|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2023 6:32:24 GMT
In Nigeria, homosexuality is illegal, and the penalty includes imprisonment of up to 16 years. Meanwhile, the call is to bless couples but not to support homosexuality. Finally, for some reason I'm reminded of that Christian pop statement, "WWJD?" I don't think Jesus would want His Church to leave the faithful (who are, by and large, not able to make razor-sharp Jesuit-style distinctions) with the impression that non-celibate homosexual unions, two men or two women under the same roof having homosex, are in some sense being condoned. The Church overplayed her hand on this one. If I had to guess, I'd venture that it was a desperate move to keep the German Church from going into schism, asking the question "what has worse optics, and poses worse scandal, losing a part of the Church, or creating a narrowly defined apparatus to reach out to those who desire such blessings?".Once again, the tail wagging the dog.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 22, 2023 10:37:46 GMT
In Nigeria, homosexuality is illegal, and the penalty includes imprisonment of up to 16 years. Meanwhile, the call is to bless couples but not to support homosexuality. Finally, for some reason I'm reminded of that Christian pop statement, "WWJD?" I don't think Jesus would want His Church to leave the faithful (who are, by and large, not able to make razor-sharp Jesuit-style distinctions) with the impression that non-celibate homosexual unions, two men or two women under the same roof having homosex, are in some sense being condoned. The Church overplayed her hand on this one. If I had to guess, I'd venture that it was a desperate move to keep the German Church from going into schism, asking the question "what has worse optics, and poses worse scandal, losing a part of the Church, or creating a narrowly defined apparatus to reach out to those who desire such blessings?".Once again, the tail wagging the dog.
I think they're following the Catechism.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2023 16:15:21 GMT
I don't think Jesus would want His Church to leave the faithful (who are, by and large, not able to make razor-sharp Jesuit-style distinctions) with the impression that non-celibate homosexual unions, two men or two women under the same roof having homosex, are in some sense being condoned. The Church overplayed her hand on this one. If I had to guess, I'd venture that it was a desperate move to keep the German Church from going into schism, asking the question "what has worse optics, and poses worse scandal, losing a part of the Church, or creating a narrowly defined apparatus to reach out to those who desire such blessings?".Once again, the tail wagging the dog.I think they're following the Catechism. Could you be more specific? Here's what the Catechism says about scandal: 2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.And that is what has happened here. Regardless of the Church's good intentions, regardless of the narrow definition of the type of same-sex couple's blessing there might be, all the world is going to hear is "the Church is okay with same-sex relationships", and make every inference that comes with that (as well as the inference that "the Church is changing and will change even more", which is how the modern world wants things to be). I don't have statistics on what percentage of these are sexless, celibate, "Josephite" unions (such as the "Boston Marriage" of the 19th century where two women would share a home and a life with no assumption they were necessarily having homosex), but I can't think it would even reach double digits. Of course, one could take the tack that the Church can never do anything that is harmful to anyone, could never do anything that would lead the faithful (or those outside her fold) into sin or error, but I do not make that assertion.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Dec 22, 2023 16:41:52 GMT
I find it quite odd that all of the focus is on same sex relationships when in the document, irregular marriages are mentioned as well. But I guess that is the current political environment.
I would suggest that the number of people in irregular marriages far exceed the very small number of people in same sex relationships, especially when it comes down to seeking to receive some sort of blessing from a priest.
And lets not forget that text which I highlighted in a previous post is part of where pastoral prudence should come into play. Nothing put out recently mandates that a priest bless any person no matter what their condition. But again, based on how the world is operating today, some folks want to take the extreme view and say, look, look, the Church has changed its teachings when that couldn't be further from the actual truth.
Most of the articles which are linked and most of the posts also incorrectly indicate that the sinful actions are being blessed, and not the sinners who are receiving the blessing. That in itself would certainly fall into the "scandal" category in that they are falsely claiming something which isn't true, and therefore are leading others astray or to loose faith.
But hey, when folks have their minds made up, no matter what is put in front of them, they aren't going to see it. That is all too common today.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2023 18:40:51 GMT
I find it quite odd that all of the focus is on same sex relationships when in the document, irregular marriages are mentioned as well. But I guess that is the current political environment. I would suggest that the number of people in irregular marriages far exceed the very small number of people in same sex relationships, especially when it comes down to seeking to receive some sort of blessing from a priest. And lets not forget that text which I highlighted in a previous post is part of where pastoral prudence should come into play. Nothing put out recently mandates that a priest bless any person no matter what their condition. But again, based on how the world is operating today, some folks want to take the extreme view and say, look, look, the Church has changed its teachings when that couldn't be further from the actual truth. Most of the articles which are linked and most of the posts also incorrectly indicate that the sinful actions are being blessed, and not the sinners who are receiving the blessing. That in itself would certainly fall into the "scandal" category in that they are falsely claiming something which isn't true, and therefore are leading others astray or to loose faith. But hey, when folks have their minds made up, no matter what is put in front of them, they aren't going to see it. That is all too common today. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the part about irregular heterosexual unions was just put in there to be able to say "hey, we're not singling out same-sex couples", similar to how Humanae vitae contained a lengthy preface about changing demographic conditions, a new awareness of the role and dignity of women in the world, and so on, while it was evident --- even from the extended title of the document (the "regulation of birth" verbiage) that it was meant to address the moral aspect of artificial birth control. So far as I am aware, there is no great wave of requests for irregular heterosexual couples to get blessings for the non-sinful aspects of their relationships, nor does the mainstream media really care about that. Same-sex couples are seeking something, anything, that they can point to and say "no, it's not a marriage ceremony, we know that's not possible (and some would mutter under their breath "right now"), but please give us something so that we can feel like the Church is recognizing our union".
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2023 18:51:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2023 18:56:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Dec 22, 2023 20:10:47 GMT
I find it quite odd that all of the focus is on same sex relationships when in the document, irregular marriages are mentioned as well. But I guess that is the current political environment. I would suggest that the number of people in irregular marriages far exceed the very small number of people in same sex relationships, especially when it comes down to seeking to receive some sort of blessing from a priest. And lets not forget that text which I highlighted in a previous post is part of where pastoral prudence should come into play. Nothing put out recently mandates that a priest bless any person no matter what their condition. But again, based on how the world is operating today, some folks want to take the extreme view and say, look, look, the Church has changed its teachings when that couldn't be further from the actual truth. Most of the articles which are linked and most of the posts also incorrectly indicate that the sinful actions are being blessed, and not the sinners who are receiving the blessing. That in itself would certainly fall into the "scandal" category in that they are falsely claiming something which isn't true, and therefore are leading others astray or to loose faith. But hey, when folks have their minds made up, no matter what is put in front of them, they aren't going to see it. That is all too common today. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the part about irregular heterosexual unions was just put in there to be able to say "hey, we're not singling out same-sex couples", similar to how Humanae vitae contained a lengthy preface about changing demographic conditions, a new awareness of the role and dignity of women in the world, and so on, while it was evident --- even from the extended title of the document (the "regulation of birth" verbiage) that it was meant to address the moral aspect of artificial birth control. So far as I am aware, there is no great wave of requests for irregular heterosexual couples to get blessings for the non-sinful aspects of their relationships, nor does the mainstream media really care about that. Same-sex couples are seeking something, anything, that they can point to and say "no, it's not a marriage ceremony, we know that's not possible (and some would mutter under their breath "right now"), but please give us something so that we can feel like the Church is recognizing our union". Why would the main stream media care about irregular marriages? Most religions don't care about them, and divorce and remarriage has become common place in much of the world today. That isn't news worthy, that doesn't keep people glued to the tv for ratings. To think that people in irregular marriages don't seek blessings from their priest would be a stretch. Heterosexual couples in irregular marriages have for a very long time enjoyed the ability to celebrate their marriages. If we go back centuries, they didn't enjoy that same ability, but I bet when those events were finally accepted by society it was pretty much the same thing. We are now accepted by people, let's do something that draw attention to ourselves. Of course the Church never has, and never will make acceptance of either type. The Church is a very old institution. What seems new to us now and is shocking, vs what is not new now, but centuries ago was new, well the Church had to deal with that back then.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2023 20:45:56 GMT
I could be wrong, but I suspect that the part about irregular heterosexual unions was just put in there to be able to say "hey, we're not singling out same-sex couples", similar to how Humanae vitae contained a lengthy preface about changing demographic conditions, a new awareness of the role and dignity of women in the world, and so on, while it was evident --- even from the extended title of the document (the "regulation of birth" verbiage) that it was meant to address the moral aspect of artificial birth control. So far as I am aware, there is no great wave of requests for irregular heterosexual couples to get blessings for the non-sinful aspects of their relationships, nor does the mainstream media really care about that. Same-sex couples are seeking something, anything, that they can point to and say "no, it's not a marriage ceremony, we know that's not possible (and some would mutter under their breath "right now"), but please give us something so that we can feel like the Church is recognizing our union". Why would the main stream media care about irregular marriages? Most religions don't care about them, and divorce and remarriage has become common place in much of the world today. That isn't news worthy, that doesn't keep people glued to the tv for ratings. To think that people in irregular marriages don't seek blessings from their priest would be a stretch. Heterosexual couples in irregular marriages have for a very long time enjoyed the ability to celebrate their marriages. If we go back centuries, they didn't enjoy that same ability, but I bet when those events were finally accepted by society it was pretty much the same thing. We are now accepted by people, let's do something that draw attention to ourselves. Of course the Church never has, and never will make acceptance of either type. The Church is a very old institution. What seems new to us now and is shocking, vs what is not new now, but centuries ago was new, well the Church had to deal with that back then. The MSM wouldn't care, and neither would anyone except Catholics who do not believe that a true marriage can exist while a prior spouse is still living and no annulment has been granted. Everyone else just says "oh, they're married". Even when there's been adultery and a broken-up home, still, at the end of the day, everyone accepts the situation, wishes them well, congratulates them, and so on. (Not sure what the deserted spouse thinks of all that.) If people in irregular marriages seek blessings from a priest, that would be news to me. There's definitely no procedure by which a priest, even informally, blesses such couples quasi-publicly, no "this isn't really a 'wedding', but...", no reception, no cake, gifts, or dancing, or at least if there is, it's nothing I've ever encountered, either in the mainstream parish I attend sometimes, nor a fortiori in my little Tridentine bubble of "old believers". Could you provide some instances of this?
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Dec 22, 2023 23:02:16 GMT
I find it quite odd that all of the focus is on same sex relationships when in the document, irregular marriages are mentioned as well. But I guess that is the current political environment. I would suggest that the number of people in irregular marriages far exceed the very small number of people in same sex relationships, especially when it comes down to seeking to receive some sort of blessing from a priest. And lets not forget that text which I highlighted in a previous post is part of where pastoral prudence should come into play. Nothing put out recently mandates that a priest bless any person no matter what their condition. But again, based on how the world is operating today, some folks want to take the extreme view and say, look, look, the Church has changed its teachings when that couldn't be further from the actual truth. Most of the articles which are linked and most of the posts also incorrectly indicate that the sinful actions are being blessed, and not the sinners who are receiving the blessing. That in itself would certainly fall into the "scandal" category in that they are falsely claiming something which isn't true, and therefore are leading others astray or to loose faith. But hey, when folks have their minds made up, no matter what is put in front of them, they aren't going to see it. That is all too common today. I don't believe the document was created to fill a pressing need to address blessing individuals in irregular marriages. Same sex relationships is the focus, either to address the growing dissent from the German bishops or to initiate a seed of change, where one day irregular/same sex relationships will slowly be accepted by the Church, not as marriage, but as another expression of tolerance and acceptance. Many of the liturgical changes regarding the Mass were not instantly applied overnight. It took decades for what was once considered to be rare and inconceivable, to be considered commonplace. Speaking of folks who have their minds made up, that goes both ways in this instance. There are many Catholics who aren't the least bit concerned or involved in documents such as this, because they don't see it becoming a trend or an issue. Until one day, 10-20 years from now, same sex relationships are blessed on a regular basis, because it's become commonplace to acknowledge all that's good and truthful in these unions, even when it's not considered marriage.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 23, 2023 0:27:00 GMT
I find it quite odd that all of the focus is on same sex relationships when in the document, irregular marriages are mentioned as well. But I guess that is the current political environment. I would suggest that the number of people in irregular marriages far exceed the very small number of people in same sex relationships, especially when it comes down to seeking to receive some sort of blessing from a priest. And lets not forget that text which I highlighted in a previous post is part of where pastoral prudence should come into play. Nothing put out recently mandates that a priest bless any person no matter what their condition. But again, based on how the world is operating today, some folks want to take the extreme view and say, look, look, the Church has changed its teachings when that couldn't be further from the actual truth. Most of the articles which are linked and most of the posts also incorrectly indicate that the sinful actions are being blessed, and not the sinners who are receiving the blessing. That in itself would certainly fall into the "scandal" category in that they are falsely claiming something which isn't true, and therefore are leading others astray or to loose faith. But hey, when folks have their minds made up, no matter what is put in front of them, they aren't going to see it. That is all too common today. I don't believe the document was created to fill a pressing need to address blessing individuals in irregular marriages. Same sex relationships is the focus, either to address the growing dissent from the German bishops or to initiate a seed of change, where one day irregular/same sex relationships will slowly be accepted by the Church, not as marriage, but as another expression of tolerance and acceptance. Many of the liturgical changes regarding the Mass were not instantly applied overnight. It took decades for what was once considered to be rare and inconceivable, to be considered commonplace. Speaking of folks who have their minds made up, that goes both ways in this instance. There are many Catholics who aren't the least bit concerned or involved in documents such as this, because they don't see it becoming a trend or an issue. Until one day, 10-20 years from now, same sex relationships are blessed on a regular basis, because it's become commonplace to acknowledge all that's good and truthful in these unions, even when it's not considered marriage. I don't think so either. I suspect that this was just "tacked on" for the Church to be able to say "see, it's not all about same-sex relationships, it's about relationships that are less than perfect from a moral standpoint, and to assert that there's far more to an illicit union than just the illicit part of it".
As to those who shrug their shoulders and say "it's no big deal", realize that change which can be foreseen to elicit resistance generally doesn't happen in one fell swoop. Rather, it's introduced gradually. Frog in the pot, so to speak. Here's a thought experiment: close your eyes and try to imagine what any of the previous Popes would have thought about this.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 23, 2023 1:15:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Dec 23, 2023 4:08:03 GMT
Why would the main stream media care about irregular marriages? Most religions don't care about them, and divorce and remarriage has become common place in much of the world today. That isn't news worthy, that doesn't keep people glued to the tv for ratings. To think that people in irregular marriages don't seek blessings from their priest would be a stretch. Heterosexual couples in irregular marriages have for a very long time enjoyed the ability to celebrate their marriages. If we go back centuries, they didn't enjoy that same ability, but I bet when those events were finally accepted by society it was pretty much the same thing. We are now accepted by people, let's do something that draw attention to ourselves. Of course the Church never has, and never will make acceptance of either type. The Church is a very old institution. What seems new to us now and is shocking, vs what is not new now, but centuries ago was new, well the Church had to deal with that back then. The MSM wouldn't care, and neither would anyone except Catholics who do not believe that a true marriage can exist while a prior spouse is still living and no annulment has been granted. Everyone else just says "oh, they're married". Even when there's been adultery and a broken-up home, still, at the end of the day, everyone accepts the situation, wishes them well, congratulates them, and so on. (Not sure what the deserted spouse thinks of all that.) If people in irregular marriages seek blessings from a priest, that would be news to me. There's definitely no procedure by which a priest, even informally, blesses such couples quasi-publicly, no "this isn't really a 'wedding', but...", no reception, no cake, gifts, or dancing, or at least if there is, it's nothing I've ever encountered, either in the mainstream parish I attend sometimes, nor a fortiori in my little Tridentine bubble of "old believers". Could you provide some instances of this? Have you ever seen a same sex couple, or someone you know is in a same sex relationship ask a priest for a blessing? If not what is all this big fuss about? Do you know anyone in an irregular marriage, or who have gotten divorced and has yet to be granted an annulment, but has started a new relationship? If not, does that mean they don't exist? Certainly not, they exist, and some of them still attend Mass, and refrain from receiving communion. They even go to confession. And yes, they receive blessings from priests. Again, we are not talking about blessing the situation, we are talking about blessing the person.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 23, 2023 4:46:49 GMT
The MSM wouldn't care, and neither would anyone except Catholics who do not believe that a true marriage can exist while a prior spouse is still living and no annulment has been granted. Everyone else just says "oh, they're married". Even when there's been adultery and a broken-up home, still, at the end of the day, everyone accepts the situation, wishes them well, congratulates them, and so on. (Not sure what the deserted spouse thinks of all that.) If people in irregular marriages seek blessings from a priest, that would be news to me. There's definitely no procedure by which a priest, even informally, blesses such couples quasi-publicly, no "this isn't really a 'wedding', but...", no reception, no cake, gifts, or dancing, or at least if there is, it's nothing I've ever encountered, either in the mainstream parish I attend sometimes, nor a fortiori in my little Tridentine bubble of "old believers". Could you provide some instances of this? Have you ever seen a same sex couple, or someone you know is in a same sex relationship ask a priest for a blessing? If not what is all this big fuss about? Do you know anyone in an irregular marriage, or who have gotten divorced and has yet to be granted an annulment, but has started a new relationship? If not, does that mean they don't exist? Certainly not, they exist, and some of them still attend Mass, and refrain from receiving communion. They even go to confession. And yes, they receive blessings from priests. Again, we are not talking about blessing the situation, we are talking about blessing the person. I know someone very well who fits the description in your second paragraph. That person is my wife. She is in an invalid "marriage", and I do not know whether she receives communion now, but she did at our son's first communion a few years ago, while in this invalid marriage, and from all indications it is not a Josephite marriage. I don't know what she does about confession. Whether she and her consort have received a blessing as a couple, I cannot say. She filed for an annulment, this after ten years of being in this invalid marriage, and we are awaiting a decision. This business of "blessing persons, not situations" is meeting with resistance from conservative religionists of all persuasions, who are not interested in nuance. Jesuitical slicing and dicing at its finest. Remember how Fr John Courtney Murray (also a Jesuit) helped the Kennedys to draw a distinction between personally opposing abortion and enabling it in the political sphere.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 23, 2023 5:48:25 GMT
I think they're following the Catechism. Could you be more specific? Here's what the Catechism says about scandal: 2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.And that is what has happened here. Regardless of the Church's good intentions, regardless of the narrow definition of the type of same-sex couple's blessing there might be, all the world is going to hear is "the Church is okay with same-sex relationships", and make every inference that comes with that (as well as the inference that "the Church is changing and will change even more", which is how the modern world wants things to be). I don't have statistics on what percentage of these are sexless, celibate, "Josephite" unions (such as the "Boston Marriage" of the 19th century where two women would share a home and a life with no assumption they were necessarily having homosex), but I can't think it would even reach double digits. Of course, one could take the tack that the Church can never do anything that is harmful to anyone, could never do anything that would lead the faithful (or those outside her fold) into sin or error, but I do not make that assertion.
I was thinking of the Church view of not only homosexuality but also homosexuals:
I think critics are focusing solely on 2357 while Pope Francis is looking at 2358 and 2359 in light of 2357.
|
|