To see the logic of Catholic moral teaching based upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition for practicing Catholics and in Natural Law for all others, to include atheists, torn asunder by the silliness of 1970's thinking revived in 2010's is heartbreaking and breathtaking! But thus it is in the highest places of the Magisterium.
You can read the full article by pressing:
Cardinal Coccopalmerio: my Communion guidance wouldn’t apply to gay couples
My comments:
As politically incorrect it is, I am happy to see that the befuddled good Cardinal makes the distinction between natural and unnatural sex. Although he and everyone else knows that unnatural sex takes place between heterosexual couples and thus seems to be a more serious mortal sin for those who have recourse to natural sex, even if immoral, compared to those whose inclinations are purely toward the unnatural as in homosexual couples. But let's not split hairs.
But the logic that Cardinal Coccopalmerio uses to justify giving Holy Communion to those in so-called second marriages (civil unions) when the first union is still considered sacramental and thus in force is mind boggling when it comes to discerning what is more serious mortal sin and less serious mortal sin.
He does not make clear that those who feel they have a "good marriage" and have discerned they will return to Holy Communion may not have used the External Forum first to its ambiguous conclusion.
But the good Cardinal seems to be disingenuous. If those who are in adulterous relationships discern they need to go to Confession and Holy Communion, or bypass Confession and go directly to Holy Communion, then logically speaking anyone can go to Holy Communion no matter how less, more, or most their mortal sins are to include unnatural immorality. All you have to do is "feel good" about returning to Holy Communion.
I'm okay! You're Okay!
Holy Mary Mother of God and Mother of the Church pray for us!
51 comments:
He sounds like he is suffering from either dementia or left-wing loonism. I think the Catholic Church needs a Trump-like Pope to seperate the wheat from the chaff and pull the Church back to sanity.
Well, the Pope says it is better to be an atheist than a hypocrite...I cannot believe anyone would make such an absurd statement, particularly a Pope. The Church is in very deep trouble.
The cardinal publicly denied a de fide decree of Trent by stating that if adulterers can't live the commandments then they can still receive communion. Trent infallibly taught that the commandments ARE ABLE to be lived with God's grace and to say otherwise is heresy. And what is being done? Are bishops now permitted to lead people into perdition? This beyond scandalous, it is outrageous and unjust and evil.
"He sounds like he is suffering from either dementia or left-wing loonism."
I'm not convinced that all the high-ranking churchmen making heretical statements nowadays are actually apostates or heretics, much less demented or loony. Perhaps they're only sycophants currying favor with the pope.
Sloppy thinkers. It is becoming tiresome to watch these people seek a moment in the spotlight, a burst of applause, only to have the most simple review burst their bubble. It embarasses the Church and forces the laity to either give approval in cringing silence or risk dishonor through implied disrespect.
rcg,
Indeed. I grow more and more embarrasssed by the Church with every passing day. They don't know if they are fish or fowl!
Rather than commenting upon this post, I wish to accompany it. One can speak of posts, but should not speak about posts. We must seek deeper meaning in the heart of the author, rather than a rigid adherence to the particular words of a moment. Discernment is what's needed. We must go out to the margins, letting that journey become our comment. Whenever I read that a post has prompted many comments, I admit to being a little leery. One must discern, and accompany, and go out, and beware of rigidity. No answers; just contact. This is what I want to see: a post that goes out, and comments that accompany. Namaste and Allahu akbar.
The diagnosis is: loss of faith compounded with careerism that the HF condemns. Of course all these clerics say Mass and receive communion. So since they give themselves such privileges at least they will not deny the same privilige when it comes to other sinners such as adulterers. Can't call them hypocrites but you can call them heretics.
Anon-1
Gene:
“Well, the Pope says it is better to be an atheist than a hypocrite...I cannot believe anyone would make such an absurd statement, particularly a Pope.”
That’s probably because he didn’t make such a statement. More FAKE NEWS. Here is what he actually said. As you can see, Pope Francis was reporting the thoughts of other people:
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/23/pope_dont_put_off_conversion,_give_up_a_double_life/1294470
Many people, it seems, have forgotten how to read.
Anyway, it seems that Pope Francis has struck a nerve yet again. Isn’t it so much better to have a comfy Pope who doesn’t challenge_us_but only_others_whom we already condemn ourselves?
Anonymous 2, we agree about FAKE NEWS. This quote was published by Reuters and the Washington Post. If you can't believe them when it comes to the Pope it seems logical you can't believe what they have to say about Donald Trump!
Dialogue, I about spit coffee all over this keyboard...that "accompanyment" is hilarious. You have to go viral with it. Good work!
A mortal sin is a mortal sin, whether it is the act of adultery or the homosexual act. It is true that in some cases with those persons in another marriage, who had been previously married but could not obtain an annulment due to the lack of what was required, that scandal can be avoided. I am speaking of that circumstance for example, where just the priest and the person or persons involved are the only ones in the parish privy to the details of the their situation. Also, a couple, one or both of whom have been previously married, can attend Mass at another Church where they are not known.The best solution is that where there exists any doubt, the couple should refrain from partaking of the Eucharist. To me, it would be good if the priest would provide the couple a booklet on Church teaching, so they could ponder the consequences of offending God, and the reality of Hell, and then told to come back after reading it.
There is private and public sin. Both can be mortal, but the latter, because it can induce others to sin and broadcasts bad example, requires greater satisfaction to God's justice. Someone may view pornography (which of course is a grave matter) in the privacy of their home, but the effect of the sin is multiplied by those who are actually involved in the creation of it. We should be more concerned about what offends God, and not that by correction and admonishment we might offend others.
ALL sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful. Sin is sin, no matter how it is committed. The homosexual act however is never open to the generation of new life. It can never under any circumstance be anything other than sinful. In the Catholic church, it can never be solemnized or sanctified in a sacramental union. While a validly married man and woman can engage in acts which are sinful, it is always present to them that they can avail themselves of an act which is not sinful and is therefor in conformance to what God intended and desires. When homosexuals are in Civil unions, or same-sex marriages, they cannot avoid bringing public scandal with them which compounds their sin, since by their observed relationship, their sinful actions can be reasonably inferred. The guide for Church teaching on this matter is Holy Scripture itself. since she would not teach or proclaim anything which was not in accord with the Word of God.
TJM:
Yes, I agree, news media should be much more careful with their headlines (this also includes CRUX, which carried the same headline). It is irresponsible to put out an inaccurate and sensationalist headline--especially nowadays because, sadly, the media should no longer expect that people will make the effort actually to read the full article to get the accurate account. I never rely on headlines but always read the text of an article. It is, of course, even more serious if not only the headline but also the text itself is inaccurate, which in this case it was not (both the Washington Post and CRUX, as well as the Reuters video clip I watched made it clear that the Pope was reporting on what others had said).
To make your case about Trump, you will have to demonstrate that sources such as the Washington Post are inaccurately reporting about him in the body of the article text, not just the headline. By the way, as you seem to be reading the Post, I assume you know they are keeping a running tally of all of Trump’s falsehoods since his inauguration, which are legion.
Anonymous 2,
Trump's falsehoods? That's a laugh. He's batting 1000 and the media 0.
Obama lied through his teeth 24/7 but the media, including the Washington Post, acted as his stenographers. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!" "ObozoCare will save you $2500 a year!" I get that you're a member of the Abortion Party.
I just saw where the Washington Post hired political hack and serial liar, John Podesta, as a columnist. I guess the Post isn't interested in restoring integrity to its brand.
TJM:
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Post counts 143 Trump falsehoods or misleading claims since January 20):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/
Now explain them away and/or demonstrate that Obama comes even close.
And please do stop with the ad hominem slurs about the Abortion Party. It is childish, untrue (I am a non-partisan independent), and shows that you have no real arguments
You assume the Compost is a legitimate news source, it isn't.
Obama lied about very serious matters, as I already pointed out, Obozocare.
He also lied to the American people about Benghazi, knowing from the beginning it was not "inspired" by a movie.
He also said ISIS was a JV Team, it wasn't, and he knew it.
During the second presidential debate, he indicated Russia was not a threat but now that he needs something to grasp for his minion's embarrassing defeat, it is.
He refused to call Islamic terrorists attacks by their true names, they were either workplace violence or something.
I could go on and on, but nothing would satisfy an Obama sycophant like you. Mays be ObozoCare cover Trump Derangement Syndrome.
If Piux XI were alive today he would condemn the Democratic Party just like he did the Nazis and Fascists for similar reaons, supporting intrinsic evil.
Have a nice day, junior
Ok, Anon 2,it is the Abortion, Pro-Pervert, Muslim Party. A trifecta...Ta Da!!!
TJM:
Here is another just published list of lies and falsehoods by Trump and those around him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-administration-lies-100_us_58ac7a0fe4b02a1e7dac3ca6
This list contains several lies and falsehoods I did not know about before. I am glad that some in the media at least are helping us to keep up with the inundation. I suspect that much, if not all, of it will be news to those living in the Trump Bubble—news that they will doubtless dismiss as fake news. That’s the problem with inconvenient facts—they are inconvenient.
And just so you understand—I would be just as appalled if Hillary were President and she had been guilty of so much lying and deception. All Presidents lie, of course, but Trump is in a league of his own. And no Catholic, committed to the Truth, should accept this. Now that you know about all these lies and falsehoods, I trust that you will not accept it either.
P.S. Here is the problem with Trump’s “fake news” strategy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/26/fake-news-is-a-potent-political-strategy-its-also-a-cop-out/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_fix-fakenews-819am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6b0ef2614092
Moreover, as if all the lies and falsehoods were not enough, Trump’s own Cabinet has to run around after him with a shovel cleaning up his messes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cleanup-duties-are-a-big-part-of-the-job-in-the-trump-cabinet/2017/02/25/f060ffd0-faeb-11e6-9b3e-ed886f4f4825_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpcabinet-534am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.8e6e0d1b9b25
In this respect, I hope that you and other readers noticed that the new National Security Advisor General McMaster has had to correct Trump on using the expression “radical Islamic terrorism.” This is also discussed in the above article. For further details, see:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/hr-mcmaster-trump-islam.html
As the General correctly points out (correctly because he actually knows what he is talking about), the expression is unhelpful and it is also inaccurate. Pope Francis was right. There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, any more than there is such a thing as Jewish terrorism or Christian terrorism. The reason is simple to understand—terrorism is contrary to the basic norms of these three religions, which is not to deny that someone can abuse the authoritative sources of the religion to come up with a warped and perverted interpretation.
But, oh my goodness, didn’t we all hear about it when Obama and Hillary refused to use terms such as “radical Islamic terrorism.” I hope that President Trump, the two Stephens (Bannon and Miller), and Sean Hannity are paying attention.
Here is the basic problem, and it is a lethal one—the combination of ignorance and arrogance. One hopes that the President (and some others around him) have learned some humility and will listen to the adult professionals who know more than they do. If they don’t, Amendment XXV of the Constitution (which doesn’t even require impeachment) is waiting in the wings and then it will be Acting President Pence, which might not be such a bad thing. Let’s hope Trump can earn a passing grade when he addresses Congress.
TJM:
Well, if the Washington Post allegations are false, refute them like a man instead of resorting to the typical juvenile Trump cop out of calling the source “fake news” or “illegitimate.”
Yes. Obama also uttered falsehoods and made other mistakes. But his account of the attack on Benghazi wasn’t one of them. I have researched this question exhaustively and can prove it to you. But what’s the point—the fake news counter-narrative has so thoroughly washed the brains of the anti-Obama crowd. And, as I said in my earlier post, all Presidents lie but Trump is in a league of his own.
Gene:
Grow up.
Anonymous,
HuffPuffPost is just another fake news vehicle, so that's not going to persuade me of anything.
And mentioning Pope Frank is also a non-starter. He is part of the problem, not part of the solution. He could have spoken "truth to power" when meeting with Obama and chided him for being the most rabidly pro-abortion president in history, a president who bullied the Little Sisters of the Poor and trampled on their religious freedom, but no. It was crickets from that gutless coward who is only brave when attacking faithful Catholics.
Trump is far smarter than you and the entire media establishment 95% of which is populated by Democrat operatives with bylines.
Trump is just the antidote which is needed to neuter the true haters: The Democrat Party and the Media (but I repeat myself). They are apoplectic because they know their dictatorship of relativism is about to end.
Ignorance and arrogance...you mean like Obama...
Anonymous 2:
There are those out there who are saying or at least intimating the Mr. Trump and some in his administration are playing with and messing with the press. Is Mr Trump and others playing the press for fools?
To be honest, In reading some news articles in the Washington Post and New York Times, there are certain things which make me wonder if some of it is true. I do run across passages I read where I can see that opinion(bias) of the writer has been interjected.
TJM:
Well, _you_can huff and puff all you want about the two Posts being fake news. BUT did you have the courage to look at the list, or did you just keep your head buried in the sand? I am assuming the latter. Why don’t you and like-minded others have the guts to face the allegations and disprove them if they are untrue? The fact that you do not do so speaks volumes.
Persuasion is irrelevant. We are talking about objectively verifiable facts (you do remember facts, don’t you?) not opinions—specifically, what Trump and those around him have said about X or Y and what the actual facts are about X or Y. You may care to live in a fact-free world; I do not.
Anon 2, the border wall, deportations, thousands more ICE agents, tax reform, repealing Obama care, public prayer by the First Lady, Dodd-Frank repealed, increased military spending...Trump has already started doing what he said he would do. These things are happening...BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Stomp your little liberal feet all you like. The noise is music to my ears.
Anonymnous 2 aka Paid Soros Troll
Well, maybe if you had the guts to look at the evil Obozo's record maybe I would bother to take a look at the fantasies posted at the fake news websites, like the New York Slimes, the Washington Compost, and the HuffPuff. Ariana Huffington is a first rate loon, still bitter that her gay husband dumped her!
Unfortunately I have to go to the British newspapers to find out what is going on in the world, since the "newspapers" I mentioned routinely suppress Muslim terrorist antics in Germany, France and Sweden since they cannot do anything to impede the agenda of bringing in more members of the "religion fo peace." Modern liberals are such fools, they love the "enemy of my enemy" but won't be very happy when that enemy turns on them and puts women in burkas, push gays off of buildings, and imposes sharia law.
TJM and Gene:
As I suspected, you have no answer. That is not surprising as there isn’t one. So, all you are left with are misdirected ad hominem attacks on me and distraction. Sounds a bit like Trump himself, doesn’t it?
Anonymous:
I don't deny the occasional bias. But we are talking about a list. It is easy to fact check.
I am only interested in what Trump is doing, not what he is saying.
Gene:
There are at least two problems with that:
1. Lies are deeds.
2. He is lying about what he is doing.
Lies are not deeds.
I'll send you a photo of the completed wall, the completed pipelines, a group of new ICE agents, and an ICE t-shirt.
For those who do not believe in fake news, here's a sample:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/president-trump-meets-black-college-presidents-media-focuses-white-aide-taking-pictures/
And please read the comments of the "intelligensia", they are comedy gold.
Anonymous 2,
And you NEVER respond to the substance of anyone's remarks you just keep dancing around the facts. Do you and Kavey collaborate? Obozo was the worst president since James Buchanan. When is all that racial headling going to begin that he promised? I guess it comes right after, "they bring a knife, we bring a gun." LMAO at You!
another prime example of fake news (or propaganda):
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-catholic-church-says-government-submits-trump-terrorism-065217813.html
First of all, enforcing the Immigration Laws on our the government's books is not terrorism, unless you reject the Catholic Catechism and common sense.
Secondly, this story takes as its authority an editorial in some Catholic weekly. It doesn't say the Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City or the Mexican bishops supports this strange proposition.
Sadly, it shows an editorialist who is morally and intellectually bankrupt. He's basically saying Mexico is a loser country, and that Mexico has no moral responsibility vis-a-vis its own citizens, and by implication the Church doesn't either. We just shrug our responsibilities off and force the American taxpapers to take care of our problem. Sounds like theft to me.
TJM:
Classic projection move typical of Trump fanatics—YOU are the one who will not face the facts, YOU are the one who will never respond, who will not even read the lists of lies and falsehoods, instead trying oh so desperately to change the subject to Obama. Well, it won’t work. Any reader here can see what you are trying to do.
P.S. Just like Trump, I now read, is trying to pin the blame for the botched Yemen raid on Obama, who apparently declined to approve the raid. But oh no, don’t expect The Donald to take responsibility for_anything. It is_always_someone else’s fault, never his. Good grief!
TJM:
“We just shrug our responsibilities off and force the American taxpapers [sic] to take care of our problem. Sounds like theft to me.”
How do you justify the above claim in light of the following:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/
Anonymous 2, I am way ahead of you. I have read that unadulterated BS and suggest the adult version:
http://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
If prefer the cartoon version from cnn (Communist News Network or Clintoon News Network), that's your loss. I was pleased to see that CNN (very fake news) is now in last place in the ratings.
Another Fake News update: Trump 1 AP (American Pravda) 0
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/02/28/ap-fact-check-fail-trump-claim-on-terrorism-and-immigration-correlates-with-justice-dept-data/
Credit where credit is due: I may still disagree with various policies and I may still call him out on apparent lies; falsehoods, and distortions (including in his address to Congress), but Trump did well last night. He passed the test he had to pass before Congress—looking and acting like a president. It was a fine, and at times even graceful, performance. If he can keep it up, he may yet survive without being ousted. They just need to keep his phone away from him. =)
TJM:
It is true I gave you the kiddy version. But there are many adult versions I could give you too. My sole intent was to challenge your sweeping claim. I understand, and appreciate, that you provided a “justification” for it by citing the Heritage Foundation Report which (as I understand it) was also intended to estimate costs of “amnesty.”. Here is a sophisticated response to that report, questioning its figures:
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/06/the-immigration-bills-6-3-trillion-price-tag-2/
Personally, except perhaps where the inquiry is precisely focused and limited, I tend to be quite skeptical of economic and statistical arguments in general. One main reason is that economics is a much more inexact science than many people make it out to be. Much depends on assumptions and the relevant variables, for example. Have you noticed how one can line up economists on each side of almost any issue?
Anonynous 2,
The one thing that none of the calculations (pro or con) include is the human cost, the murder of US citizens like Kate Steinle by an illegal who should have been deported before he had the opportunity to killher. I pray her parents are successful in their lawsuit against the evil officials in the City of San Francisco. Quite frankly, under Trump, they may face criminal charges which they richly deserve.
TJM:
We do not disagree on that point. Nor do we disagree on the desirability of removing undocumented immigrants who have committed serious crimes (which was Obama’s priority too). Where we may disagree is on what to do with the rest of the undocumented. There are indications that Trump is softening his position regarding them, even contemplating a path for regularization (again just like Obama and many Republican leaders during the past several years). I applaud this softening and move towards compromise provided it is combined with effective border enforcement to prevent further illegal immigration in the future, so that there is not a perennial recurring issue. In this way, overall justice can be served by removing those guilty of serious crimes, by recognizing various kinds of equities built up by those undocumented non-criminals, and by ensuring the rule of law in preventing future illegal immigration.
P.S. I should clarify that the point on which we do not disagree is the point about the need to factor in the human cost of such crimes. I have not yet examined the issues surrounding the lawsuit or possible criminal proceedings against the city officials and therefore express no opinion that particular point.
Trump was right again! Trump 1 Media 0. I think you will struggle to find this in the Fake News purveyors in the US unless it is buried somewhere in their "newspapers"
https://heatst.com/world/german-government-issues-travel-warning-for-sweden/
Anonymous 2,
Obama had no such priority. His priorities are reflected in those of San Franciscos which due to its stubborn adherence to left-wing loon ideology, failed to protect its citizens and apparently they are proud of that fact.
Immigration into this country should be restored to the old practice. Get a sponsor who is financially responsible for you. No welfare, no freebies, nothing from taxpayers other than police and fire protection. Libs go into orgasms over Europe, but here is an inconvenient fact they should consider: you cannot immigrate into Switzerland without a net worth of one million dollars. I know because a family member of ours went there.
Immigrating into the US should be predicated upon our needing people to immigrate and their willingness to become Americans. No sharia law, no separateness.
TJM:
I am sorry but you are incorrect. Obama did prioritize the removal of dangerous criminals. Also, you (and Trump) are wrong about family related immigration. With very few exceptions, a contractually binding affidavit of support is required from the petitioning relative (the “sponsor”) before the noncitizen can immigrate (that is, in the unlikely event a government unit actually pays out any means-tested benefits, it can recoup the expense from the sponsor). The sponsorship requirements are actually much tougher and more effective than in the “good old days” you reference, as a result of changes brought about by 1996 legislation. Moreover, there are additional safeguards to prevent the new immigrant from getting public benefits but this is enough information for now.
I don’t know where you get your information but it is unreliable. Perhaps you should take my class. I teach this stuff. I can give you all relevant cites and sources if you like.
Anonymous 2,
Obama encouraged illegals to vote, he didn't press sanctuary cities to cooperate with authorities, even with regard to criminals, hence, the Katie Steinles.
We should bar illegals from any public benefits, period.
Anonymous 2,
Do you cover stories like these in your class?
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/03/obamas-dreamers-accused-of-killing.html
Post a Comment