| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Crossing the Threshold | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Tuesday, 15. November 2011, 02:57 (1,272 Views) | |
| Gerard | Wednesday, 23. November 2011, 20:01 Post #46 |
|
When I write "the Vatican" I am not specifically referring to the pope, but to the high heed yins in Rome - which may or may not include the pope. And I take his silence when others speak as tacit agreement. An example of raising a rule too far is the condom issue. The rule is dont use condoms to prevent conception but this was/is raised to dont use condoms for any reason not even to protect a spouse from a fatal infection. What are the limits of a pope's authority? We both know he is ordinarily not infallible and does not have infinite or arbitrary authority. Gerry Edited by Gerard, Wednesday, 23. November 2011, 20:27.
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 23. November 2011, 20:31 Post #47 |
![]()
|
You may know that but last I checked he is his authority is divine... as for the rest of your answer sorry but not impressed. |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 23. November 2011, 20:35 Post #48 |
|
No I dont accept that. Benedict and JPII have both comented on the limits of their authority. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 23. November 2011, 22:20 Post #49 |
|
The problem with statements lke that is it seems to be saying that the pope's authority is the same as God's which makes him look like God. Both attitudes of which are found in the church and were very much present when I was growing up. St Paul had a healthier attitude - expressed to good effect in Galatians. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 23. November 2011, 23:59 Post #50 |
![]()
|
The point is there is no authority on earth greater. The only limits are where the pope has ruled he can not change what is divine will as in the case of JPII and the ordination of women, However Gerry regardless of what St Paul may have to say there is a greater lesson given by Christ himself who reminds Pilate that he has no authority other than that which is given to him. . Popes must remember that they will have to give an account of their stewardship to God. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 09:33 Post #51 |
|
I wasn't attempting to correct your answer - I specifically said I agree with it - I was simply pointing out that it is not the universal answer given. For example, I have seen the same question about a woman's health being at risk answered in another Catholic forum and the answer being given that she cannot use contraception as it would be in direct contravention of CCC 2399; on the question o0f primacy of conscience, we had Cardinal Pell just a few years ago saying that the whole notion of primacy of conscience should be done away with as it was simply "secular relativism with a religious face.” As you go on to point out ...
So how are the laity to know which priests are giving them the right answers and which ones are being lazy? I think this is one of the most serious issues underlying the problems facing the Church today and leading to the hierarchy's lack of credibility, that the answer you get to a moral question depends to some extent on whom you address your question to and the higher up you go, the more the answers get hedged in with 'mights' and 'ifs' and 'maybes'. One example was the furore last year when Pope Benedict seemed to suggest that it was okay for a prostitute with AIDS to used condoms and various Vatican officials then appeared to rush to row back on what he had said. Another example is where you and most priests I know take exactly the attitude you expressed about not judging people who present themselves for Holy Communion yet we have Vatican officials stating that priests should refuse Holy Communion to politicians who are known to have supported pro-abortion legislation. Mixed messages tend to end up convincing nobody. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 09:57 Post #52 |
|
I want to develop this a bit further as I think there is an important underlying point. When I said I knew what the Church's answer would be, I was anticipating exactly what you ended up saying that it is objectively sinful for a man and woman to have sex without being married and objectively sinful for a person to have homosexual sex but that whether or not a specific person is committing sin in any particular instance depends on the surrounding circumstances and their own state of mind about what they are doing. What that means in practice - just as in your answers to the two examples - is that the Church response is based on working with the people involved to find ways to remove themselves from the state in which they, the ultimate aim being to convince them to put an end to what they are currently doing. That may work for the proportion of people in these situations who are open to having their minds changed but I suspect that proportion may be a minority nowadays. The question I am raising is whether your Church should be focussed on finding and convincing that minority or whether she should be seeking ways to accommodate those who are not open to being convinced. In other words, should the Church seek to find ways to accommodate those who have no intention of getting married or of giving up their homosexual sex life? In talking about the Church "accommodating", I am not talking about the generosity of spirit shown by priests to individuals, I am talking about the Church's public policy - or publicly perceived policy if you like. |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 10:21 Post #53 |
|
Therein lies the age-old conundrum, Mairtin: We have God's examples with Noah and the flood... and with Sodom and Gomorrah... I've had enough with the lot of them and that's it; But we also have God's examples with Mary of Magdala (apparently a prostitute) and with St.Peter, His chosen leader of the flock in this world (who promptly denied Him). Seems God can, when the 'mood' takes Him, variously condemn... or encourage... or accept and tolerate. For those of us on our 'Faith journey', that can seem very confusing - perhaps not least for those trying to lead us.... |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 10:43 Post #54 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think there is a difference though Anne-Marie. The Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah stories are surely only OT parables used to concentrate people's minds on good and bad behaviour. We are asked to believe that Mary Magdalen and St Peter were real people and their treatment was real. So we should be able to draw from that that in real-life situations it is the merciful face of God that we should expect to see. John |
|
|
| Penfold | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 10:55 Post #55 |
![]()
|
So we should allow murder, rape, theft, adultery, incest, child abuse... for that is what you imply. There are rules and moral codes Mairtin, and in the end we have to deal with those who break them. Some of us try to do so with compassion and try to show mercy, some of us do not seek to judge a person unless we know the facts of their circumstances it may be that they "Subjectivly" have a reason why they do not deserve to be punished but if their behaviour is wrong then they do need to be taught the error of their ways, how one teaches should also reflect the compassion and mercy shown by Jesus. I am not a parent but many on this forum are and each has had to teach their children the basic values and moral codes expected of us in society. What worked as a means teaching one child did not necessarily work with another, some needed more encouragement and some needed to be punished, the objective principles remained the same but the approach that you and your spouse took to pass them on varied form child to child and was probably different from the methods your own parents used when teaching you. We do not and never have lived in a church were one cap fitted all, we have a code of conduct, based on the 2 commandments highlighted by Jesus which in turn were derived and incorporate the 10 commandments handed down to Moses and which are echoed in many other cultures and societies throughout the world regardless of religion. Focus on the sexual ones if you like because they are the most emotive but the principles are the same for all transgressions of the law so if you would have us publicly accommodating those who will not comply and remain selfish, obstinate and continue to transgress then you are giving licence to all sinners to do as they please. So as I said at the beginning, should allow murder, rape, theft, adultery, incest, child abuse...fornication, greed, avarice, lust, sloth, well you "know" the list. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 11:15 Post #56 |
![]()
|
In matters of morality it always will depend on the individual circumstance and the people involved. That Mairtin is the point, you do not know the answer the church would give in a particular case and you are wrong to state that you do. It is a fault that I and many priests have to deal with regularly that people assume they know and don't actually check the facts. You do not have the right to judge or make judgements about the moral conduct of others when it comes to determining who may and may not receive Holy Communion. I not only have the right but I have a duty to act as judge when people come to me and ask my help, I have a duty to advise people of the churches rules and how they apply in their circumstances; if a person is hungry and takes food that does not belong to them it is theft but the circumstances are different from a person who steals because they want a fancy car, or are they? Homosexuality is contrary to the moral codes of Christianity and many other religions, yet for some it is a state that they have not chosen but have accepted, nothing I can say or do will change that but I can accept that they could live a celibate life and so give them the benefit of the doubt, after all I am a chaste heterosexual. If their behaviour is blatantly in defiance of the churches teaching then I have no choice but to question their motives for coming to church and seeking to receive the sacraments, if it is clear that they are seeking endorsement then I can not give it. Bottom line Mairtin you do not "Know" what the church will say in any of the moral examples you have listed for in each case the merits and circumstances vary and the answer will be matched to the circumstances. If you would prefer we lived in the Black and White world of your text books then fine, but don't blame the hierarchy for your lack of understanding. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 11:15 Post #57 |
|
No, that is not what I am implying at all and your hyperbole adds little to your argument.
And those rules and moral codes have changed over the years. At one time, the Church thought it was okay to torture people to extract the truth from them or burn them at the stake for heresy, that's not the case anymore. Or perhaps a very relevant example, at one time, people who committed suicide were refused a Christian burial, the Church has changed the rules on that. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 11:19 Post #58 |
![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 11:45 Post #59 |
|
I am finding it increasingly tiresome that I have to keep stating that I am not making judgements about others - I would have thought that my track record on this forum would have made it clear that that is the last thing I would seek to do. My point is about the public statements made by senior Church figures and what appears in her written documents. I am fast coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to have a rational discussion on this. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Thursday, 24. November 2011, 11:58 Post #60 |
![]()
|
Maitin the church has not changed its rules it has accepted that in most cases suicide is not committed while a person is in full possession of their whit and also it recognises that the funeral is more to do with helping those who grieve. As for your objection to my hyperbole it is not an exaggeration to extend your example to other offences against the 10 commandments. You have a particular dislike of the churches teaching on contraception but the churches teaching is based upon respect for human life and the dignity of all. It may seem to you that it is simply interfering with your, "Private life" but the fact is that in the UK far from reducing teenage pregnancies and abortions the wide spread introduction and acceptance of "Birth Control" has lead to a higher rate of teenage pregnancies, a staggeringly high number of abortions. So as an offence against the 6th commandment promiscuity is actually pretty serious and the casual attitude to sexual practices encouraged by the idea of "Safe Sex" has led to a great many women being abused and many teenage girls being bullied into sex, in other words raped. So my examples were not Hyperbole they are drawn from experience of working daily with a population most whose ages range from 17-28. You may not like the extrapolation but it is a valid one. I and most of the hierarchy when making statements to the press or writing articles in academic works and journals are dealing with general principles but in the pastoral situation we apply the principles of compassion and judge each case on its merits. The problem with your approach is that you want us to make statements about individual cases and from those create a general norm or principle, well that's back to front and the sort of home spun, armchair theology that causes confusion. I Know something of the employment laws as they existed in England in the late 70's and early 80's and have a diploma on the wall that acknowledges that but while certain principles of the law remain there have been adjustments so I have had to revise my knowledge and now as a manager I have been on more recent courses and refreshed my knowledge. So in my day to day dealings I know the basic principles of what I can and can not doe as a manager in relation to handling staff but in specific cases I seek professional council to advise on particular points. So it is in the church most parishioners have a basic understanding of the Code of Canon Law and the CCC and most curates, one would hope have slightly more and so on up the hierarchy so yes as you make your way up the ladder you will receive slightly different answers some curates may foolishly advise one thing with good intent but they would be wiser to consult or to advise the person to seek specialist help. I see nothing sinister or in any way wrong in this. I just wish that parishioners and people such as yourself stopped proclaiming that they "Know!" based upon random reading and unchallenged theories of their own. Well I am not a scholar, I am a few rungs up the ladder from a junior curate but I know enough that in cases of morality and the Moral teaching of the church each situation has to be judged according to its merits and so it is a nonsense for anyone to claim that they "Know" what the churches answer would be in a particular case. But as I say if you would prefer things to be black and white then its very simple, we are all sinners and we are all going to hell for their can be no mercy or compassion shown for you are either a sinner or you are not... Unless of cause you are lucky enough to have a priest at your deathbed who will give you absolution, in which case I am in trouble for I can go for weeks without meeting another priest. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |







3:43 PM Jul 11