|
|
Post by iagosan on Oct 11, 2023 5:14:41 GMT
Can a married man now bring his mistress to the Church for a blessing of their relationship as long as no one confuses the relationship with holy matrimony?
(not “asking for a friend” by the way...)
|
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Oct 16, 2023 13:41:51 GMT
This is the type of “conservative/orthodox” virtue signaling we have all come to expect.
As if a loving and committed relationship between two informed and consenting adults is the equivalent of the adulterous relationship referenced here.
Yes. This is exactly why the terms like intolerant, homophobic, etc are appropriately used when referring to groups who use this type of rhetoric to rally their supporters under the banner of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Oct 16, 2023 13:52:28 GMT
You’re being just as bad by claiming that a relationship the Church sees as “adulterous” can’t also be committed and loving and involve consenting adults.
In some cultures (even in OT Scripture with saintly patriarchs and kings), polygamy is a thing.
There are other situations involving spousal abuse and abandonment. Or even just refusal to get an annulment.
It’s easy to cherry pick facts if your goal is to throw around insults like homophobe. These threads are also interesting ways of seeing where each individual poster is drawing their moral lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 16, 2023 18:36:33 GMT
Can a married man now bring his mistress to the Church for a blessing of their relationship as long as no one confuses the relationship with holy matrimony?
(not “asking for a friend” by the way...) Can a married man bring his mistress to the Church for a blessing of their relationship? Yes he can. Should there be a blessing of the relationship given by the priest. No there shouldn't, and more than likely it won't happen. Can people who are sinners ask for a blessing of their person by a priest. Yes they can. Should a priest bless a person who is a known sinner. Yes they should, and it happens all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 16, 2023 19:10:41 GMT
Can a married man now bring his mistress to the Church for a blessing of their relationship as long as no one confuses the relationship with holy matrimony?
(not “asking for a friend” by the way...) Can a married man bring his mistress to the Church for a blessing of their relationship? Yes he can. Should there be a blessing of the relationship given by the priest. No there shouldn't, and more than likely it won't happen. Can people who are sinners ask for a blessing of their person by a priest. Yes they can. Should a priest bless a person who is a known sinner. Yes they should, and it happens all the time. I know you know this, but blessing the sinner and blessing a sinful relationship are two different things. I can bring a pack of cigarettes into a church and start smoking. Doesn't mean I should do it, doesn't mean that it will be tolerated. |
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Oct 16, 2023 20:05:29 GMT
Probably a good way to get wet from the sprinkler system in my parish if you did that. This shows how times change as I can remember older parishioners copping a crafty fag at the back of the Church as a kid. In Ireland, the farmer who dashes in for the Eucharist and spends the rest of the Mass at the very back of the Church doing business deals is a local legend.
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 17, 2023 0:39:20 GMT
Can a married man bring his mistress to the Church for a blessing of their relationship? Yes he can. Should there be a blessing of the relationship given by the priest. No there shouldn't, and more than likely it won't happen. Can people who are sinners ask for a blessing of their person by a priest. Yes they can. Should a priest bless a person who is a known sinner. Yes they should, and it happens all the time.
I can bring a pack of cigarettes into a church and start smoking. Doesn't mean I should do it, doesn't mean that it will be tolerated. Which is exactly what my response to the silly question was. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 17, 2023 1:02:34 GMT
I know you know this, but blessing the sinner and blessing a sinful relationship are two different things.
I can bring a pack of cigarettes into a church and start smoking. Doesn't mean I should do it, doesn't mean that it will be tolerated. Which is exactly what my response to the silly question was. Though it does seem kind of silly at first glance, I'll grant that, it's really not. If a man is divorced with no annulment, and he is in a relationship with a woman not his wife, that's precisely what she is --- his mistress. A fortiori if he "marries" her invalidly. I'm not comfortable even with platonic socializing one-on-one, hence I do not date. In my circumstances, I wouldn't have the time to do so anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 17, 2023 1:23:48 GMT
Which is exactly what my response to the silly question was. Though it does seem kind of silly at first glance, I'll grant that, it's really not. If a man is divorced with no annulment, and he is in a relationship with a woman not his wife, that's precisely what she is --- his mistress. A fortiori if he "marries" her invalidly. I'm not comfortable even with platonic socializing one-on-one, hence I do not date. In my circumstances, I wouldn't have the time to do so anyway. Are you trying to explain to me something which you think I don't know? I am confused by your comments. "Can a man". Sure, we can do about anything we would like to do. The question was "Can". If someone asks me " Can I drive your car". Sure you can drive it, but I am not permitting you to drive it. If the poster was asking "Is it permissible now" the answer is no, and it never has been permissible. But he didn't ask that, he asked "Can" which is much different. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 17, 2023 1:27:31 GMT
Though it does seem kind of silly at first glance, I'll grant that, it's really not. If a man is divorced with no annulment, and he is in a relationship with a woman not his wife, that's precisely what she is --- his mistress. A fortiori if he "marries" her invalidly. I'm not comfortable even with platonic socializing one-on-one, hence I do not date. In my circumstances, I wouldn't have the time to do so anyway. Are you trying to explain to me something which you think I don't know? I am confused by your comments. "Can a man". Sure, we can do about anything we would like to do. The question was "Can". If someone asks me " Can I drive your car". Sure you can drive it, but I am not permitting you to drive it. If the poster was asking "Is it permissible now" the answer is no, and it never has been permissible. But he didn't ask that, he asked "Can" which is much different. In colloquial English, "can" and "may" are synonymous, when the idea conveyed is "am I allowed to?". Technically ungrammatical, but that's the way everyone speaks. |
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 17, 2023 1:40:04 GMT
Are you trying to explain to me something which you think I don't know? I am confused by your comments. "Can a man". Sure, we can do about anything we would like to do. The question was "Can". If someone asks me " Can I drive your car". Sure you can drive it, but I am not permitting you to drive it. If the poster was asking "Is it permissible now" the answer is no, and it never has been permissible. But he didn't ask that, he asked "Can" which is much different. In colloquial English, "can" and "may" are synonymous, when the idea conveyed is "am I allowed to?". Technically ungrammatical, but that's the way everyone speaks. Using the word "may" doesn't change a thing. Yes, they may ask the priest. The word can or may is dependent on the person asking, not the person being asked, and neither word changes what is permissible regarding Church teaching with is exactly as it has been for a very long time. Yes, words matter, and it was a poorly worded question if the OP was seeking a serious answer to what is a silly question. Can a priest who is not in a licit marriage have sexual relations? Sure, plenty of them have over the centuries. VS. Is it permissible for a priest who is not in a licit marriage to have sexual relations. Absolutely not. Big difference in those questions and answers. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 17, 2023 2:01:45 GMT
In colloquial English, "can" and "may" are synonymous, when the idea conveyed is "am I allowed to?". Technically ungrammatical, but that's the way everyone speaks. Using the word "may" doesn't change a thing. Yes, they may ask the priest. The word can or may is dependent on the person asking, not the person being asked, and neither word changes what is permissible regarding Church teaching with is exactly as it has been for a very long time. Yes, words matter, and it was a poorly worded question if the OP was seeking a serious answer to what is a silly question. Can a priest who is not in a licit marriage have sexual relations? Sure, plenty of them have over the centuries. VS. Is it permissible for a priest who is not in a licit marriage to have sexual relations. Absolutely not. Big difference in those questions and answers. I'm going to leave you to mull over the "can-may" distinction on your own. Practically all speakers of idiomatic, informal English (at least in its American incarnation) would clearly understand the idea being conveyed. |
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Oct 20, 2023 3:16:18 GMT
You’re being just as bad by claiming that a relationship the Church sees as “adulterous” can’t also be committed and loving and involve consenting adults. In some cultures (even in OT Scripture with saintly patriarchs and kings), polygamy is a thing. There are other situations involving spousal abuse and abandonment. Or even just refusal to get an annulment. It’s easy to cherry pick facts if your goal is to throw around insults like homophobe. These threads are also interesting ways of seeing where each individual poster is drawing their moral lines. Nonsense. The Church explains and dialogues about each situation mentioned without reffing to anyone as ‘mistress.’ We see the term used here to specifically to denigrate entire groups of people through a comically nonsensical false equivalency. Indeed. These types of post are interesting. It’s interesting to see folks signal each other in an attempt to establish an electronic safe space in which to express their homophobic sentiments in a semi-public forum. It is worth noting that the type of comments in the OP would never be shared face to face with someone in a same sex relationship. These sentiments are only shared once someone has established a safe place for their expression. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 20, 2023 7:35:28 GMT
You’re being just as bad by claiming that a relationship the Church sees as “adulterous” can’t also be committed and loving and involve consenting adults. In some cultures (even in OT Scripture with saintly patriarchs and kings), polygamy is a thing. There are other situations involving spousal abuse and abandonment. Or even just refusal to get an annulment. It’s easy to cherry pick facts if your goal is to throw around insults like homophobe. These threads are also interesting ways of seeing where each individual poster is drawing their moral lines. Nonsense. The Church explains and dialogues about each situation mentioned without reffing to anyone as ‘mistress.’ We see the term used here to specifically to denigrate entire groups of people through a comically nonsensical false equivalency. Indeed. These types of post are interesting. It’s interesting to see folks signal each other in an attempt to establish an electronic safe space in which to express their homophobic sentiments in a semi-public forum. It is worth noting that the type of comments in the OP would never be shared face to face with someone in a same sex relationship. These sentiments are only shared once someone has established a safe place for their expression. Oddly enough, I actually find myself somewhat in agreement with you. Even though it's true, the teaching Church wisely does not refer to men in an adulterous relationship --- which is what divorce and "remarriage" without benefit of annulment is --- as having "mistresses". That would be too blunt and would do nothing but alienate people in such relationships. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I do not seek to "signal" anyone, nor do I seek an "electronic safe space". (And I am not a homophobe.) I am nobody. I simply seek to speak the truth. If even one of my posts reaches someone who would be moved from sin to virtue, I consider it all to have been worthwhile. But... but... but... HSD, aren't you contradicting yourself, by saying the Church shouldn't use such charged terminology, yet you get on here and do precisely that (or at least agree with others who use it)?There's no contradiction. Think of the "good cop, bad cop" scenario. The teaching Church, in our times when you can't say "boo" to anyone lest they go into "snowflake" mode and say "you're judging me!", has to be diplomatic. Lay Catholic commentators on forums such as this one don't have to be. We are not the teaching Church, we are not pastors of souls. (One could say that the father is the head of his "domestic Church", but a father can be as blunt-spoken to his children as he has to be, after all, who knows them better? My son has absolutely no illusions about where I stand, and he gets the Faith straight and uncut from me.) A divorced man, without benefit of annulment, retaining an illicit second wife, could well read the word "mistress" and be stung by it. Then he could go to his priest and say "someone online said that my wife [sic] is my mistress, is that how the Church sees us?". The priest could then say, no, we don't use such terminology, but then would have to explain to this man precisely how Almighty God does see his illicit union. If the priest adheres to traditional orthodox Catholic sacramental and moral theology, he'll have to tell the man the truth, in gentler language, perhaps, but the point will be clear (one hopes). It becomes a teachable moment, and the man has in the back of his mind, "maybe having an illicit wife IS kind of like having a mistress, after all, in the Eyes of God, I'm still married to the woman whom I divorced".Fear, uncertainty, and doubt aren't bad things to have, when trying to justify living in grave sin. They may be the thing that will snap you out of it and save your soul. |
|
