https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...those-in-the-church-presenting-false-teaching Cardinal Burke: We must ‘resist’ those in the Church presenting false teaching on marriage, sacraments Pete Baklinski Follow Pete ROME, May 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- Cardinal Raymond Burke stated on the weekend that faithful Catholics must “resist” a perspective within the Church that seeks to undermine the truths of the Catholic faith regarding the indissolubility of marriage and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The general theme of the talk was “Martyrdom for the Faith in Our Times and it was presented within a Rome Life Forum emphasis on concerns about Pope Francis' recent document Amoris Laetitia. “Of particular concern to me is a growing mundane perspective, a man-centered and world-centered perspective, especially in the Church,” he said, adding that the perspective expresses itself in a “secular understanding of the divine realities.” He was speaking to pro-life and pro-family leaders gathered at the Roman Life Forum conference in Rome on May 7. Read the full text of Cardinal Burke's speech here. “For example, today in the Church, there are those who refer to the objective reality of the grace of marriage as merely an ideal to which we more or less seek to conform ourselves,” he said. Last month Pope Francis released his post-synodal exhortation on the family, titled Amoris Laetitia. In his first response to the document, Cardinal Burke had taken issue with the frequent use of the word "ideal" in reference to Christian teaching on marriage. In Amoris Laetitia Pope Francis wrote, “At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families,” adding that this “excessive idealization” of marriage “has not helped to make marriage more desirable and attractive, but quite the opposite.” At another place Pope Francis suggests that “many people feel that the Church’s message on marriage and the family does not clearly reflect the preaching and attitudes of Jesus.” In his critique Cardinal Burke had observed, "Such a description of marriage can be misleading. It could lead the reader to think of marriage as an eternal idea to which, in the changing historical circumstances, man and woman more or less conform. But Christian marriage is not an idea; it is a sacrament that confers grace upon a man and woman to live in faithful, permanent and procreative love of each other. Every Christian couple who validly marry receive, from the moment of their consent, the grace to live the love that they pledge to each other." The cardinal also stated that Amoris Laetitia is not magisterial, but rather a "personal reflection" of the pope. A number of liberal prelates and theologians within the Church have praised the Pope’s exhortation for what they say is an implicit approval of admitting to Holy Communion those Catholics who have been civilly divorced and remarried. Some cite as evidence paragraph 305 with footnote 351, which, when read together, suggest that the Church can help those living in an “objective situation of sin” to “grow in the life of grace” through the “Church’s help,” which “can include the help of the sacraments.” While not mentioning Amoris Laetitia explicitly, Cardinal Burke warned conference participants of an interpretation of Catholicism, in particular on marriage and access to the sacraments, that leads to “confusion” since it is not based in the truth of the faith. “The mundane vision, which, because it is not true, leads to confusion and division within the Body of Christ, ends up by denying the fundamental principle of right reason, called the principle of non-contradiction, namely the law that a thing cannot be and not be in the same respect at the same time.” “For example, it cannot be that the Church professes faith in the indissolubility of marriage, in accord with the law of God written upon every human heart and announced in the word of Christ, and at the same time admits to the Sacraments those who publicly live in violation of the indissolubility of marriage. If a person who is living publicly in violation of his or her marriage bond is admitted to the Sacraments, then either marriage is not indissoluble or the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not the Body of Christ and the encounter with Christ in the Sacrament of Penance does not require the firm purpose of amendment of our lives, that is, obedience to the word of Christ, ‘sin no more,’ he said. Watch the Cardinal's full talk below: Cardinal Burke told conference participants that such “mundane” thinking must be resisted. “We are all tempted to engage in such worldly ways of thought. It is my hope today to assist you in the battle to resist such thinking, in order to remain true to Christ Who is alive in you through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” he said. Cardinal Burke made repeated reference to the writings and thoughts of Servant of God Father John Anthony Hardon of the Society of Jesus. He stated Father Hardon wrote: “Catholicism is in the throes of the worst crisis in its entire history. Unless true and loyal Catholics have the zeal and the spirit of the early Christians, unless they are willing to do what they did and to pay the price that they paid, the days of America are numbered.” Burke added that Fr. Hardon “…saw how decades of a thin and even false catechesis had created a situation in which many Catholics were illiterate regarding the faith. He saw how many were left in confusion and error regarding the most fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith and of the moral law written upon the human heart and definitively articulated through the word of Christ handed down in the Church. A lack of formation in the virtues, and general confusion and error regarding the moral law was wreaking destruction and death in the lives of many individuals and of many families.” Regarding the martyrdom of witness that truly faithful Catholics experience in our time, Cardinal Burke explained, “Observing the great confusion and error, also within the Church, in the present time, Father Hardon frequently reminded all of the faithful that they must prepare themselves to suffer greatly, even to undergo martyrdom, in order to be faithful to the teaching of Christ in His Church.” He expressed his “solidarity” with the Rome Life Forum conference participants, praising them for their “commitment to safeguard and promote the inviolable dignity of innocent and defenseless human life, and the integrity of its cradle in marriage and the family.” The American Cardinal, who has given constant encouragement to pro-life and pro-family leaders, ended his talk stating, “In the context of the Rome Life Forum, I close by expressing my deep appreciation for the martyrdom which so many of you embrace for the sake of the defense of human life and its cradle in the conjugal union of husband and wife We embrace indifference, ridicule, rejection, and other forms of persecution because we love Our Lord and all our brothers and sisters in Him, in His holy Church."
Amen and amen. He can only say so much publicly without being silenced. He fully expects us laity to do the majority of the heavy lifting. Are you?
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2016/05/nasty-and-dirty.html?m1&m=1 Nasty and Dirty Many people very much more holy and learned than I am have spoken of the great riches and beauties which are to be found in Amoris laetitia. Since, we are told, portions of it were added at the request of the CDF, I see no reason why this should not be true. But I think footnote 329 is thoroughly Nasty and Dirty. It is dealing with the idea that "remarried" divorcees might live together as brother and sister. But, in the course of doing this, it quotes Gaudium et Spes. Since the Conciliar Document is referring ad locum to the spacing of families by married couples, this misrepresents the Council. It is always Nasty and Dirty to tell lies, particularly when it is a case of radically misrepresenting the teaching of an ecclesiastical organ ... an Ecumenical Council ... to which Christian people might feel they owed a duty of respect. And, finally, this footnote appears to accept by implication the proposition that the Grace of God is not able to give Christian people the strength to live in accordance with His will. That is Nasty and Dirty. The Church has always taught that Chastity is within the reach of those who live in God's grace. Millions of Christians have found this to be true. Indeed, this repulsive little footnote really does draw back the lace curtain on the Nastiness and the Dirt to be found inside the Holy Father's House of 'Mercy'. Some people, we are informed, point out that if "remarried" divorcees live together without sex, one or both of them will be in danger of cheating on their new quasi-spouse. Surprise, surprise! One, at least, and perhaps both, have almost certainly already cheated on another and lawful spouse; is there really any reason why they should not cheat on a new and unlawful "spouse"? Go on: be realistic! Isn't it what we should expect? And this footnote does not even put into the mouths of the "couple" the sentiment If we try to live as brother and sister we shall probably fall, and end up in bed together. That, at least, would be human and honest. And it could be given a gentle and understanding pastoral answer. But No! Footnote 329 says it is the 'fidelity' of the new quasi-marriage which will be endangered. In other words, Cardinal Marx's "remarried" divorcees are making the threat You've got to let us have sex together because if you don't we'll have sex anyway ... BUT WITH OTHER PEOPLE!! So there !!! A seedy lot, both the Cardinal and the adulterers he so enthusiastically sponsors. However, since a new relationship has, by producing children, created new obligations, this situation should, we are often told, be accepted. If it is true that quasi-union II can do this, why should quasi-union III not do the same? The idea that Adultery can, as it were, be regularised by the emergence of a new economic unit, a second family, has endless ramifications! Paradoxically, we should, I think, thank God for the very open Nastiness and Dirtiness of Footnote 329. At least we know where we are, and the sort of people we are dealing with.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/201...for_sinners,_no_negotiating_the_truth/1231164 http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2016/05/breaking-pope-francis-claims-jesus.html
I can read nothing unorthodox by the Pope from these two articles. Of course, the usual laboured syntax and wearisome cliches are present. One could very well interpret the statements as a swipe at those who would twist AL for their own nefarious purposes, but, as usual, it is impossible to be clear when dealing with Pope Francis.
Impossible for Catholics perhaps but not for an atheist like Eugenio Scalfari. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/11/bombshell-pope-to-his-favorite.html Remember the scramble to deny that the Pope had told Mr. Scalfari that the outcome of the Synod would be Communion for the divorced and remarried? Mr. Scalfari was old.......Mr. Scalfari misunderstood.......Mr. Scalfari didn't take notes. It was all down to Mr. Scalfari getting it wrong, yet Mr. Scalfari didn't get it wrong. Either the Pope's favourite atheist journalist is on the same wavelength as the Pope and Cardinal Kasper or the Pope was more direct and honest with him than he was with the faithful. Maybe we Catholics should ask Mr. Scalfari to give us his interpretation of all the Holy Father's homilies. It might leave us wringing our hands but at least it would save us scratching our heads.
Interesting....at least from the Pope's perspective if not as yet a public reality....and perhaps hopeful when it comes to Medjugorje: Müller Out, Schönborn In. The Pope Has Changed Doctrine Teachers For Francis, the right interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” is not that of the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, but that of the Austrian cardinal. Here, for the first time, is his complete text by Sandro Magister But it is increasingly evident that for Pope Francis, it is not Müller but another cardinal who is the teacher of doctrine authorized to shed light on the post-synodal exhortation: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. On May 19, in meeting at the Vatican with the two cardinals and three bishops who make up the presidency of the Latin American episcopal conference, when asked about “Amoris Laetitia” Francis responded as follows, according to the website of the CELAM: “The pope responds that the heart of the exhortation is chapter 4: love in family life, founded on chapter 13 of the first letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. While the most difficult to read is chapter 8. Some, the pope say, have let themselves get trapped by this chapter. The Holy Father is fully aware of the criticisms of some, including cardinals, who have been unable to understand the evangelical meaning of his statements. And he says that the best guide for understanding this chapter is the presentation of it made by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, O.P., archbishop of Vienna, Austria, a great theologian, member of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, highly expert in the doctrine of the Church.” Already on April 16, questioned by the journalists on the return flight to Rome from the island of Lesbos, Francis had indicated Schönborn as the right interpreter of the document, recommending that his presentation be read and rewarding him on the spot with flattering titles, even mistakenly promoting him to former “secretary” of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. But then Müller gave his talk in Oviedo, with the intention of bringing clarity to the carousel of contrasting interpretations and applications of “Amoris Laetitia” that had already gained a foothold. But for the pope, that talk of his wasn’t worth a thing. Just as it wasn’t worth a thing for “L'Osservatore Romano,” which completely ignored it. For Francis, in fact, the only one that still applies is the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” made by Schönborn at the official presentation of the document, in the Vatican press office on April 8, the day of its publication. more: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351305?eng=y
“Amoris laetitia takes a step in the direction marked by Wojtyla” An interview with the philosopher Rocco Buttiglione, an expert on the teaching of St. John Paul II: “The perspective of Francis is perfectly traditional. The novelty is in applying the possible mitigations provided for all other sins, as they are quoted in the Catechism of St. Pius X, to the sin committed by the divorced and remarried as well” Rocco Buttiglione 30/05/2016 ANDREA TORNIELLI VATICAN CITY “Amoris laetitia involves pastoral risks. Some may say it is a pastoral decision that is mistaken, but please let us do away with the apocalyptic tones, and stop saying that the doctrine on indissolubility is being put into question when we are dealing with a pastoral choice that relates to the discipline of the sacraments and which is grafted on a path whose foundations were laid by Pope John Paul II.” Professor Rocco Buttiglione, a philosopher, scholar and profound connoisseur of the magisterium of Pope Wojtyla, was struck by some of the criticisms of the post-synodal exhortation by Francis. Vatican Insider interviewed him. What do you think of the exhortation Amoris laetitia as a whole? “It seems to me to be a great effort to speak the word of faith within the context of today’s world. Which was also the biggest concern of John Paul II: the real man, the existing man, the man of reality, not the one described in the books or the one we would wish him to be.” What relationship do you see between this document by Francis and the magisterium of Pope Wojtyla? “Once, the Church excommunicated the divorced who had remarried. It did so for the sake of a valid concern: to avoid scandal and to not put into question the indissolubility of marriage. But then we were living in a concise Christianity. It was presumed that everyone knew what marriage was, a sacrament in which the spouses become mutual guarantors of the love of God and therefore if one leaves, in some way it is as if God has left too. John Paul II said that the divorced and remarried could not be excommunicated, remembering that in every sin there are objective and subjective factors. There are people who can do the wrong thing, which remains an evil, but without being totally responsible. So Pope Wojtyla opened up, inviting the divorced and remarried to enter the Church, receiving them, baptizing their children, reintegrating them into the Christian community. But without readmitting them to communion - as in point 84 of Familiaris Consortio - unless they came back with the legitimate spouse, or separated from the new spouse, or lived in the second marriage as brother and sister, that is abstaining from sexual relations.” And now what does Amoris laetitia propose? “Francis is taking a further step forward in this direction. He does not say that the divorced and remarried can receive or expect communion, hurrah! No! Divorce is awful and there can be no sexual acts outside of marriage. This moral teaching has not changed. The Pope says that now the divorced and remarried can go to confession, starting a path of discernment with the priest. As is done in every confession, for every sin, the priest must evaluate whether all the conditions exist for a sin to be considered mortal. To those of my colleagues who uttered strong words against Amoris laetitia I should mention that St. Pius X - not exactly a modernist Pope - in his Catechism recalled that mortal sin requires a grave matter, but also full awareness and deliberate consent, that is, full freedom to assume total responsibility for what I did.” Why is this so important for the case we are talking about? “Because today, in many cases, there is not full awareness. There are huge masses of the baptized who are not evangelized. One might say, but in these cases, there is the process of matrimonial nullity. Yes, this is true, although we must remember that in many parts of the world it is not as easy to access the ecclesiastical courts and it is not always so easy to find out the truth. We live in a world of wounded families, of wounded people, people who may find themselves in situations which they are unable to escape. You have to evaluate everything and help them get out of the situation of sin, to begin a journey, but without doing violence to spouses who accompanied them in a second marriage and who might have been close to them in a dramatic moment of their lives: think of the case of a mother with small children, abandoned by her husband, who has joined a man who took care of those children. We are talking about issues that require discernment, sensitivity, great humanity, compassion, guidance....” With what as the final outcome, Professor? “The question is: at what point of this process will the priest give communion? When he considers that the conditions are there, with nothing automatic and no shortcuts, but also without slamming the door in someone’s face before the personal stories have been seriously evaluated. This is the idea of the Church as a field hospital, which is so dear to Pope Francis. If we were at Bethesda Naval Hospital where the President of the United States is treated, the patient would come out perfectly healed, after all the necessary interventions have been made. In the field hospital, they begin to staunch the wounds.” .....
continued What relationship does this perspective have with the tradition of the Church? “This perspective is perfectly traditional. Amoris laetitia says: let us also evaluate the subjective conditions for the sin of those who have been divorced and now live in a new union. It is an eminently pastoral question. I remember Don Luigi Giussani when he said: “You must judge the acts, and never judge the person, because that belongs only to God.” Only to God, and also a little to the confessor. I have read dramatic and unacceptable commentaries on the document, and in particular on a footnote.” With the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia something has changed, then? “Of course something has changed! But neither the morality nor the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage have changed. The pastoral discipline of the Church is changing. Until yesterday, for the sin committed by the divorced and remarried, there was a presumption of total guilt. Now even for this sin the subjective aspect will be evaluated, as is the case for murder, for not paying taxes, for exploiting workers, for all the other sins we commit. The priest listens and also assesses the mitigating circumstances. Do these circumstances change the nature of the situation? No, a divorce and a new union remain objectively evil. Do these circumstances change the responsibility of the person involved? Maybe yes. You have to discern.” Does the emphasis on the subjective aspect risk turning into of form of subjectivism? “It is not subjectivism. It is the fair consideration of human subjectivity. This is taught by St. Thomas Aquinas: you did something wrong but you cannot always assume all of the responsibility. Fundamentally this moral doctrine began on Calvary, when the crucified Jesus says: ‘Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.’” Some say that by readmitting the Eucharist, only in certain cases and after a path of discernment, the people in this situation would be changing the doctrine of the Church. What do you think? “It is not a matter of doctrine. The doctrine remains as it is concerning the assessment of what is evil and what is not. Instead, we are talking about subjective accountability and any possible mitigating circumstances. In announcing the Gospel we have to ask ourselves what should be said first and what should be said later. Jesus did not say to John and Andrew: ‘First keep the commandments,’ but ‘Come and see!’. When St. Paul went to the Areopagus of Athens, his heart boiled in anger over all those altars to various deities. But when he took the floor, he said to the Athenians: ‘I admire your religion ...’ and then focused on the altar to the unknown God, proclaiming Jesus Christ. He began there. The time would come later to say that the other altars should be removed. Pope Francis declares that Jesus loves every man and woman in any situation in which they may find themselves, and wants every man and every woman to be saved by meeting the embrace of his mercy. Then there will be the commandments, but we cannot allow a mistake made in life to exclude anyone from this embrace.” And yet Saint John Paul II fought against situational ethics, which is based on the subjective aspect ... “What I see in some opponents of the Pope is the desire to remain only on the side of objectivity. It is true, as you recall, that Pope Wojtyla fought against situational ethics, according to which there is no objectivity, but only the subjective intention. Obviously this is not the case: there is the objective nature of an act. But John Paul II never thought, even remotely, of negating subjectivity. There are situations of sin from which it is difficult to extricate oneself. We live in a society of pansexualism in which there is less consciousness of certain ethical evidence. Because certain truths are assimilated by all, it takes patience and it takes the effort of going on a journey. Are there risks? Sure! Some might be inclined to think that a divorce and a new union are no longer an evil; someone who has remained faithful, even when separated from his marriage, might think there has been some mistake; someone else might fear the risk that consciences will weaken. There are pastoral risks, without a doubt. For this reason we must guide and explain. But it is a pastoral decision. Some may say it is wrong but please let us do away with the apocalyptic tones, and stop saying that the doctrine on indissolubility is being put in to question when we are faced with a choice that relates to the discipline of the sacraments and which is grafted on a path whose foundations were laid by Pope John Paul II.” http://www.lastampa.it/2016/05/30/v...by-wojtyla-ZdNeNqIoSgzMgt438ELD2J/pagina.html
Nonsense. You can subscribe to this heterodox way of thinking if you prefer, but please do not insult our intelligence or drag the holy name of St JPII through the mud. This is not a "step in the direction" of St. JPII, but a blatant step over a red line. Read his words, they are very, very clear: e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried 84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation. Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid. Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope. However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[180] Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage. By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner. With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.
The speed with which you responded to my posting of the article would suggest you didn't read it or you read it somewhat superficially. Just quoting from John Paul's exhortation is hardly a response to anything the philosopher has said.
I read what you posted. The essence of it is that doctrine has not been changed because doctrine cannot be changed so doctrine is being set aside to allow something that putting doctrine into practice forbids.
Looks like Tornielli is speaking to the requirements for ALL mortal sins as designated in the teaching of the Catechism. For instance, this other case could very well be a person committing ongoing mortal sin due to an undeterred addiction that is molding his behavior, and he got himself into this situation by moving beyond the moral barriers he was aware of in his first choice of bad behavior. And this ongoing behavior is scandalous to family, neighbors, work associates who witness such incomplete conversion that is accepted since they also see this person, within the "objective" rules of the Church, continue to receive the Eucharist, perhaps insincerely as so many today do. In this case of continued mortal sin, one could say that it isn't mortal due to what is influencing his thinking/free will at this point. Still, his original choice that got him into this more serious condition the consequences of which he knew at the time making that choice cannot be resolved. It is taught that he can receive absolution and then receive the Eucharist....he must have, at the time at least, the will to not recommit this or other grievous sins. And yet, he falls again due to human weakness, in this case a chemical dependency which has other repercussions on the emotional, psychological, physical. All of that is taken into consideration by the rules of the Catechism for such a case and requires very serious ongoing pastoral guidance. (the real trouble with all of these "objective" and rather utopian called for situations today is that we just don't have "pastors" any longer for the most part. We have a lot of secular administrators who do not give as much attention or desire to their real calling....the spiritual while "using" the whole family to care for the physical necessities of the faithful as well. And those same "administrators" give some of the most uneducated misinformation to the faithful about what they of all people should know the best.) So in these "other" cases of living in mortal sin for the most part other than perhaps short periods of stability have openings for the continued reception of the Eucharist. IOW, it's not permanently closed to them while their current situation that involves horrible ongoing temptations would not be there if they had not made the original choice that opened up their then unknown disposition for such. So Tornielli is saying that for the first time some are actually trying to apply the rules for mortal sin that are included for all other cases....which themselves may be ongoing as well with the same amount of scandal for the Faith in the public......to this also ongoing "objective" living in mortal sin. In these cases though, absolution for the original grave error of behavior that has gotten the person into the current living situation of mortal sin, is beyond what is permitted for "cooperation" with others in mortal sin with no real hope of getting out of their ongoing dilemmas either. Ongoing "pastoral" care in all of these situations today seems beyond the capability of reality. And yet, those abiding by the rules themselves in authority have been culpable of teaching exactly that kind of "loose" way of thinking by their own lapses in their vocations that people have followed, in spirit, and then later found themselves living out the consequences. So that "spotlight" on one condition for the family life is asked by the thoughts of Tornielli to broaden its light to the overall "objective" rules that should govern ALL objective mortal sin.
ETA, Tornielli is simply asking the questions in the article. The professor answering the questions is Rocco Buttiglione. There is a page about him at: http://www.pass.va/content/scienzesociali/en/academicians/ordinary/buttiglione.html
Yes, Tornielli's name stuck in my head. I was just pointing to the considerations of mortal sin in general as outlined in the catechism....as being offered in the interview by the interviewee. Don't know the man so thanks for the link. Wonder what JPII thought of him if he read him. Comes from the background of philosophy with a bent for social politics rather than theology but don't know if these days that really matters!!
Addiction is not a true comparison unless the remarried person has an addiction to sex. A better comparison would be, say, a married man with a young family and a well paying job. He loses his job. High unemployment and his age make finding a job impossible. He has bills to pay and a mortgage on a property that is in negative equity yet needs to provide for his family so steals or acts as a "fence" for stolen property. A sin, and depending on the amount stolen and damage done, a mortal sin. To be forgiven he needs to repent and make reparation. He is sorry and repents but doesn't have the wherewithal to make reparation but is forgiven anyway. His financial circumstances disimprove, his wife threatens to leave him if he can't provide for the family and save the roof over their heads, so he gets involved in regular stealing or maybe fencing stolen goods. He isn't addicted to stealing but his alternative to stealing is the break-up of his family. Is the Church's teaching on the 7th Commandment to be set aside in this case? What if the man is running a small business that is going under and his way out is laundering Mafia money? Would the Pope recommend a pastoral approach for him, or would he be summarily excommunicated due to his Mafia connections?
I take this as a very,very, very bad sign indeed. I don't know how else to take it. I am very concerned. May God help us all, from bad to worse, how much more bad can it get? http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351305?eng=y
