Stop injecting pressure politics into theology. Real people are being hurt by...

[Michie]

....such conduct

I’m just old enough to remember when Catholic theological rumination, especially moral speculation, was restricted to scholarly journals and professional conferences. The understanding in those days was that, whatever merits the latest theological or moral theories might enjoy...

Stop injecting pressure politics into theology. Real people are being hurt by such conduct...

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

....such conduct


Stop injecting pressure politics into theology. Real people are being hurt by such conduct...

Interesting perspective...on one hand, I bristle at the notion of leaving theology in the hands of the theologians, because all of us wrestle with these questions, but on the other hand, look what happens when people not well versed in science browse the internet and get sucked in by pseudo science.

 

[Michie]

Interesting perspective...on one hand, I bristle at the notion of leaving theology in the hands of the theologians, because all of us wrestle with these questions, but on the other hand, look what happens when people not well versed in science browse the internet and get sucked in by pseudo science.

We all do wrestle with these questions & are free to discuss them. But ultimately we must accept what the Church teaches. There is where the answers lie.

People of all walks of life get sucked into one fallacy or another. Especially when their hopes seem to hinge on certain ideas promoted by people on & off the internet.

I think the summing up of it is here:

I have invoked many times Canon 212 § 3 on the canonical freedom to exchange opinions in the Church. But Canon 212 § 3 is not a license to exploit the faithful in pursuit of one’s ecclesiastical agenda. Promotion of personal views in the Church must be carried on, for example, “without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals . . . and attentive to the common advantage and dignity of persons.” Treating pew Catholics as pawns in a campaign to rewrite Church teaching on the permanence of Christian marriage and/or the reception of Christ in the Sacrament is hardly to respect “the common advantage and dignity of persons.”

Not where I come from, it isn’t.

 

[Fantine]

I can't figure out exactly who is hurt in this imaginary scenario.

Is it the divorced and remarried people who, thinking that Church law has changed, receive Communion and the spiritual comfort it offers while feeling as if they are a complete part of the Church?

Or are the people who are hurt their children who are less affected by their parents' angst and internal conflict, and who feel better because their parents go to Communion like all the other parents?

Or--most likely--is it the busybodies who keep score and want to make sure that people are punished for not meeting their expectations?

Exactly who is hurt?

 

[Michie]

I can't figure out exactly who is hurt in this imaginary scenario.

Is it the divorced and remarried people who, thinking that Church law has changed, receive Communion and the spiritual comfort it offers while feeling as if they are a complete part of the Church?

Or are the people who are hurt their children who are less affected by their parents' angst and internal conflict, and who feel better because their parents go to Communion like all the other parents?

Or--most likely--is it the busybodies who keep score and want to make sure that people are punished for not meeting their expectations?

Exactly who is hurt?

Maybe you should just read the article. Commercials aside.

 

[MikeK]

I can't figure out exactly who is hurt in this imaginary scenario.

Is it the divorced and remarried people who, thinking that Church law has changed, receive Communion and the spiritual comfort it offers while feeling as if they are a complete part of the Church?

Or are the people who are hurt their children who are less affected by their parents' angst and internal conflict, and who feel better because their parents go to Communion like all the other parents?

Or--most likely--is it the busybodies who keep score and want to make sure that people are punished for not meeting their expectations?

Exactly who is hurt?

The people who sheepishly take Communion without thinking about what it is and whether they can licitly present themselves or not are hurt - the first option you listed. God has elected to give us specific conditions on who may recieve the Eucharist and the potential penalties of recieving when one does not meet these same conditions are quite grave. Even worse, believe it or not, than feeling like you don't fit in when you remain in your pew at Communion time.

 

[Fantine]

In the scenario the author presented, the divorced and remarried people were not aware of those conditions.

And "knowledge" is one of the requirements for mortal sin. So I ask again who is being hurt?

 

[MoonlessNight]

In the scenario the author presented, the divorced and remarried people were not aware of those conditions.

And "knowledge" is one of the requirements for mortal sin. So I ask again who is being hurt?

Knowledge that the action is sinful is required for it to be a mortal sin, yes. But knowledge is not required for an action to be harmful to a person's soul.

It is much the same as if you were to consume a drink spiked with alcohol. You would not be culpable for becoming drunk, but over time you still would get drunk.

To give a more explicit example of spiritual harm: there are many who do not believe that viewing inappropriate contentography or is in any way sinful. So they are not held to be blame for this habit. But long term exposure to such things will cause one to trivialize sex, objectify women, lose control of one's sexual passions, etc. Ignorance absolves the blame but does not make the action a good one with no negative consequences.

Your way of looking at things would only encourage us to deliberately spread misinformation, under the perverted notion of being charitable in that while we would know that lying about such things is sinful, we would be preserving the people we mislead from sinning. It is a sad way of looking at things when such lies would be viewed as anything but harmful.

 

[Michie]

Knowledge that the action is sinful is required for it to be a mortal sin, yes. But knowledge is not required for an action to be harmful to a person's soul.

It is much the same as if you were to consume a drink spiked with alcohol. You would not be culpable for becoming drunk, but over time you still would get drunk.

To give a more explicit example of spiritual harm: there are many who do not believe that viewing inappropriate contentography or is in any way sinful. So they are not held to be blame for this habit. But long term exposure to such things will cause one to trivialize sex, objectify women, lose control of one's sexual passions, etc. Ignorance absolves the blame but does not make the action a good one with no negative consequences.

Your way of looking at things would only encourage us to deliberately spread misinformation, under the perverted notion of being charitable in that while we would know that lying about such things is sinful, we would be preserving the people we mislead from sinning. It is a sad way of looking at things when such lies would be viewed as anything but harmful.

Thank you.

 

[catholicbybirth]

In the scenario the author presented, the divorced and remarried people were not aware of those conditions.

And "knowledge" is one of the requirements for mortal sin. So I ask again who is being hurt?

That only goes so far. We are each responsible for the formation of our consciences. If someone is not aware something is a mortal sin, is not so easily dismissed. If a person is a Catholic, has been Catholic all his/her life, or even a recent convert, he/she can not say, "I didn't know".

Janice

 

[Fantine]

In my experience, what makes relationships successful and unconditional loving has very little to do with legalistic jargon, and a lot to do with the dynamics of the relationship itself.

And I see most of the damage from the divorced and remarried receiving Communion occurring to the angst-filled legalists who hate the idea that other people are getting away with something.

I agree (surprise!) that most people work best with boundaries and parameters, judiciously observed and combined with good old common sense.