Will the outcome of Synod XV affect liturgy and sacred music?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Maybe my "mother bear" instinct is kicking in. Mother bears aren't particularly good at quietism. Monks and priests have different vocations and will have a different response than parents of large families. : )

    I still don't see the problem with calmly discussing current church events, which is what I thought I was doing. People on this forum get a whole lot more stressed out and panicky over things like parishioners complaining and pastors harassing them and having to play Michael Joncas music than I am about the prospect of the Pope dissolving the Papacy and the very real possibility of The End Of The Church As We Know It (hereafter referred to as the TEOTCAWKI).
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,008
    You know, popes can be removed from office for heresy. The fact that they CAN be removed for that indicates the possibility is not farfetched.

    *All of us already need to be wise virgins...

    I blew my chances at that one in my early teens. The sixties - you had to be there.

    I have whole-hearted faith in the indefectibility of the Church. I know the Church will survive; I'm


    It will survive, but who knows what it will look like.

    It's just like when you see the clouds get dark and the sky starts to turn yellow around the edges and little whispy funnel clouds start forming on the horizon. That's when I turn on the radio and call my neighbors and start getting my tornado supplies ready so I can grab everyone and run into the basement if need be.


    My crazy sister is of the sky is falling bent. We had tornado warnings in the area, but they are so rare in this mountainous area that even if they did occur, they can't go very far before hitting a mountain. She called me at 2:00 a.m. once to tell me she had heard the warning and I needed to go into the basement. I reminded her, not as tactfully as I could have, that my house doesn't have a basement. Yes, the sky is falling but no one has to tell me about it. LOL.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 649
    Remember, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Give over all your worries on this matter to God and trust in Him. They will do what is right for the Church.
  • ^^^ Yes, they will ^^^

    (Perhaps in spite of themselves...)
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Very funny, Charles, but sometimes Chicken Littles (and moms) are right.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I had a thought on the main question, to which I replied earlier: Will the outcome of this synod affect sacred music?

    I've already proposed that if the Roman church adopts a more tolerant tone towards homosexuality, it may result in more choristers and choirmasters of good taste and talent becoming active in parishes.

    However, it is more likely that there may be changes as to the discipline regarding the divorced and remarried, and THAT may have a similar impact on liturgy and music (through an increase in attendance.) I know of one chorister who is now considering taking advantage of now-lax annulment regulations, and he may be leaving the Episcopal Church to return to the Roman church. In some areas, TEC is filled with divorced and remarried Catholics who feel outcast by their home church. It may be that many of them could return depending on how the synod goes.

    Mind you, I'm not saying any of this to celebrate it. I'm looking from afar, and I share a similar outlook as most here. However, I think there may yet be some silver lining to these storm clouds for us, even if only in a purely pragmatic way. (Which is what I thought was being discussed.)
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,234
    Spiritual Tornado Supplies: (not particularly in this order)

    1. The Sacrament of Confession (if it is even available)
    2. The Mass (if it is even available)
    3. Rosary (get one now!)
    4. Faith, Hope and Love

    Miscellaneous
    5. Beer
    Thanked by 3Liam JulieColl CHGiffen
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Francis, don't forget your Liber!

    Gavin, everyone is free to dream of a new Church paradigm if they like, and that's fine, but Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass."

    It's a symptom of the times that this has to be repeated, but the Church has no power to change what Jesus has instituted. Divorce and remarriage (without an annulment) is adultery. Jesus said so. That can't change. The bishop can't change it, the episcopal conference can't change it, the Synod can't change it, and the Pope can't change it because God has revealed it.
    Thanked by 3Blaise francis eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,008
    Gavin has a point. I know several musicians who have left the church over marriage issues. Most of them divorced and remarried and ended up in Protestant churches. Now we know no one would ever leave the Catholic church because of low salaries, don't we. ;-)

    Some would come back if they were welcomed and their new marriages accepted. Some would not, but most would.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 649
    @Julie, have faith. The synod will not make decisions that will contradict Church doctrine. We have the Holy Spirit's word on it. Place all your fears in God's very capable hands and be at peace.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    That's so kind of you, bh. Thanks.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,008
    The Holy Spirit guides, but that is no guarantee that anyone is listening or following.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Blaise
    Posts: 423
    There was a medical doctor, a member of the Romanian-Greek Catholic Church (another Byzantine Catholic church in full communion with the Holy See) and of the Association of Catholic Doctors in Bucharest, who spoke at length the other day. Her parents grew up in the Communist era, and her mother waited seventeen years to marry her father, even though she (the mother) did not even know if he was still alive. Now there is a prime example of faithfulness many of us could learn from.

    "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand."

    This is the message the physician wants the Catholic bishops (the physicians of souls, I will add) to warn the world. Not to give into the spirit of the world and its sexual revolution. At the end of her talk, she said that not only Catholics but also many Orthodox are praying for the synod, for if the Catholic Church gives into the spirit of the world, it will be very hard for everyone else to resist it.

    There you have it. We must get it right, even if people aren't willing to accept the truth. We cannot adjust Church teaching--Christ's teaching, we believe it to be, even if we may get one or two or more people back, and since we are on a sacred music forum, even if we get a busload of musicians back. I cannot play the organ or even the piano, but if need be, I could probably conduct a choir (granted, it may not be Sistine Chapel quality, but it will do) and keep a parish music program afloat in the event of a mass resignation of directors of music (worst case scenario, purposely made up to make a point). So, even though this is a music forum, I am more concerned about the divine honor and the overall salvation of souls. And if all the world's Catholic organists resign their posts because they do not agree with Catholic teaching, so be it.
  • conduct a choir... it may not be Sistine Chapel quality, but...

    That would be pretty awful, indeed!
  • Blaise
    Posts: 423
    Now, now, Mr. Osborn,

    In desperate times, we can't be too picky, can we? :)
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • ....But, times, I think, are not that desperate!

    (It occurs to me that there are likely a number of us on this forum, who, given six months with the Sistine Chapel choir, could make a real choir out of it.)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,765
    It seems to have improved, and recently released a new recording. Audio at:
    http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/us/cat/4795300
  • Many thanks indeed for this, Chonak. I must confess that I have never heard such music-making from this choir. Bravo!
  • Blaise
    Posts: 423
    I just checked out some of their videos on YouTube. They sounded relatively good to me. Were they really that bad before? I must have missed something. I thought this was the world famous....Sistine Chapel Choir?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Jackson is a little behind the curve. I have CANTATE DOMINO, did a cursory review at the Café, and as I have been the largest detractor of the Bartolucci era, the new Sixtina is not your dad's Oldsmobile. Their recording deserves serious review from a number of fronts. Try to trust me MJO.
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,104
    Well if Melo becomes the Holy Father, who will be the college of cardinals? I'm assuming of course he would do the proper thing and install ALL OF US. Not that I have an opinion...
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    gh, I've reluctantly pulled a Biden and withdrawn due to pressure from my betters, yes I'm looking at you Jeffrey Quick. If it's consolation, for all my CMAA peers, I would have included a red hat with the fiddlebacks. I now have to consider endorsing the remaining two candidates, Cdubya and the antipope J. Pennington.
    I would consider being offered the post of Association Jester if Mahrt and Jenny don't object.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    Original in Italian
    http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2015/10/24/0816/01825.html

    Google translate
    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2015/10/24/0816/01825.html&edit-text=

    Given all the news about this Synod,
    how many could possibly know it was about
    The vocation and mission of the family in the Church and in the contemporary world
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Thanks eft, very much....Is this a "money" quote?
    On one hand, we must promote pathways to ensure the training of young people for marriage, on the other, must accompany those who live alone or without presenting a new family, prejudice frequently linked to the family of origin. Even couples who can not have children should be given special pastoral attention by the Church, which helps them to discover the plan of God on their situation, at the service of the whole community. Everyone needs a look of understanding, taking into account that situations away from church life are not always desired, often induced and sometimes suffered. In the perspective of faith there are excluded: all are loved by God and are important to pastoral activity of the Church.

    (emphases mine)
    Is this non-specific, ambivalent or vague? You make the call.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,325
    In the perspective of faith there are excluded:

    GoogleTranslate often gets things wrong, sometimes terribly wrong. A good example is this clause, in which the Italian for "they are not excluded" has become "there are excluded." The original Italian:
    Nell'ottica della fede non ci sono esclusi:

    I wonder how much else is not an accurate translation.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    Hahaha! We won the synod!
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    I think that very much depends upon the definitions of "we" and "won". I'm not ready to break out the champagne yet.

    My first reaction is that the conservatives "won" on the issue of homosexuality which has allegedly been kicked down the road, while the progressives "won" on the issue of Communion for the divorced/remarried since they were able to create a small opening, by way of the phrase "pastoral discernment".

    Whatever "pastoral discernment" is, I have no doubt it's a big enough opening for the progressives to drive a Mack truck through in time, and I think we're watching a re-enactment of the old "ticking timebomb" trick that was so effective in the wrongful implementation of the Vatican II documents.

    I also believe the final report is enough of an essay on ambiguity to require further clarifications; its unsatisfactory conclusion is the perfect excuse for the progressives to demand that the "pastoral solution" ball be punted to the bishops' conferences so they may relieve all that suffering and woundedness out there by "inculturating" ---or perhaps "adulterating" is the better word---the principles of Catholic doctrine and changing pastoral praxis at their own discretion.

    Those are obviously just my initial reactions, and I hope I'm totally wrong since I'm not feeling too optimistic right now.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    The Pope Francis speech.
    In several languages.
    Scroll down for english.
    http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2015/10/24/0817/01826.html#en
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    (Genesis 3:1)
    Did God really say ...
    http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

    And Eve put words in God's mouth.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,008
    As I have maintained for years, work truly is a curse. Here is the proof of it.

    Cursed is the ground* because of you!
    In toil you shall eat its yield
    all the days of your life.

    18
    Thorns and thistles it shall bear for you,
    and you shall eat the grass of the field.

    19
    By the sweat of your brow
    you shall eat bread,
    Until you return to the ground,
    from which you were taken;


  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Waiting for the other shoe to drop now. The way I see it, the Holy Father has three options:

    #1: BEST option: Will he correct the Final Relatio and amend it to be a completely orthodox statement in line with the hermeneutic of continuity and uphold Church's dogma on marriage and the Eucharist?

    #2: BAD option: Will he rubber-stamp the problematic Final Relatio as-is, with its thin veneer of orthodoxy, and keep the current loopholes in the text which, with very little effort, can allow the door to be pushed wide open for Communion for the divorced and remarried?

    #3: WORST OPTION (NUCLEAR OPTION) Will he take out entirely the section that currently bars the divorced and remarried from Communion and give a clear and unmistakable green light to the Kasper Proposal?

    No matter what he does (and I hope and pray it will be #1) the resulting document will become part of magisterial teaching. If he chooses either #2 or #3, that's when things are going to get rather dodgy.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    Or, none of the above.

    The way it works is
    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-outlines-family-synod-process

    He takes that Relatio doc
    (it is nothing more than a collection of notes),
    and writes his Post-Synodal Exhortation
    (who knows, maybe he and some of his hand-picked guys ghost-write it together)
    and release it in 2016.

    That Post-Synodal Exhortation (PSE) is the document to worry about.

    Wander around the vatican.va website
    and look for the PSEs from previous Synods.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,325
    "Divorced and remarried Catholics" come in three main types: 1) those who married in the Catholic Church both times; 2) those who married in the Catholic Church neither time; 3) those who married in the Catholic Church the first time, but not the second. (There are, of course, other possibilities, such as those who did not marry in the Catholic Church the first time but whose spouse in the second marriage did marry in the Catholic Church the first time.)

    I resent the judgment that all these people are adulterers. The Church certainly does not make that judgment. These persons are barred from holy communion whenever and because they are in irregular marriages, not because they are in "adulterous unions." Even some persons in their first marriage are in irregular marriages if at least one of the spouses is Catholic and the marriage was not celebrated according to "canonical form" or dispensation from that requirement. And the folks in my category #1 above are not in irregular marriages.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,234
    ronkrisman

    For clarification, please define 'adulterous union'.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    I would agree with you, Father, that it doesn't sound like the person in category #1 is living in an adulterous union since, if he/she was married the second time in the Church, he/she must have either outlived a spouse or his/her first marriage was invalid and was declared null by the Church.

    Of course, there are many possible configurations of married and divorced situations, but I think the common definition of "divorced and remarried" Catholics refers to a baptized Catholic, who, after contracting a valid first marriage, and with first spouse still living, obtains a civil divorce and "marries" someone outside the Church or is living together (not as husband and wife) with someone. Objectively speaking, such a situation has always been considered a mortal sin by the Church, and this is the definition I meant in my remark above.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,325
    Yes, Julie, I agree that "there are many possible configurations of married and divorced situations," and that is why labeling divorced and remarried Catholics - without providing any of the additional distinguishing information - as "adulterers" is so wrong.

    As far as defining what an "adulterous union" consists of - what francis requested - your second paragraph comes close to such a definition of an objectively sinful union. But, of course, subjective culpability is another matter.

    I would add to this important discussion that, from my experience of several years as a tribunal judge, I know that quite a number of irregular marriages (which bar the Catholic spouse from receiving communion) are first marriages for those Catholics, who happened to marry spouses who had been previously married once, twice - sometimes even three or four times. Such Catholics may be helped to regularize their marriages if all the previous marriages of their spouses are judged to be invalid by the Church. But what about Catholics married to spouses who adamantly refuse to have the Church make a judgment as to the validity of those previous marriages? I'm glad that the Church is seriously considering what additional pastoral care it can offer in these and other marriages.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Gavin
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Fr. Ron, I couldn't agree with you more on your assertion that unilaterally declaring that someone who divorces his wife and marries another is an adulterer without knowing all the surrounding facts, mitigating circumstances, and case history, is wrong, harsh and judgmental.

    In fact, earlier today I read the following words from an author who must be a real fundamentalist, lacks all nuance, and is about as "blinkered" as could be. I'm sure he could benefit greatly from the marvelous insights of Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper.

    In fact, I was so appalled at his benighted thinking that I figured I would copy and paste it right here so everyone can see it and gasp in horror at such notions encrusted as they are in archaic and incomprehensible language. After all, such hurtful words no longer deserve tolerance and should be roundly condemned in the strongest possible terms.

    In fact, the author must surely belong to those hardhearted, blind, "doctors of the law", so appropriately condemned by our Holy Father, who take the Word of God and use it as dead stones to hurl at others. I think we should resolve that we as Church should never again tolerate such medieval, legalistic, cold-hearted language which certainly ought to be erased immediately from human memory.

    Here is that categorical, nasty, fundamentalist screed, which I can barely stand to type:

    Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commmitteth adultery.

    Apparently it was related to us by some old guy named "Luke" who claims to be the follower of a "God-man".

    P.S. How could Jesus possibly have made this statement, Fr. Ron, without adding all the necessary provisos? What's up with that? It's just soooo embarrassing . . . There must be some mistake.

    P.P.S. I speak in jest, Fr. Krisman, but hopefully you get the point. I must have been reading too many papal speeches lately.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,325
    Yeah, I know, so many of His statements are downright embarrassing; stuff like, "Do not worry about tomorrow," "Stop judging, that you may not be judged," "Beware of false prophets," and "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven."
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Gavin
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    I'm not sure I understand, Father. What is your point?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    So, Fr. Ron, with all due respect, is this what your argument has devolved down to:

    Your side will keep the fluffy, merciful, "lite", crossless Jesus, and our side will have the "Jesus of hard sayings," ----you know, the Jesus of Whom it was said, "They walked with Him no more".

    In other words, have we now been assigned the task of witnessing to the Jesus whose words Sts. Thomas More, John the Baptist and John Fisher died for because His words were perceived as too harsh and judgmental in their lifetimes?

    But it seems that in the light of our new "get relevant now" hermeneutic, can't we say that John the Baptist too harshly judged Herod and didn't show him mercy? He certainly didn't take Herod's real-life circumstances into account, did he?

    How about those harsh "doctors of the law" John Fisher and Thomas More who reign now in heaven and are judged to be heroic witnesses to the Truth (despite being such nasty Pharisees!)?

    But think, how has history judged the Cardinal Wolseys and Herods and Henry VIII's? In fact, how has history judged every generation that has tried to re-write the Gospel in the image and likeness of their own lifestyles?

    History has not judged them well.

    Maybe a bait-and-switch where you take the Jesus of Whom the crowds said, "Hosanna, filio David!" while we get the one of Whom they said, "Crucify Him!" isn't such a theologically sound idea after all.

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,325
    So, Fr. Ron, with all due respect, is this what your argument has devolved down to: Your side will keep ... a theologically sound idea after all.

    Not at all. And I did not know I had a "side" or that I was engaged in an argument.

    More, Fisher, Wolsey, Herod - I don't recall mentioning any of them in my "devolved argument." But I give you credit for your creative writing skill and your active imagination.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl Gavin
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,325
    I'm not sure I understand, Father. What is your point?

    I was just adding a few more SS passages in support of Julie's "in jest" reference to the teaching of Jesus as "soooo embarrassing . . ."

    Your question is a good one, Kathy. Oh that you had asked it thirteen days ago.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,765
    JulieColl, let me direct you to an article from that hotbed of heterodoxy, EWTN:
    https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

    The author writes:
    "The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between material sin and formal sin."

    He goes on to give examples of how this distinction applies to the sins of heresy, schism, and apostasy. In each case, a person may be materially (i.e., objectively) in the wrong, but may not have committed the formal act of schism/heresy/apostasy, because the person's wrongful action is due to some kind of non-culpable ignorance.

    Some Catholics may find it hard to believe, but it is possible, under some circumstances, that a person (Catholic or not) may end up being uninstructed and innocently ignorant of the indissolubility of marriage, and therefore might end up in an invalid marriage; but without committing formal adultery.
    Thanked by 1BruceL
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    Oh that you had asked it thirteen days ago.

    Hmm. Now what is your point?
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,114
    Kathy ... maybe at the beginning of this thread?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Thanks for the clarifications, Chonak, but I was already aware that insufficient knowledge and coercion, along with other diriment impediments, are factors which invalidate a marriage and are grounds for an annulment.

    However, if a Catholic has a defective understanding of the indissolubility of marriage and believes his/her first marriage was invalid and thus enters a second relationship without obtaining an annulment, that Catholic is still living in an objective state of mortal sin and has violated the bond of the first marriage since the presumption always is that the marriage is valid until proven otherwise in a marriage tribunal.

    Whatever his/her subjective guilt is, only God can judge, but that individual does not have an automatic right to receive Communion just because he/she decides on his/her own that his/her first marriage was invalid and therefore he/she is free to marry again.

    Cardinal Burke, the former head of the Roman Rota, said today in his NCRegister interview:

    "The exclusion of those in irregular matrimonial unions from the Sacraments does not constitute a judgment about their responsibility for the breakdown of the matrimonial bond to which they are bound. It is rather the objective recognition of the bond."

    Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-burke-final-report-lacks-clarity-on-indissolubility-of-marriage/#ixzz3pjO5ek6z
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,765
    JulieColl wrote:
    However, if a Catholic has a defective understanding of the indissolubility of marriage and believes his/her first marriage was invalid and thus enters a second relationship without obtaining an annulment, that Catholic is still living in an objective state of mortal sin and has violated the bond of the first marriage since the presumption always is that the marriage is valid until proven otherwise in a marriage tribunal.


    I think what seems like a difference of points of view may be (somewhat) a difference in terminology. Words like "state of sin" sound like you're discussing the person's soul. When you speak of an "objective state of mortal sin", are you talking about the person's gravely wrong acts (which he persists in doing)? Or are you talking about the person's state of soul, and saying that the conditions for guilt and mortal sin are all met?

    As you know, one essential element of a mortal sin is sufficient knowledge. And yet the case which you posit includes a defective understanding; so it seems that the conditions for a mortal sin in the person's soul would not be met.

    Here's my contention: it's not necessary that we impute sin to the invalidly married person in order to preserve the integrity of the Church's doctrine and discipline on this issue. Of course, there may be sin, but we need not presume that the person automatically and always sinned by entering into the invalid marriage. There may be exculpating circumstances, e.g., a defective understanding. [Cdl. Burke, cited above, made a similar point, that we don't assume that the person has any culpability for the marital breakup.]

    This does not remove all moral responsibility from the person, and it does not change the Church's discipline: once the person becomes aware that the marriage is invalid, then the person has a moral responsibility to act accordingly: i.e., to abstain from the actions which are proper to spouses.

    [Note: I edited this after posting it, for clarity.]
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,482
    The terminology is really the key, when we hear the newly popular phrase "divorced and remarried Catholic", we need to ask what does this really mean? I suspect that a number of cases are being lumped together as suggested by Fr. Krisman in his 3 types elucidated above. But this is a problem as this also will include the Adulterer! and as Julie has clearly written above the definition of an adulterer is rather clear, and the Words of Our Lord do not give much if any wiggle room.

    1) those who married in the Catholic Church both times;

    This would be either by annulment of the first 'marriage' OR death of the spouse, there is no problem here. As long as everybody has been honest with the tribunal there can no argument about the annulment, the first marriage was not a marriage in the eyes of the Church.
    2) those who married in the Catholic Church neither time;

    This requirers more care, was the state of the first civil marriage? but this should all be taken care of in the 'marriage preparation' for the second civil marriage to be recognised by the Church.
    3) those who married in the Catholic Church the first time, but not the second.

    I think the words of Our Lord were pretty clear...

    Well plenty of ink has already been spent on this topic... but what about in practice,

    http://www.lmschairman.org/2014/09/cristina-odone-doublethink-on-divorce.html

    http://gatesheadrevisited.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/mitis-judex.html

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/05/25/the-irish-churchs-failures-have-caused-its-people-to-choose-secularism-over-faith/

    http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/this-time-peripheries-without-irony.html

    So we can see that many people in Ireland and a catholic journalist have no idea what marriage is. I also suspect that Fr. Brown will not be the only one with a smaller work load than expected. We also see a defective understanding of mercy as shown by Fr. Hunwicke (repeatedly!)

    So some questions,
    Can someone tell me when was the last time a sodomite, a fornicator, an adulterer etc. were refused Communion in a Catholic Church?

    How many Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are adulterers? sodomites? etc.

    In my experience the average Catholic does not know what a mortal sin is, and everyone goes to Communion. Does anyone have a different experience of the average Catholic?

    Masses for those of homosexual orientation, known as the The Soho Masses in England how many other places have Masses which especially and uniquely welcome homosexuals?

    This Synod seems to be tackling yesterdays problems, Annulments (Christina Odone is not interested and she is not alone!) Marriage (well it is a temporary arrangement between two people, maintaining a quaint co-sanguinity exception?) Adultery (erm isn't this normal and not in anyway a crime in our modern times) Divorce (It's a Human right, happens all the time) Reception of the Sacraments (What is a Sacrament? Communion, well this is a communion meal, and our eating together is a sign of our community?)

    Well I am sure that the German church is going to see an increase in Mass attendance next week...

    Now that reminds me, where is the countdown showing when there will be fewer N.O. priests, than E.F priests in France, is there one for Germany?, Switzerland, Ireland etc. By their fruits you will know them, but not for long.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl eft94530
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    You're correct, Chonak. I should have said "objective mortal sin" not "objective state of mortal sin." I'm not imputing sin to anyone, but a real-life action may certainly constitute an objective mortal sin, regardless of the intentions or exculpating factors. In the case of someone having defective understanding and leaving a first marriage and going on to a second outside the Church, it isn't a mortal sin to leave a broken marriage; the sins, of course, consist in the acts of adultery in the second relationship. These are objective mortal sins while the bond of the first marriage exists and until, if and when the person rightfully obtains an annulment and marries in the Church. While no one is talking about guilt here, a pastor familiar with the situation can't just leave the entire matter to the individual's conscience (the internal forum) to decide if the marriage bond exists or if one's current situation is objectively sinful. That's the point I was trying to make.