Pope is accused of heresy (2 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

The Church has somewhat evolved their take on suicide, as more information about mental health has become available.

Yep. It was very hard on families who couldn't have a funeral Mass for their loved ones because of that archaic teaching.

 

[Brennan77]

Doesn't that last bit get into the specific issue for some. If, due to circumstance, such as children, it is impossible or harmful to separate, if the individuals commit to chastity, maybe there would be no option to stay together. i.e. the husband would kick the wife out.

So, is it an all or nothing proposition, or is the harm to the child more important than being chaste in that regard?

If I'm understanding your hypothetical correctly we have the following...

A man, who is not the husband of a woman, will kick her out of his/her home for not having sex with him?

 

[Saint_Ward]

If I'm understanding your hypothetical correctly we have the following...

A man, who is not the husband of a woman, will kick her out of his/her home for not having sex with him?

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.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

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. 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.

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?

 

[SystemShock]

Catholics should focus on answering this question, "What if the bible and Catholic doctrine is wrong about homosexuality?" Instead of trying to label Francis a heretic. Really all Christian faiths need to confront this question.

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.

 

[Brennan77]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.

 

[SystemShock]

I'm not seeing the condescending you're talking about.

The "It is as if you are unaware" part.

 

[DaveXA]

The "It is as if you are unaware" part.

That makes sense. Fair enough. I'd just say that quip doesn't negate the rest of what he's saying.

 

[Brennan77]

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...