I wasn’t pissed off, and I didn’t have any great theological differences.
When Mrs. Kunilou and I were getting ready to marry, the knotty problem of how to handle my divorce came up. My ex-wife wanted no part of participating in an annulment proceeding, and the diocese I lived in was pretty conservative when it came to dissolving what were assumed to be valid Catholic marriages. Plus Mrs. Kunilou had no intention of converting, or even promising to raise the children as Catholic. So we got married in her church, and as time went by, I joined it.
“the women priest thing is coming but I dont know how. I went to a Epistopal service that had women and it just didnt seem right. I guess after a while I would get used to it. I see women as deacons as a solution to the current problem of shortage of priest. the deacons can perform about half the sacraments so they can take a lot of work off the priest’s shoulders.”
Sounds alot like “I saw a negro in the FRONT of the bus and it just didn’t seem right. I guess after a while I could get used to it”
And maybe we can give them an ALMOST THE SAME BUT STILL A LACKEY POSITION BECAUSE WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF MALE LACKEYS? Of course women would LOVE that, its a step up!
I would ask you to clarify if I got your message wrong, but I know you will anyway.
I don’t really think that’s a broader sense. After all, judging hypocritically means that one ISN’T starting with oneself.
Either way, Matthew 7 clearly isn’t saying that we should not judge the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions. That’s why verse 5 says that we should remove the planks in our eyes BEFORE we point out the mote in someone else’s. Also, Matthew’s gospel (and the rest of the NT) is full of situations where people are admonished to discern good from evil, and even to admonish other people (2 Tim 3:16 comes readily to mind).
Besides, it’s rather self-defeating to say “We should never judge another person’s actions.” That statement is ITSELF a moral judgment — it is judging that it’s wrong to judge.
Speaking as a Catholic… no, I think it’s silly. I don’t pretend to agree with the Church on everything and I have never gotten the impression that any priest, bishop or archbishop I’ve ever met expects complete agreement, so the hell with it, no pun intended.
I am a little surprised that some believe Catholic priests have a lot of money, though. Every priest I’ve ever met led a very spartan lifestyle. I’m not even sure a lot of them get “paid” per se.
*(Qualifier: I was baptised Catholic, and attended The Church at various times throughout my young life. I also had church-going experiences in several other Christian churches - Missionary, Presbyterian and, most recently, Methodist.
I would consider myself most closely aligned with Methodist teachings, but generally, I am a believing Christian who does not regularly attend church.)*
I am divorced. My ex-wife was unfaithful to me, and that did indeed play a central part in the dissolution of our marriage.
Fast-forward to the recent past. I meet and begin to date someone who is Catholic. Her family is devoutly Catholic, from South America.
She tells me one day to keep a lid on the fact that I am divorced, that her family would have a problem with it.
I do a little digging around to refresh some thoughts I had in the back of my head.
Sure enough, I find evidence that the Bible considered divorce permissable, under certain circumstances. Both in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 24:1-2)
And in the New Testament (Matthew 5:31-32, supposedly spoken by Jesus)(bolding mine)
Now, I want to make clear here. I personally don’t believe people who get divorced for reasons other than adultery are committing abominable sins, and are committing adultery daily by being with someone else afterward.
I brought it up to point out that these devout Catholics should have no problem with my divorce, because it fell under the Biblical parameters for divorce.
But not so, says the Catechism of the RCC (bolding mine):
What gives? Yes, there are many Biblical quotes espousing the sanctity of marriage, and how it should be cherished and preserved. I agree with that!
But it strikes me that the Catholic Church does a rather tortuous tap-dance around the plain, straightforward, black-and-white words of Jesus - if your spouse is unfaithful, you can get a divorce and still be a good Christian.
Somewhat along the same lines, is it true that the Church wouldn’t even recognize that I ever was married, because it was not a Catholic ceremony?
And what’s up with annulment? Divorce is bad, but this is good? Pretending years-long marriages were never “valid,” even when there are children involved?
(A most famous case of this was U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy, which you can read about here.)
To borrow my own words from an earlier thread (to which I will not link because some other exchanges in the thread were rather venomous):
Celibacy has been encouraged throughout the history of the Church, beginning with several of Paul’s statements. There were locations, by the third century where it was required of bishops, priests, and deacons, at least locally.
In the sixth century, a pair of synods held in Spain ordered clerical celibacy, however, the Church(es) at the eastern end of the Mediterranean did not accept the decress of those synods.
By the ninth century, celibacy was mandatory in most of western Europe (although it was not wholeheartedly practiced).
From the ninth through the eleventh centuries, the breakup of Charlemagne’s empire resulted in a smaller scale replay of the fall of Rome, with most legal institutions (including the Church) suffering a certain amount of fraying at the edges. During this period, despite the calls for celibacy by several Church leaders, it was ignored by many of the clergy.
During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Church leadership took a strong stand in favor of celibacy. In the face of so many clergy ignoring the calls for celibacy, it was at this time that the Church passed punitive laws denying the wives and children of priests the right to inherit property (indeed, declaring that the children of priests could be claimed as little more than chattel slaves by the local lords). These acts, in turn, gave rise to the stories that the Church “only” enacted the rules of celibacy in order to acquire the property owned by priests.
Without in any way denying the harshness of the eleventh and twelfth century rules (or trying to deny the corruption that occurred, in many cases, among the local married clergy or the church hierarchy), it is still possible to point out that the concept of celibacy was far older than those events and that the practice of celibacy was not “created” to cement power within the church.
Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law: The RCC is a large institution and has numerous rules governing the activities of its members and the enactment of its policies. These rules have been revised on several occasions. They are not considered to be handed down from God (since they are the creation of men), but they do reflect the Discipline of the Church at any given time. They are the rules that govern how the Teachings of the Church (Dogma) are to be carried out in the day-to-day activities of its members.
(For the purposes of this discussion, celibacy has been considered a “good thing” for priests throughout the history of the RCC. “Good things” can be arrived at through exhortation (telling people to give to the poor) or through commands (currently, priests in the Latin Rite must be celibate although priests in other Rites of the church are not under the same discipline and may only be encouraged to be celibate).
The pope speaking ex cathedra: The RCC believes that all of its Dogma is true (otherwise, why have it?). Through most of church history, what was accepted as Dogma was the result of pronouncements from Ecumenical Councils, (in which bishops and theologians from throughout the church came to argue out the Truth, relying on the Holy Spirit to guide them to recognize that Truth). As the head of the church, the pope was recognized to have absolute authority to proclaim those truths and some relative authority to decide on the truth of a proposition without the concurrence of a council. In the nineteenth century, this idea that the pope could “declare” the Truth of a proposition came to a head, resulting in the “recognition” by the First Vatican Council that the pope could declare a Truth infallibly (without error) when he spoke from his seat (ex cathedra) as the head of the church. Despite the declaration of the Council, this idea is still not wholly embraced by all the members of the RCC. So far, the only two statements that have been declared “infallibly” have been that Mary was conceived without Original Sin and that Mary was Assumed bodily into Heaven. (Neither point seems to be sufficiently central to most people’s faith to get upset about–although you can find people for whom these are great matters.) A couple of the ensuing popes (since the 1869 declaration) have remarked that they, personally, have not felt particularly infallible.
Gregorean Reforms: Following the breakup of the Empire of Charlemagne, there followed a period of over 200 years in which the civil chaos carried over into increasing corruption within the RCC, with the local nobility taking over churches and church lands and declaring that the power to appoint bishops was theirs. As a result, people who wanted to increase their own power through the power inherent in the church began to barter with the local lords for positions within the church and people within the church began selling the services of the church (the sin of simony). At the same time, this passing of church property between persons led to further abuses regarding inheritance by the wives and children of priests. (I mentioned this point in my earlier post.) Hildebrand (his birth name), as a young man, had been schooled in a Benedictine abbey connected to the abbey of Cluny where they were attempting a spiritual reform of the church–one abbey and church at a time. Once he had been educated, he became the chaplain to John Gratian, later Pope Gregory VI. Working for John Gratian it became apparent that Hildbrand had both a deep spirituality and a genius for organization. When Gregory VI was forced into exile by various political machinations, Hildebrand went with him. When Gregory VI died, his successor looked up Hildebrand and invited him to serve in his staff. Over the next 20 years, or so, Hildebrand used his administrative powers to order numerous reforms within the church, speaking through the voices of several successive popes (all of whom kept him on their staffs). One of the reforms was that the pope would be chosen by the collected cardinals of the church, and not appointed by the Emperor. In 1073, when Pope Alexander II died, the cardinals chose Hildebrand to be pope, and he chose the name Gregory VII. (He actually protested his own election, but, fortunately, gave in to the college of cardinals.) Once in power, he decreed the following reforms to the clergy:
That clerics who had obtained any grade or office of sacred orders by payment should cease to minister in the Church.
That no one who had purchased any church should retain it, and that no one for the future should be permitted to buy or sell ecclesiastical rights.
That all who were guilty of incontinence (i.e., of marrying or maintaining concubines) should cease to exercise their sacred ministry.
That the people should reject the ministrations of clerics who failed to obey these injunctions.
He then went on to organize a number of other reforms regarding the practices of the bishops.
As to celibacy: As noted above, the idea of celibacy is very old within the church. St. Paul’s admonition to all Christians to abstain from marriage (“but better to marry than to burn”) was very possibly penned with the idea that the Second Coming would arrive so soon that there was no need to become entangled with a spouse.
However, regardless of Paul’s intent, many of the earliest church fathers stated that men who were priests should avoid marriage so that they would be free to minister to their people without worrying about the needs of their family. Whether the “distracting” element of a family was higher in their thoughts or whether they felt that sex (even in marriage) was somehow demeaning to the priesthood probably differed from one author to the next.
Tertullian in the second half of the 2d century speaks favorably of those in the ministry who have chosen to give up marriage.
St. Epiphanius in the same period claims (a little unclearly) that no one is allowed to be in the clergy who is married.
Origen (185 - 254) implies that celibacy is the norm without explicity saying that.
Eusebius (291 - 342) and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315 - 386) each talked about how the clergy were expected to be celibate (without claiming, as Epiphanius did) that it was the rule.
On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria (died 215), after praising chastity highly, very clearly says that as long as a priest is faithful in his marriage, he is a worthy priest.
And Socrates (not that Socrates) who wrote a history of the church extending from 306 to 439 said that neither priests nor even bishops were required to be celibate in the Eastern church, provided that their marriage occurred before they took orders.
The first formal declaration that priests must be celibate came from a council (a regional meeting of bishops, in this case) in Elvira, Spain around 300. Apparently, a motion was made to make this a universal rule of the church at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, (325), but that motion was defeated.
Throughout the next several centuries, the western church leaned more and more toward mandatory celibacy while the eastern church did not.
To that post, Little Nemo contributed that the Synod of Elvira was basically confirming the rule that originated with a pronouncement by Pope Siricius in 385 AD.
(theretsof, do as you feel you must, but in the interest of keeping this a Q&A type thread, we might want to let some statements slide if they are not direct challenges to information posted here. YMMV )
to clarify:
there is a position in the church called Deacon. it is a male only position that assist the priest in some of his duties. there is also a position in the church for women “nun”. they have certain duties. the difference between the 2 is the nuns can’t administer the sacraments. and deacons can administer about half of them. so deacons have a lot of power and the push in the church is to allow women to become deacons. deacons can be married but they cant get married after they become a deacon.
I might be strange or bias or just an asshole but it would be hard for me to handle seeing a woman saying mass. its not rational or right but thats the way it was. things have changed a lot in the church and women are allowed to be Eucharistic ministers now (God forbid) so I would probably get used to it or blow my brains out. well I would probably get used to it.
I have been to protestant services with women parsons. it was ok. but the Epistopal service looked just like a catholic one except there was woman priest. it just looked strange. I would vote for it. dont see anything wrong with it. can’t find a reason why it would be bad. but I am just saying this looked strange. I don’t think its a sexist thing. my wife is against women priest because priest should be men. I am more practical. look there is a shortage of priest so lets change the duties of nuns to allow them to say mass. our poor priest is worn out. he needs a woman (so to speak)
What interested me about the OP was the issue of wearing a CROSS around your neck. I’m sure it’s common enough, but the Catholics I grew up with all wore Virgin Mary medalions. The only crosses we saw were crucifixes - with a figure of Chist attached to them (the bare cross on the church steeple being about the only exception I can remember). Crucifixes didn’t go around your neck, but on the bedroom wall right above the headboard.
My brother, who long ago left the church for an extremely fundamentalist sect (BTW - the ones who don’t consider Catholics “Christian” usually don’t use like themselves termed “Protestant,” either), once explained why his religion opposes having the Christ figure on the cross, but I forget his reasoning.
I’ve opened a new thread here for the question of women clergy, seeing as how there’s potential for debate, and it’s a topic I’d welcome seeing discussed. Justin, I’ve left the first substantive response for you, since I think both Theretsof’s comments and my initial mental response may not be on target to what you really mean. Theretsof, can we carry the issue over there? Tom~ and Bricker, I’d welcome seeing a clear statement of the Catholic theological position (other than “it’s against church law to ordain a woman,” true but non-responsive), if either of you is willing to essay it.
Milo I am going to quote from the notes in my Bible (note that my translation uses “unless the marriage is unlawful” rather than fornication").
Part of the problem here, I think, is that you are just choosing a few passages to base this on, when there are other that contradict it. Plus, we have the usual problem of differences in translation (yours says fornication, mine says unlawful). With all that taken into account, there is rarely and plain, straightforward, black and white words of Jesus or anything else in the Bible.
You might be correct that it might not matter if you were married outside the Catholic Church. I’ll let tomndebb or Bricker give you the more authoritative ruling on this, since I think it has become obvious who the real experts on this thread are when it comes to RCC teachings
As for annulment, I’ll again defer to the experts after I register my thoughts. I think annulment is a recognition of reality. It’s not good, and it is not done lightly in the Church, but in certain situations the Church recognizes that they may need to end a marriage. Since divorce is frowned on, annulling a marriage is a nice compromise.
By the way, if you are looking to be more serious con su novia I would recommend you go talk to a preist. They would be more able to discuss stuff with you and give accurate answers than anyone here would, I think. And, at least the ones I know, would be more than willing to talk this stuff out with you if you desired.
Would you kindly delete the first of my near-duplicate posts above, plus this post? As you can see, the URL link failed the first time, and since it was the key to what I posted, I needed to repeat.
On a similar note, I took a course in high school (at a Catholic school) called “Relationships” which dealt with matters of love and sex, and the teacher pretty much treated masturbation as a fairly normal phenomenon – she didn’t say it was as bad as the catechism says it is. (We also learned about all the different kinds of contraception, although she did point out that the Church is against anything other than natural family planning.)
Of course, it’s probably not a good idea to jerk off under a safe anyway, for purely practical reasons…
Since we have a couple of guys with some canon law knowledge on board…time to throw out Humane Vitae, and more specifically the genesis of this teaching.
A few years back, I read an account of the proceedings leading up to the encyclical. It is written by the 2 American representatives to the advisory commission…and makes for an interesting papal politics read.
Any opinions or thoughts on the process that led to this document (or other church teachings?)
I guess to me, any notion that the Holy Spirit was moving through this process seems a bit naieve when you read of the political machinations that led to Humane Vitae.
I was raised Catholic, but gradually drifted away from going to church-mainly because:
a.) it felt like going through the motions
b.) I have a very big problem with most religions claiming they are the TRUE religion, since we don’t know that.
But, a few questions I’ve never had answered:
Why is the Catholic church against Free Masons?
What do you think of Liberation Theology?
Didn’t the Catholic church used to say abortions were okay-back in the 19th century? Or was that something I heard from a FOAF? (I don’t remember where I read that, sorry!)
My advisor, Dr. Brett, says that the misogyny of the church in history came initially from the extreme misognyst, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Jerome. What is your view on this?
Can one be a good Catholic, and be pro-choice? (Though not necessarily like abortion, but just think it should be kept safe and legal-safe being the key term?)
Although Augustine had “issues” in regards to women…I suspect that hanging the cause for the churches view of women on his (and Jerome’s) shoulders is a bit simplistic…I assume your advisor has heard of St Paul?
It’s like asking if someone can be a good Catholic and support the death penalty, or if someone can be a good Catholic and act indifferently towards the poor (or pick any other moral/social justice teaching) Like all moral teachings, this would of course be ultimately up to your own conscience. If you ask the pontiff , bishops and most other church leaders that I’m aware of …they would probably tell you that a pro choice position runs contrary to church teaching. See here and here for comments by the U.S. Catholic bishops.
I suppose Frances Kessling would feel differently.
As in all things legal, the best thing you can do is talk to an authority - in this case, the pastor is a good start. He can ask specific questions and steer you to the proper people in your diocese.
As a general proposition, though, you should know two things: (1) The Church recognizes any marriage between baptized persons as valid, even if not performed in front of a Catholic witness (usually the priest, in a Catholic marriage); and (2) the process of anulling a non-Catholic marriage is usually a matter of an administrative finding, rather than a judicial one.
Remember that the Church’s view is that any sacramental marriage, performed lawfully, creates a bond that no human power may separate. An annullment is simply a finding that what at first blush appeared to be a valid marriage was not really one.
In the case of a non-Catholic marriage, the marriage was, in all likelihood, not conducted according to the laws of the church. That makes relatively easy to challenge it - but unless it’s challenged, the Church assumes it was a valid bond.
This passage suggests that annullment is simply a “Catholic divorce” of some sort. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Church absolutely recognizes that sometimes, people in valid marriages must live apart. This can include a civil divorce and Church-sanctioned separation. But while this addresses the “need to end a marriage,” it still does not dissolve the matrimonial bond. As such, the parties are still married, and may not remarry, as the new relationship would essentially be an adulterous one.
The annullment, again, is a legal finding that despite appearances, the marriage was never valid to begin with. A classic case would be the “shotgun wedding” - a person who marries to save his own life is incapable of giving valid consent, even though the priest, bride, and attendees all thought everything was fine. A person with mental reservations about the marriage – “I’ll give him five years to finish school and get a job that can support me in the style I need, and if not, I’m outta here…” – is not entering into the sacrament validly, even if she keeps those thoughts completely to herself and smiles merrily throughout the ceremony. And a fifteen year-old boy who procures a fake birth certificate to marry his girlfriend also does not enter into the sacrament validly… even though no one knows of his deception.
Understanding that this is what annullment is is absolutely critical… the annullment process starts with the presumption that the marriage was valid, and the party seeking to annul must overcome his burden of proof and show that it wasn’t.
A marriage between baptized persons, one of whom was Catholic, that was not done in a Catholic church in front of a priest (and for which no dispensation was obtained at the time of marriage) can be easily annulled. This is called a “Lack of Form” case in canon law, and it just means that, as I suggested above, the marriage, even though previously accepted as valid, can easily be shown as not having followed the required form for matrimony.
If one of the parties to the first marriage was not baptized, and that non-baptism can be proven, and the person who is applying for this process was not the cause of the breakdown of the marriage, it is either a a Privilege of the Faith case or a Petrine Privilege case. The disposition of these cases is reserved to the Holy See - that is, the case is sent to Rome, where the non-sacramental marriage can be judged dissolved, leaving both parties free to remarry.
If both of the parties were non-baptized throughout the course of the marriage, and now the party applying wants to become baptized and marry a Catholic, and the non-baptism of both parties can be proven, then a Pauline Privilege case can be done and the non-sacramental marriage can be judged dissolved, leaving those parties free to remarry (after the one who desired baptism has received it).
Because Freemasonry was against the Catholic Church.
At one time, Freemasons were strongly anti-Catholic, and openly discussed actions against the Church of Rome. The Church responded by issuing an automatic excommunication against any of the faithful who joined the Masons. The old code of Canon Law (Can. 2335) specifically mentioned Masonry as an organization which plotted against the Church.
When Pope John Paul II revised the Code of Canon Law in 1983, this legislation was changed. So far as I, a non-Mason, am aware, the Freemasons’ only plot is how to handle the next dinner-dance or similar fundraiser; the days of “plotting against the Church” are long gone. Accordingly, there is no longer any edict against a Catholic becoming a Mason. Canon 1374 now provides that
In other words, Catholics may still not (obviously) join organzations that are anti-Catholic; equally obviously, the Masons are no longer counted among that number.
The general idea of Liberation Theology is that it is foolish - or, indeed, possibly even blasphemous - to care for people’s spiritual needs and at the same time ignore their needs for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and basic human dignity.
Frankly, I think it’s a good idea, taken a bit too far. In my experience, Liberation Theologists seem to be all too eager to embrace socialism, especially in Latin America. In my view, the practicing Catholic needs to work for social justice - indeed, it’s for this reason that many Catholics in this country traditionally vote Democratic, despite the schism over abortion that’s existed in the last thirty years. The Democratic Party, much more so than the GOP, has traditionally recognized the need for social justice and reform. (I have said before that it is very difficult for a Catholic today to find a politican who espouses both social justice and respect-for-life ideals.
However, the desire to help the poor does not, in my view, translate to acceptance of a key plank in the Liberation Theologist’s platform: that the poor are oppressed and made poor by others. While in some cases this is so, it is not axiomatic that poor people are the result of oppressors. If I distribute equal wealth in the form of peaches, spices and flour to three men, the first may simply mash them together, creating an inedible mess. His wealth has now decreased. The second may fashion and bake a simple peach pie, while the third may create a peach torte of exquisite delicacy. No one has “oppressed” anyone - wealth comes from effort and knowledge. Nor does it help us to force the torte-maker to sell his torte and give some of the proceeds to the first fellow; we will merely decrease his incentive to make more tortes, when he could get by just as well by making pies.
In short, then, I agree wholeheartedly that we have a duty, as Christians, to assist the poor – but I do not embrace the methodology of Liberation Theology.
No.
If we were in court, I’d say, "Objection, Your Honor! Counsel’s question assumes facts not in evidence. I’m not sure we’ve established that the Church is misogynistic. I’ve discussed the ordination of women above - what other examples can you offer in support of your assertion?
In my view, one cannot be a good Catholic and be pro-choice. This view is shared by every teaching authority in the Church, so I feel I’m on safe grounds here.
But since you mention “safe” as the key term, I’ll point out it is perfectly possible to be a good Catholic and participate in, or procure, an abortion if necessary to save the life of the mother. In this case, if this is what you mean by safe (and if you mean “legal” only at times like that), then yes.
However, “safe” does not extend to preventing the mother’s inconvenience. The rights of the innocent unborn baby inside her are thought to outweigh her inconvenience - although not her own life.
In commentary to the voting public, the U.S. Bishops have affirmed that in voting, Catholics should recognize that although social justice and charity are important, they are meaningless in a society that does not protect the unborn’s right to life FIRST.
So does that mean voting for someone not on the extreme right wing would, in the eyes of the Church, endanger one’s immortal soul? Or, to put it less dramatically, can you vote for liberal candidates and be a good Catholic?
Or, to put it less dramatically, can you vote for liberal candidates and be a good Catholic?