Hooray for our Bishop!

[pdudgeon]

Our Bishop put out the following release on Sept 13, 2016 for all the diocese:

Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo Statement on The Catholic Church's Teaching Regarding Marriage.
"More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on marriage, and despite recent statements from the campaign trail, the Catholic Church's 2000-year-old teaching to the truth about what constitutes marriage remains unchanged and resolute.

As Catholics, we believe, all humans warrent dignity and deserve love and respect, and unjust discrimination is always wrong. Our understanding of marriage, however, is a matter of justice and fidelity to our Creator's original design. Marriage is the only institution uniting one man and one woman with each other and with any child who comes from thir union. Redefining marriage furthers no one's rights, least of all those of children, who should not purposely be deprived of the right to be nurtured and loved by a mother and a father.

We call on Catholics and all concerned for preserving this sacred union to unite in prayer, to live and speak out with compassion and charity about the true nature of marriage--the heart of family life."

 

[Fantine]

Given the widespread polygamy in the Old Testament, even among the patriarchs, can you blame people for feeling confused about God's original plan? Jacob wrestled with angels. Jesus came from his line. He had two wives and several concubine slaves.

I understand why some people are confused when God walked with leaders who didn't follow the original design as stated by Bishop DiLorenzo.

While this does not reflect my personal opinion, I think someone needs to explain the discrepancy between God's design and the lifestyles of his chosen patriarchs.

 

[pdudgeon]

it's actually very simple; follow God's plan and don't get confused.

follow satan's "you-deserve-more" plan and stretch yourself thin in the bargain,
wind up in more trouble for less gain than you planned on,
and then have Jesus stop by and ask

"Say, How are things going with you?"

 

[Fantine]

The confusion arises when God's plan is said to have existed from the beginning of time when forthe first 4000 years of recorded history God's patriarchs were polygamists.

Someone in authority needs to explain why the discrepancy existsIin a compelling and convincing way. I am not disputing God's plan

I just think it needs more documentation so people will not be confused. The bishop is asking Catholics to promote this view. How can this be done convincingly without information?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Yeah, I mean, come on, you can't expect us to just blinding follow our Church leaders without explaining themselves can you? That would take "me" out of the decision. We all know that "I" have to be involved somehow.
Come on, bishops and cardinals and popes and Doctors of the Church, make an accounting!

 

[Fantine]

Let's back track.

• This letter was written in apparent response to Tim Kaine's comment that the Church's position on gay marriage could change some day.
• Tim Kaine was educated by Jesuits. With the Jesuits, and in law school, he was educated in the Socratic method. He was encouraged to ask questions. He was encouraged to use his reasoning to understand information completely.
• Tim Kaine is a public figure with a huge audience at the moment. And while some Catholics, perhaps even a significant number, can read the bishop's letter and accept it at face value, without embellishment, it apparently wasn't enough for Tim Kaine, educated in the Socratic method, encouraged to ask questions. Perhaps a thorough and compelling explanation by Bishop DiLorenzo about why God's original plan was marriage between one woman and one man, followed by thousands of years of Old Testament history in which God favored and walked with patriarchs who practiced polygamy and slept with and impregnated slaves, would have prevented Tim Kaine from making the statement he did.
• Bishop DiLorenzo's statement was enough for you, but not enough for someone who has a huge audience and a huge following. Perhaps (and this is a generalization) some of the rash statements politicians make could be prevented by better, more complete communication from their bishops.
• It is unfortunate that this statement was made, but I would bet that Tim Kaine would feel uncomfortable using the words "God's original plan..." and comparing it to his knowledge of Old Testament history. Many people would.

We can never go wrong by providing a little extra information. Those who don't need it can ignore it.

That being said, I have heard and respect your positions. You don't need more information. You don't think anyone else should.

I disagree, because I see the damage that has been done by Kaine's comments and believe that more information would not only have been helpful to him, but to all of us.

Given that Bishop DiLorenzo reference politics as the reason for his letter: "More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on marriage, and despite recent statements from the campaign trail, the Catholic Church's 2000-year-old teaching to the truth about what constitutes marriage remains unchanged and resolute," perhaps this should be moved to OBOB Politics. The political slant stems from the OP.

 

[pdudgeon]

The confusion arises when God's plan is said to have existed from the beginning of time when forthe first 4000 years of recorded history God's patriarchs were polygamists.

Someone in authority needs to explain why the discrepancy existsIin a compelling and convincing way. I am not disputing God's plan

I just think it needs more documentation so people will not be confused. The bishop is asking Catholics to promote this view. How can this be done convincingly without information?

ok, so which ones of those polygamists would you like to have explained?

 

[Fantine]

The polygamists are who they are, and their behavior requires no explanation.

What might have led Tim Kaine and others to the conclusion that God's original law could be changed was God's seeming approval of the polygamist lifestyle, as this list of Old Testament polygamists shows:

Abdon* Abijah Abraham Ahab Ahasuerus
Ashur Belshazzar Benhadad Caleb David
Eliphaz Elkanah Esau Ezra Gideon
Heman* Hosea* Ibzan* Issachar** Jacob
Jair* Jehoiachin Jehoram Jerahmeel Joash
Lamech Machir Manasseh Mered Moses
Nahor Rehoboam Saul Shaharaim Shimei*
Simeon Solomon Terah* Zedekiah Ziba*

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/

Polygamy was (and still is) a way to repopulate the male population after wars and disasters. One wife can only bear one child (normally) every 10 or 11 months. Several wives can produce many more children. But if God felt necessity demanded polygamy in those times, that opens the door for modern times to demand other concessions. Some might say homosexuality is more widespread today because the earth's population of 7.1 billion demands it.

What Kaine (and perhaps others) see in [staff edit] this history of polygamy is an indication of flexibility.

I am not asking for you to give me an explanation, but the explanation I think people need to hear from an authoritative voice is whether [staff edit] this is an indication of flexibility, and if not, why not?

BTW, the "why not" is the most important part of what they need to hear.

 

[seekingfreedom]

Gods original plan was one man and one woman. Just because polygamy was recorded in the bible doesn't mean it was approved by God. For as intelligent as you proclaim Tim Kaine to be it doesn't seem like he dug deep enough as to the when, why and for what reason. Now granted the link that I am providing is very simplistic, but it might be a good start for Mr. Kaine.
https://www.osv.com/MyFaith/Modelso...28/ArticleID/13156/Polygamy-in-the-Bible.aspx

 

[pdudgeon]

Let's back track.

• This letter was written in apparent response to Tim Kaine's comment that the Church's position on gay marriage could change some day.
• Tim Kaine was educated by Jesuits. With the Jesuits, and in law school, he was educated in the Socratic method. He was encouraged to ask questions. He was encouraged to use his reasoning to understand information completely.
• Tim Kaine is a public figure with a huge audience at the moment. And while some Catholics, perhaps even a significant number, can read the bishop's letter and accept it at face value, without embellishment, it apparently wasn't enough for Tim Kaine, educated in the Socratic method, encouraged to ask questions. Perhaps a thorough and compelling explanation by Bishop DiLorenzo about why God's original plan was marriage between one woman and one man, followed by thousands of years of Old Testament history in which God favored and walked with patriarchs who practiced polygamy and slept with and impregnated slaves, would have prevented Tim Kaine from making the statement he did.
• Bishop DiLorenzo's statement was enough for you, but not enough for someone who has a huge audience and a huge following. Perhaps (and this is a generalization) some of the rash statements politicians make could be prevented by better, more complete communication from their bishops.
• It is unfortunate that this statement was made, but I would bet that Tim Kaine would feel uncomfortable using the words "God's original plan..." and comparing it to his knowledge of Old Testament history. Many people would.

We can never go wrong by providing a little extra information. Those who don't need it can ignore it.

That being said, I have heard and respect your positions. You don't need more information. You don't think anyone else should.

I disagree, because I see the damage that has been done by Kaine's comments and believe that more information would not only have been helpful to him, but to all of us.

Given that Bishop DiLorenzo reference politics as the reason for his letter: "More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on marriage, and despite recent statements from the campaign trail, the Catholic Church's 2000-year-old teaching to the truth about what constitutes marriage remains unchanged and resolute," perhaps this should be moved to OBOB Politics. The political slant stems from the OP.

in case you hadn't noticed, OBOB politics has had a massive house cleaning recently.
the post stands a better chance in the main OBOB forum than it does there,
specifically because it is NOT about politics
but about the church's stance on marriage.

Any time that the news media gets hold of false information or wishful thinking that ""OOOOOH, something's gonna change" the Church issues a news blurb correcting the false information. This has been going on for a long time.
In spite of that, the media ignores the corrections, proceeds to latch onto every new whiff of counter information,
and blows it up beyond reason, while hoping to scandalize and topple the Church.

And that's why the Bishop wrote the letter and asked that it be distributed in the diocese,
to confirm both precisely and exactly what the Catholic Church really does teach.

in essence He did what you wished would be done.
It's as simple as that.
It's called "putting out fires that were deliberately set."

 

[pdudgeon]

The polygamists are who they are, and their behavior requires no explanation.

What might have led Tim Kaine and others to the conclusion that God's original law could be changed was God's seeming approval of the polygamist lifestyle, as this list of Old Testament polygamists shows:

Abdon* Abijah Abraham Ahab Ahasuerus
Ashur Belshazzar Benhadad Caleb David
Eliphaz Elkanah Esau Ezra Gideon
Heman* Hosea* Ibzan* Issachar** Jacob
Jair* Jehoiachin Jehoram Jerahmeel Joash
Lamech Machir Manasseh Mered Moses
Nahor Rehoboam Saul Shaharaim Shimei*
Simeon Solomon Terah* Zedekiah Ziba*

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/

Polygamy was (and still is) a way to repopulate the male population after wars and disasters. One wife can only bear one child (normally) every 10 or 11 months. Several wives can produce many more children. But if God felt necessity demanded polygamy in those times, that opens the door for modern times to demand other concessions. Some might say homosexuality is more widespread today because the earth's population of 7.1 billion demands it.

What Kaine (and perhaps others) see in [staff edit] this history of polygamy is an indication of flexibility.

I am not asking for you to give me an explanation, but the explanation I think people need to hear from an authoritative voice is whether [staff edit] this is an indication of flexibility, and if not, why not?

BTW, the "why not" is the most important part of what they need to hear.

what you see as God's flexibility most of us see as His grace.

but even more importantly what we also see is that grace is not permanent,
not a course correction, and most definitely not a new direction for the church.
It is not an abandonment of holiness or wisdom, or a capitulation to satan.

it is temporary, limited, and for a specific purpose.
Grace is not indefinite nor is it prescedent-setting.

the conditions of grace are specific, purposefull, and immesureably loving.
this is God running towards us, meeting us, and seeking to restore what is out of balance in our life.
That's His purpose for grace.

The media does not understand grace.
they see it as course correction, license, and capitulation,
all of which they want to push via confusion as hard as they can, so that everyone is lost.

That's why bishops issue statements like the one above, correcting wrong assumptions.

 

[Fantine]

what you see as God's flexibility most of us see as His grace.

I think it is very easy for all of us, you and me included, to think that our own perspectives are shared by "most."

The CARA survey shows that only 20% of those who identify as Catholic go to Mass every week. 3.3% go more than once a week. 56% only attend a few times a year or less.

http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/massattendweek.pdf

The Baptists would call that 77% of infrequent churchgoers among Catholics "the mission field." Do you think that the 77% think that God's walking with Old Testament patriarchs was grace or "inconsistency?" Do you think that a bishop's letter that ignores that inconsistency evangelizes them?

Could the idea that nothing needs an explanation be the reason why 77% of Catholics are infrequent church goers? And that some of the 23% (Tim Kaine, for example) see the inconsistencies and run with them?

 

[Gnarwhal]

Our Bishop put out the following release on Sept 13, 2016 for all the diocese:

Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo Statement on The Catholic Church's Teaching Regarding Marriage.
"More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on marriage, and despite recent statements from the campaign trail, the Catholic Church's 2000-year-old teaching to the truth about what constitutes marriage remains unchanged and resolute.

As Catholics, we believe, all humans warrent dignity and deserve love and respect, and unjust discrimination is always wrong. Our understanding of marriage, however, is a matter of justice and fidelity to our Creator's original design. Marriage is the only institution uniting one man and one woman with each other and with any child who comes from thir union. Redefining marriage furthers no one's rights, least of all those of children, who should not purposely be deprived of the right to be nurtured and loved by a mother and a father.

We call on Catholics and all concerned for preserving this sacred union to unite in prayer, to live and speak out with compassion and charity about the true nature of marriage--the heart of family life."

That's great, I like how clear and concise it is.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Could the idea that nothing needs an explanation be the reason why 77% of Catholics are infrequent church goers?

I somehow doubt a lack of explanation is somehow responsible for such a high rate of itinerant Mass attendance. And I'm not just saying that because there's an avalanche of information about the Church's teaching on marriage a Google search away from discovery.

 

[pdudgeon]

I think it is very easy for all of us, you and me included, to think that our own perspectives are shared by "most."

The CARA survey shows that only 20% of those who identify as Catholic go to Mass every week. 3.3% go more than once a week. 56% only attend a few times a year or less.

http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/massattendweek.pdf

The Baptists would call that 77% of infrequent churchgoers among Catholics "the mission field." Do you think that the 77% think that God's walking with Old Testament patriarchs was grace or "inconsistency?" Do you think that a bishop's letter that ignores that inconsistency evangelizes them?

Could the idea that nothing needs an explanation be the reason why 77% of Catholics are infrequent church goers? And that some of the 23% (Tim Kaine, for example) see the inconsistencies and run with them?

I think that it's much more important that we share God's point of view regarding marriage rather than to break things down regarding marriage from a human standpoint.

To see marriage from God's perspective is to behold the endless possibility of love and sacrifice
that continues on in spite of circumstances.
Who does not in their heart of hearts want to love and be loved endlessly?

But the worldly human view of marriage is to see opportunity for self satisfaction, self service, and
temporary bliss. nothing permanent, no self sacrifice, and especially no committment or exclusivity.

That is the recipe for endless expected self-fulfilling failure that happens
when people believe that they are not loveable.

And what happens as a result of such a self-view?
people treat other people like junk
to be cast off,
handed over to others,
and then disposed of when convenient.

Ever heard the lie "It takes a village to raise a family?" It doesn't.
It only takes a couple committed to God first and also to each other.
When that example is at the heart of a marriage and family, that's all that has ever been necessary.

The Catholic Church understands and supports this.
The world does not.

 

[Davidnic]

The confusion arises when God's plan is said to have existed from the beginning of time when forthe first 4000 years of recorded history God's patriarchs were polygamists.

Someone in authority needs to explain why the discrepancy existsIin a compelling and convincing way. I am not disputing God's plan

I just think it needs more documentation so people will not be confused. The bishop is asking Catholics to promote this view. How can this be done convincingly without information?

Remember Polygamy was allowed before the fullness of revelation in Christ. Just as Christ told the apostles that some things were not expected before but are now due to hardness of heart. The reason it does not change now is that Christ brought the fullness of revelation. And the way Dogma develops now is in our understanding, not the heretical form where the core truth is changed for the favor of modernism.

And the Church has spoken authoritatively on that.

Moral conscience concerning the unity and indissolubility of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law. In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected. Nevertheless, the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband, even though according to the Lord's words it still carries traces of man's "hardness of heart" which was the reason Moses permitted men to divorce their wives.
CCC section 1610

So it can not be used now to claim things can change because we have the fullness of revelation.

 

[Fantine]

You have provided the best explanation, David. Neither Kaine or any other politician is a spokesman for the Church.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been closed for review.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has had a bit of a clean. Please remember the CF rules on flaming and goading: http://www.christianforums.com/help/rules/
​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[pdudgeon]

thanks for re-opening the thread.
for anyone who lost a post in the fray, I'm sorry.
let's try again to communicate with each other.