Francis continues to demonstrate a full heart and model a much better direction for the Catholic church, in this non-Catholic’s opinion.
But is he really a great guy helping turn the battleship and this is a wonderful step, or is it hypocritical to try to fit in both Catholic Doctrine and a good place for same-sex and divorcee types to come (back) to?
Also: this Papal paper (;)) has been out for the day. Am I really the first to start a thread on it on the Dope?
I kind of wish there was something more definite here. I am a (very bad) Catholic, and recently divorced. Easter was the first mass I attended since my divorce in October (hey, I said I was very bad). In an abundance of morality, I didn’t receive Communion because there are conflicting ideas about whether the divorce itself takes away the right, or if it is remarriage. Either way, my intent is not to live single forever and ever, so I decided that I probably shouldn’t receive Communion.
It made me really sad. Although I am a *very *bad Catholic, it always felt like something that I might want to go back to at some point in my life. But, the rules as of two weeks ago didn’t allow for me to go back at a full participatory level. The new apolistic exhortation doesn’t seem to change the rules formally or informally. It seems to only ask for compassion for those in less than ideal situations (note that I have not read the whole thing, just news releases about it). I’m all about compassion, but I would like to feel like I am following the rules and not relying on a priest to look the other way.
Civil Divorce does not take away your readiness to receive the Eucharist.
Remarriage does.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I thought that was the case, but I did some digging and found that at least some Catholic sources indicated that my giving up on my marriage was a betrayal of the bond that God blessed and thus made me ineligible for Communion. The same site said that a woman who is beaten by her husband should not seek a divorce, but is encouraged to live separately while being willing to forgive if the man changes (genders from the website, not from me). Perhaps I stumbled on some ultra-conservative Catholic information. I certainly trust **Bricker **more than a random website.
The fact does remain that I do plan on remarrying someday, and will do it without the slightest compunction because I don’t think that people should be obligated to grow old alone because they had a marriage that was unfixable. But I do acknowledge that if I want to participate in Catholicism, I morally have to play by the Catholic rules. To that end, I wouldn’t even seek an annulment because there was nothing about my marriage that truly gives me an adequate reason for annulment, even though it has gotten easy enough to get an annulment that I could get a canonical lawyer to arrange it for me.
We have a gay couple who attends our church. At least, everyone assumes they are. Nobody makes a big deal about it. Including our priest.
The more catholic priests (and archbishops) get caught raping altar boys, the more forgiving the Pope becomes.
Just my cynical view. But accurate, I think.
I don’t think of it as changing anything, but just further acknowledging what’s been there all along: We’re all sinners. Full stop. Grace is what saves you, not being a stickler for rules.
Honest question here. Why would you not just attend a church where divorced and remarried people are fully welcome? Are you that convinced that ONLY Roman Catholicism has the one true belief and that God is not open minded enough to actually accept christians of many denominations as good people worthy of salvation? (Or even non christians who leave righteous lives)
As does willfully missing Mass:
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that teaching clearly in No. 2181: “The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants). Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.”
Gravity of matter, of course, is just one of the three necessary conditions for a mortal sin — the others being complete consent of the will and full knowledge of the sinful character of the act or omission."
If you were talking about JPII or BenedictXVI, that might hold water. But Francis has made a career out of compassion and ecumenism; this is not out of character for him, either as priest, bishop, cardinal, or Bishop of Rome.
[QUOTE=coremelt]
Honest question here. Why would you not just attend a church where divorced and remarried people are fully welcome? Are you that convinced that ONLY Roman Catholicism has the one true belief and that God is not open minded enough to actually accept christians of many denominations as good people worthy of salvation? (Or even non christians who leave righteous lives)
[/QUOTE]
While I believe you are sincere and intended no offense, and you asked Mithril anyway. That said, isn’t this an odd thing to say? While I do know some Protestants who loosely consider all non-orthodox faiths acceptable, and wouldn’t feel out of place going to almost any church that appeals to them culturally, people don’t generally switch religions out of convenience.
As far as it goes, Mithril, whether you’ve done anything wrong is between you, your priest, and the Almighty. But don’t hold yourself back because you might do something in the future. That’s a test none of us can pass. Also, noone but you can clearly look at your circumstances, but you should probably talk to your priest about Annulment. It’s not an easy process or a quick one, but it may be an option for you.
How does the old saying go? The Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. And this is, as I said, an old saying. Like so much of what Francis has been saying, this is nothing new: It’s just a matter of changing priorities and focus.
Helping sinners walk the straight and narrow is one of the main purposes of Church. Hell, if we were all sinless, we wouldn’t need religion.
I’m anti-Catholic for reasons of pure ignorance of their Teachings, but Pope Francis has earned my deepest respect, he’s a good man, all of us should heed his words and policies.
He’s better than most by a long shot, but I’ll continue to ignore his words and policies concerning SSM, abortion and birth control, thank-you-very-much!
Look into the number of aids related deaths in Africa yearly, ask yourself how many of those could have been prevented by simple condom use. Now understand that the church is rabidly anti birth control in all forms and in Africa they would rather people die than use a condom. They tell people everywhere that condom use is a sin you will burn in hell for.
No I dont think hes a good guy, he just says things that make Catholics and christians in general feel good. Its basic pandering 101.
He’s pissing off a lot of conservative Catholics. So if he is pandering, it is pandering to a different audience than the supporters of the previous two Popes.
Personally I think he is probably sincere - he seems to have the pre-Pope track record to support his current actions. But as John Mace notes it is a sincere message that I personally can only partly agree to.
Perhaps if each side quit ignoring the other, neither side would seem as ignorant. I didn’t say obey, I said heed, there’s a difference.
I think we both know how much of the AIDS epidemic could have been prevented with simple monogamy. I’m not so sure that Catholics are as rabid about condom use as you seem to presume. I believe they scale their sins and condom use isn’t one to get you cast into Hell. From the UK’s Telegraph article “[Pope Francis] stressed that abstinence was the best policy in fighting [AIDS] but in some circumstances it was better for a condom to be used if it protected human life.”
=====
With what little I know of Catholic Teachings, I believe they consider that life begins at conception. As such, abortion is murder of the worstest kind, killing the absolute weakest of us. I’m not saying a agree, but Catholics are entitled to believe such and enforce this law on their own kind. It is felony assault to try and perform an abortion on a man, so half of us are covered well enough.
I know what the difference is. The RCC’s teaching on those things is not just morally questionable, it’s dangerous. Especially the teachings about birth control.
And there’s more than a bit of truth to the old joke: You no playa the game, you no maka the rules.
How is abstinence a dangerous form of birth control, AIDS prevention or abortion prohibition? You have to admit, saying not having sex is a dangerous sexual practice comes across a little weird. Catholics make their own rules, if one doesn’t like them, then don’t be a Catholic … simple.
It doesn’t work IRL? But then, the RCC doesn’t teach abstinence (for married couples). Not sure where you are getting that
Well, at least you reversed your earlier position that we should all heed his teachings.