Scola: Four Solutions for the Divorced and Remarried
(09-26-2014, 10:04 AM)SCG Wrote: Yes, that sounds right. Also, many older cradle Catholics (50 and up) consider themselves Catholic no matter what. The Church is like a “family” that you don’t ever leave or disown. This is the religion they were born into – this is the religion they will die in.

Yes, I know many of my mother's generation is like that. They consider themselves Catholic, but couldn't even tell you the name of the priest at "their" parish.

(09-26-2014, 10:04 AM)SCG Wrote: On the other hand, there is a new breed of Catholics born in the last 40 or so years I’d say, who would have no qualms about joining another church if they can’t get their way in the Catholic Church. OR they just don’t care what religion has to say…Period. I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest Pew Research statistics on marriage and annulments, how drastically they’ve gone down, down, down in the last 40 years. People aren’t seeking marriage in the Catholic Church as much as they used to, and if the marriage fails they aren’t going to bother seeking an annulment either.

That too is very true. Although I have to say, it's the young (under 40) that tends to be most interested in the traditional practices of the Church. It's sort of an extreme, either completely apathetic or basically rebelling against their apathetic parents and getting heavily invested in the Church. But I've commented before on the "church shopping" mentality that is so prelevant among my generation (I'm 37).

Quote:On the other hand again (I’m running out of hands! lol) I don’t know why the clergy are making such a big issue of divorced and remarried receiving Communion when a huge number of them obviously don’t care. They might receive at a relative’s wedding or funeral and feel insulted when the priest makes the announcement that “only practicing Catholics in a state of grace can approach the communion rail.” They get huffy and then forget about it until the next time they darken the doorway of a church, which is the next wedding or funeral.

That's a good question. Who is making the big deal? Is it the clergy or the people? And there are so so so sooooo many things that people do these days that would actually keep them from receiving Communion these days, it's just one thing among many. Maybe it's this trend to perceive marriage as a human right (it's not)?
(09-26-2014, 11:41 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: it's just one thing among many. Maybe it's this trend to perceive marriage as a human right (it's not)?

Absolutely right and neither is receiving Communion a human right or an entitlement. Both sacraments are ....hmmmm I don't know that I'd call them "privileges" and i definitely wouldn't call them "rewards" for good behavior. I guess they are GIFTS. And we have to learn their value and appreciate them.
"- sexual continence while remaining in the civil union;", I suppose is living like brother and sister. That is such a near occasion of sin.  I don't get how this EVER works.
(09-26-2014, 08:10 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(09-26-2014, 02:23 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(09-25-2014, 10:46 PM)Geremia Wrote: How is saying
"Go to confession even if you won't be absolved."
not saying
"Do penance but keep sinning."
It is exactly the opposite. A good confessor will give good advice and spiritual counsel to the person, even if he cannot give him absolution. Counsel that may influence the person's heart and conscience.
"Keep sinning" is bad advice.
Why call confession council? It's the fallacy of calling a whole by its part. It reminds me of the socialists' goals to make psychologists the new "priests".
Why not say: "Encourage adulterers to seek council from their priests"?
I did not say that what the Cardinal said was the best thing ever, I just objected to your calling it a sacrilege.
Whenever someone objects to something you said, you simply ignore the relevant counterpoint and pull something else out of nowhere.
- First you said the Cardinal advised sacrilege.
- I object and point to Canon law
- You quote an irrelevant part of Canon law.
- I point out it's irrelevant
- Then you say the Cardinal advised to keep sinning (notice how it's no longer sacrilege any more)
- I point out it's not true
- Now you say the Cardinal should have said someone should seek counsel from a priest and act as if I had argued against that.
That's simply a disingenuous way of engaging in a discussion.

BTW, some people might be more comfortable with a situation that is similar to confession, because in that case Canon Law stipulates that the priest is bound to the seal of the confessional, which is not the case with normal counsel.
But as a general advice, I do not really see the point.
(09-27-2014, 12:17 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: I just objected to your calling it a sacrilege.
What is approaching confession without the intention of being absolved, other than profaning something sacred (the sacrament of confession) for psychological counseling, rationalizing one's sin, or even using it as an excuse to receive Communion in a state of sin?

Think about the profanations at these "Black Masses". They have no intention to use that sacrament to benefit from its graces but to use it for their evil ends. This is analogous to what Kasper, Scola, et al. are advocating adulterers do with holy confession.
Canons II, V, and IX of Trent's Session on Matrimony have already anathematized many high-ranking prelates, and Canon XII
Trent Wrote:If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges: let him be anathema.
has already anathematized Scola, one of whose 4 "solutions" to the "problem" of the indissolubility of marriage is to make the annulment process (i.e., "divorce for Catholics") "non-juridical"!

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)