking about. He has to cover a lot of ground, and some are appropriate here and others are best left to another discussion. Seems reasonable to me.
 

Brennan77

Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
46,089
Reaction score
18,072
Location
The Channel
Offline
Let's take it outside of the hypothetical then and go to the actual. I married my daughter's mother, but I was not married in the Church, but at a JP. The church never recognized my marriage and restricted me in many facets of church life (Eucharistic ministry, lecturers, etc.). I disagree, but accepted that.

I get a divorce. Guess what? I'm still restricted and told I have to petition the diocesan tribunal for a marriage that the Church would not recognize as valid.

"You don't have to get a full annulment, but you have to go through the process."

What the hell? The Church has already said it wasn't valid. Shouldn't confession be enough?
This is prefaced with all sorts of caveats as I'm not a canon lawyer, pastor, etc and I don't have all the information.

Was she your first wife? Were you baptized, confirmed, received first communion before the marriage? How about her? Were you raising your child in the Church? What did your priest say about your marriage? That it was invalid? Why?

There's lots of questions but the Church does recognize, with some parameters, civil marriage as part of natural law even if it were not elevated to the level of a sacrament. Perhaps as an adult in the Church you were limited in ministry options because you had not had your marriage blessed, sanctioned, and received as a sacrament. And because the Church did recognize some validity to your marriage even without sacramentaltity, there's still a process to go through when you separated.

Just shooting from the hip...
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
42,331
Reaction score
34,963
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
This is prefaced with all sorts of caveats as I'm not a canon lawyer, pastor, etc and I don't have all the information.

Was she your first wife? Were you baptized, confirmed, received first communion before the marriage? How about her? Were you raising your child in the Church? What did your priest say about your marriage? That it was invalid? Why?

There's lots of questions but the Church does recognize, with some parameters, civil marriage as part of natural law even if it were not elevated to the level of a sacrament. Perhaps as an adult in the Church you were limited in ministry options because you had not had your marriage blessed, sanctioned, and received as a sacrament. And because the Church did recognize some validity to your marriage even without sacramentaltity, there's still a process to go through when you separated.

Just shooting from the hip...
This all sounds about right.

What I would add, is that even if the marriage wasn't deemed valid (or they didn't think it was), to get it officially annulled, you still have to go through the whole process. But your priest won't even let you go through the process, if they don't feel like you have a clear case.

This is why the church was looking into (did they make the change?) to allow the parish or diocese to make the decision on pretty obvious grounds of annulment, and not have to go through the tribunal, and then the second out of diocese tribunal to agree (you needed two tribunals to agree, or else it went to Rome).

EDIT: It looks like it was reformed in 2015 to allow the Bishop's to declare nullity. The overall idea was to make the process shorter and allow the parties/witnesses the ability to participate at minimal or no cost. Before, an annulment cost around $650 (depending on the diocese)

However, I did read this, which makes me wonder if there is something specific holding up @Grandadmiral Assuming this isn't old news and already dealt with.

"Members of the Catholic Church are required to marry in front of a priest (or deacon), and normally with at least one other witness, which can be a layperson. The priest or deacon is not the minister of the sacrament; the man and wife are the ministers by exchanging vows, though the cleric presides over the exchange of the vows and any Mass or nuptial liturgical celebration (CCC 1630). If one of the parties is Catholic, but there is a serious reason why the marriage should be celebrated in front of a civil servant or a non-Catholic minister, a dispensation can be granted. If no dispensation was granted and the couple did not observe this law, the marriage is considered invalid. Because the nullity of the marriage is clear from the circumstances there is no need for a canonical process to issue a Declaration of Nullity. The correction of this invalidity requires the couple to exchange their consent according to canonical form (commonly called "convalidation").

I'd imagine there was no need for the Declaration of Nullity.

I will say this. Sometimes you just need to ask again, or talk to a different priest. Might be just as simple as they didn't hear you right the first time. My wife needed an annulment before we could get married, we had a great older Monseigneur, who was very kind, easy going, but thorough about the whole process. Previously she had asked a priest (before we were together) about the process, and her memory is that they were very dismissive of the whole idea, even though she has a pretty straightforward case. Not sure what happened, as I wasn't there and she's not catholic, so she gets more confused than I do.
 
OP
OP
Grandadmiral

Grandadmiral

Infinite Power is da ****
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
18,805
Reaction score
8,681
Age
43
Online
This all sounds about right.

What I would add, is that even if the marriage wasn't deemed valid (or they didn't think it was), to get it officially annulled, you still have to go through the whole process. But your priest won't even let you go through the process, if they don't feel like you have a clear case.

This is why the church was looking into (did they make the change?) to allow the parish or diocese to make the decision on pretty obvious grounds of annulment, and not have to go through the tribunal, and then the second out of diocese tribunal to agree (you needed two tribunals to agree, or else it went to Rome).

EDIT: It looks like it was reformed in 2015 to allow the Bishop's to declare nullity. The overall idea was to make the process shorter and allow the parties/witnesses the ability to participate at minimal or no cost. Before, an annulment cost around $650 (depending on the diocese)

However, I did read this, which makes me wonder if there is something specific holding up @Grandadmiral Assuming this isn't old news and already dealt with.

"Members of the Catholic Church are required to marry in front of a priest (or deacon), and normally with at least one other witness, which can be a layperson. The priest or deacon is not the minister of the sacrament; the man and wife are the ministers by exchanging vows, though the cleric presides over the exchange of the vows and any Mass or nuptial liturgical celebration (CCC 1630). If one of the parties is Catholic, but there is a serious reason why the marriage should be celebrated in front of a civil servant or a non-Catholic minister, a dispensation can be granted. If no dispensation was granted and the couple did not observe this law, the marriage is considered invalid. Because the nullity of the marriage is clear from the circumstances there is no need for a canonical process to issue a Declaration of Nullity. The correction of this invalidity requires the couple to exchange their consent according to canonical form (commonly called "convalidation").

I'd imagine there was no need for the Declaration of Nullity.

I will say this. Sometimes you just need to ask again, or talk to a different priest. Might be just as simple as they didn't hear you right the first time. My wife needed an annulment before we could get married, we had a great older Monseigneur, who was very kind, easy going, but thorough about the whole process. Previously she had asked a priest (before we were together) about the process, and her memory is that they were very dismissive of the whole idea, even though she has a pretty straightforward case. Not sure what happened, as I wasn't there and she's not catholic, so she gets more confused than I do.
Maybe a conversation with someone else is needed, because if there's no need for the Declaration, then why the bed for the Tribunal?
 

Brennan77

Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
46,089
Reaction score
18,072
Location
The Channel
Offline
I guess you think your condescending non-responses make a point, but most of the times they don't, and some times work against you.

The Bible is the very foundation of your religion. That, you can't deny. In that, "the Bible says it" is a valid statement.
I really think you should check your own posting style before accusing others of condescension. My point was that I don't believe for a second that you understand the Catholic view and relation to scripture to be as you propose. You've read plenty of my posts. How many times have you seen me present an argument that was the equivalent of the 'bible says it'? That may be convenient for you rhetorically, but it's what most people call a straw man.

That said, I think you have a reasonable concern and I can see why it would be so to you. But you spend so little effort in accurately representing your imagined opponent that it's quite discouraging to actual conversation.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
9,037
Reaction score
11,877
Location
Xibalba
Offline
I really think you should check your own posting style before accusing others of condescension. My point was that I don't believe for a second that you understand the Catholic view and relation to scripture to be as you propose. You've read plenty of my posts. How many times have you seen me present an argument that was the equivalent of the 'bible says it'? That may be convenient for you rhetorically, but it's what most people call a straw man.

That said, I think you have a reasonable concern and I can see why it would be so to you. But you spend so little effort in accurately representing your imagined opponent that it's quite discouraging to actual conversation.
I was born into a Spaniard family in México. I was baptized, I went to church every Sunday, attended Catechism, retreats; did my first communion, etc... I think I understand Catholicism. And this understanding grew even more when I started searching for validation for the Catholic church, then Christianity, then the Bible, then all religions.

As for "the Bible says it", as I said, you cannot argue that the Bible is the very basis of your religion. But don't take my word for it; take the Vatican's word for it. If you go to the Vatican's website and read the CCC, you'll notice that the Catechism entries have footnotes, pointing to the Bible verses they are based on (but you knew this)

As for the post you quoted originally, it is hardly a straw man. In any religion, the foundation tenets cannot be questioned, or the particular religion becomes susceptible to being questioned altogether. And in the case of homosexuality, it is a big'un.


2395 Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.
I think the Catechism is clear: since there cannot be marriage between two people of the same sex, homosexuality can only fall outside marriage, and therefore, it is a grave sin.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Saints Headlines (Official Site)

Top Bottom