Look, in the Church women are more important than men, because the church is a woman. It is “la” church, not “il” church. The Church is the bride of Jesus Christ. And the Madonna is more important than popes and bishops and priests.
As I have written, time and time again, this is part of the basis for the Church's infallible teaching via the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church as to why women cannot be priests, because Jesus is the High Priest, He is a man and a priest is a sacramental "sign" of the maleness of the Bridegroom who is the High Priest. Women cannot be a man because of NATURAL LAW which backs up Scripture, Tradition and the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
The same is true of Holy Matrimony. The basis of this sacrament which Christ instituted is the relationship of the Man Jesus, who is the Bridegroom to His bride which is the Church. In this context the Church, meaning all the baptized, are souls. The word soul in Latin and Italian is "anima" which is a feminine word. Our souls are feminine in order to receive the sanctifying and actual graces Jesus gives us. To have two men or two women saying they are married is a lie and a compounded lie if the state approves it as a "marriage" rather than a civil legal union. It goes against NATURAL LAW which supports Scripture and Tradition as well as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church in this regard.
Because of the principle of subsidiarity, the pope leaves to local bishops how they will handle aberrations in their dioceses.
Speaking from experience it would be nice to have the pope say that we should fire those who work for the Church who enter into an illicit same sex union. The Church should have moral clauses for those who work for us. We have that in our diocese and our bishop has acted decisively in this regard as is his responsibility.
My clairvoyance tells me and you can take this to the bank:
There will not be a blanket approval of Catholics who are in indissoluble marriages (that have ended in a civil divorce) who are "remarried" in a state recognized marriage being allowed to receive Holy Communion!
If a person in the Sacrament of Confession tells the priest of his or her's second unrecognized marriage and says that they are no longer engaging in the marital act in any way the priest may offer absolution and indicate that the person is free to return to receiving Holy Communion even if the couple does not separate. In this case, the caveat is that no scandal is given to the parish in which this person returns to Holy Communion.
There is nothing new about this liberality--it is called the internal forum!
Will there be a blanket permission for someone to return to Holy Communion who is in an illicit marital union and engaging in the marital act? NO! This is a mortal sin.
13 comments:
What prevents a woman from being a true icon of Christ?
You know the answer to the moral, ethical and loving aspects of the icon of Christ, so you answer it. As far as a sacramental sign in the Church's sacramental economy on a man can be a sacramental sign of the male Christ as High Priest and Bridegroom' even if that male priest does not exhibit the moral and ethical qualities of love and service that all men and women can and should model.
It seems to me that Pope Francis is trying to facilitate a purification of the Church; the Church being all the baptized.
Father, it's not the Ordinary Magisterium, which is not infallible but requires 'religious submission of intellect and will' but the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is infallible since it defines 'quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est.' This was made clear as regards the Church's lack of any authority whatsoever to ordain women (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 1994) in the response to a dubium by the CDF the following year.
Some 'liberals' called this 'creeping infallibility' since they had got it into their muddled heads that infallibility only applied to the Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra dogmatic definitions and solemn doctrinal definitions by Councils).
So talk about 'icons of Christ' or the silly idea that women are 'more important' than men (how I wish this pope would stop giving in-flight interviews and spouting nonsense) is so much hot air. Benedict was more intellectually coherent than his predecessor, but after two-and-a-half years of Pope Francis I am unable to detect any coherence at all. I'm not the only one, and those who concur are not all ultra-conservative traddy bloggers.
Nothing in the nature of a woman prevents her from being a true icon of Christ. As such, she can be effective in recalling us to the presence of Christ.
As the church building is, itself, an icon of the kingdom of God, a woman, herself, is a true, full, and effective representation of Christ - an alter Christus.
Please read this from a female theologian which explains why women cannot be priests:
http://www.laici.va/content/dam/laici/documenti/donna/teologia/english/womens-ordination-still-an-issue.pdf
There is the reason and then there are supporting theological arguments why the reason may be appropriate. Most feminists attack the supporting arguments but do not even approach the actual reason....
"If a person in the Sacrament of Confession tells the priest of his or her's second unrecognized marriage and says that they are no longer engaging in the marital act in any way the priest may offer absolution and indicate that the person is free to return to receiving Holy Communion even if the couple does not separate. In this case, the caveat is that no scandal is given to the parish in which this person returns to Holy Communion."
That is NOT what Kasper is calling for. He is calling for Catholics who are divorced and "re-married" to be able to receive communion without confession or amendment of life. THAT IS A MORTAL SIN and that is what he has been pushing for, for the last 30 years. But that is all a red herring anyway. The real issue that is going to be pushed, excused me, rammed through the synod is the acceptance of moral evil. I.E. active homosexual activity.
Father, does an abandoned spouse and children have no rights in your view?
Here is the scenario you propose:
Catholic husband abandons wife and children and "marries" a second spouse and has children by her.
He goes to you in confession and says that he is no longer engaging in the marital act with the second person. You absolve him and morally allow him to continue living with her (whatever happened to "near occasions of sin"?) to support the new family.
What about the rights of the true spouse to conjugal intimacy and the rights of the children to be reared by their father? Are you saying those rights no longer exist?
Isn't it a mortal sin for a married person to refuse conjugal intimacy with his/her spouse unless for a valid reason? What would the valid reason be here?
What you are proposing is a recipe for apostasy from the Faith on a large scale. Not only is the new union invalid, but the man, refusing to abide by his vows with his true wife, is still in the state of mortal sin.
And the true wife and children lose the faith because they can see, in no uncertain terms, the hypocrisy that you, as a Catholic priest, have blessed.
In no way can Catholics accept this. Our Lord is going to step in and stop it eventually.
The classic Catholic position is that the first wedding produced a real marriage unless proven otherwise.
The Kasperite position is that we can presume - on account of 40 years of atrocious catechesis and near total cultural revolution in the sexual arena - that we can't presume anyone "got it right" the first time so may safely assume the first wedding didn't produce a marriage on the say-so of any of the parties.
It turns 'married until proven otherwise' into 'presumed not married'.
Now...if this works for marriage do we do this for baptism and confirmation too and for the same reasons: poor catechesis, lack of full consent/freedom etc. which we might as well presume weren't there too?
What about ordination? How many men say "yes" when asked if they will commit to the discipline of celibacy but don't "really" understand this commitment or don't really accept the classic definition and think that so long as they don't attempt to wed, it's OK?
Turning a presumption upside down flips the whole pancake.
It's why PC codes are so pernicious. You go from innocent until proven guilty to presumed guilty until exhaustively proven innocent. It's a recipe for social chaos.
I even have an issue with Annulments because how many people can truly say they were coerced into marriage or other flimsy reasons for opting out of marriage? I think most annulments are pretty much a farce.
Too many people are entering into marriage far too lightly. There should be a longer period of engagement before the couple take their vows. Men are given seven years before taking priestly vows, nuns two or three years. I am not advocating seven years but one year of engagement would be a much better time before taking vows. Because that's what they are vows before God to live with the other person until death do they part.
Many annulments seem to me to be older men ditching their wives for younger spouses. This does have a profound effect. I had a man in his 30s come to me absolutely furious that his father, a judge, had been granted an annulment by the Church after so many years. He said that it effectively made him and his sister illegitimate in the eyes of the Church. I wonder if he is still practising now? How many Catholics have been dissillusioned since Vatican II at the relaxing of these sorts of issues. I note that St John Paul II The Great tightened up on liacisation of men from the priesthood. Instead of relaxing annulments I think it should be harder to get an annulment and so people entering into the Sacrament of Marriage may not treat it as lightly as they do. Also, before annulments became so frequent people tried to make their marriages work rather than walk away at the littlest inconvenience as they are now doing.
Jan
DJR
>Was a civil divorce procured? If not, we are talking bigamy. If a civil divorce was procured then the husband was free to marry again. It would be a marriage recognized by the state, not the Church. Under Civil law the the new union is valid. In the eyes of the Church it is not and cannot be convalidated as a sacramental union, unless an annulment is granted. The first marriage is, by this point, irretrievably broken. The husband is in a situation of public and continuing adultery. At this point either the husband or his former spouse could apply for an annulment. If it is determined that there was no defect in the first marriage then an annulment will not be granted. It makes things a lot easier if a defect did exist in the marriage and an annulment was (or could be) granted. Finally, it would be suggested to the husband and his wife that they not attend Mass at the same Church where the husband's former wife is a member, if that is at all possible.
What of those who have repented of their illicit union, but remain together for a serious reason, such as for the sake of their children? Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their pastor judges that scandal can be avoided (neither spouse is known to have been in a valid previous marriage that was not annulled), then they may live together as "brother and sister" (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments. If scandal cannot be avoided, then they must either separate or refrain from the sacraments.
George said... If scandal cannot be avoided, then they must either separate or refrain from the sacraments.
"Refraining from the sacraments" is not a valid option for a Catholic, as it would violate a precept of the Church and be a mortal sin.
Catholics are commanded, under penalty of mortal sin, to receive Holy Communion during Eastertide. That has never been abrogated.
DJR says
"Refraining from the sacraments" is not a valid option for a Catholic, as it would violate a precept of the Church and be a mortal sin.
Catholics are commanded, under penalty of mortal sin, to receive Holy Communion during Eastertide. That has never been abrogated."
If a Catholic is in serious sin (which a divorced person who remarries without benefit of annulment, and continues to have sexual relations would be) then such a person must refrain from receiving communion. Is your position that a person with a serious sin on their soul(adultery) should receive communion? The requirement to be without serious sin in order to receive the Holy Eucharist has not been abrogated either.
Post a Comment