Posted on 02/28/2014 11:23:36 AM PST by NKP_Vet
It is always the small case. And this is the trap, behind casuistry, behind casuistical thought, there is always a trap: against people, against us, and against God, always. But is it licit to do this? To divorce his wife? And Jesus answered, asking them what the Law said, and explaining why Moses framed the Law as he did. But He doesnt stop there. From [the study of the particular case], He goes to the heart of the problem, and here He goes straight to the days of Creation. That reference of the Lord is so beautiful: But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh.
If the church is to help homosexuals, to do more than wag its finger at them in their pit, it needs to get this down pat. Maybe they should read it over and over first. Divorce rates in the church today are scandalous.
Homosexuals, who overwhelmingly have been abused in childhood in order to be disordered toward homosexuality, need our prayers for their cross is heavy. They need to understand that they have a problem just like an addict but their problem can be overcome by the power of God.
Problem with homosexuals is they have no use for the Bible and the word of God. It’s like talking to a wall.
I used to consider divorced people to be second class citizens...until it happened to me. It only takes one side to do it, and without cause.
As a woman I used to know said, “I take responsibility for some of the problems in my marriage, but not my divorce because I didn’t do it.”
Everyone is loveable and hateable. When you marry someone you make a commitment to focus on their good side. When someone violates that vow and chooses to be their spouses enemy, there really isn’t much the other spouse can do about it. When a person has CHOSEN to stop loving their spouse, it is all on them. After all, love is not a “deserved” thing.
Not all. They first need to be separated from the destructive culture and influences like any other addict before you can break thru with them.
I think that is where the big problem is especially with all these feel good weddings where they make up their own vows and such.
I, N, take thee, N, for my wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health, til death do us part; and thereto I plight thee my troth.
The Holy Father sympathizes with the broken hearted who are experiencing a broken marriage. Certainly, that is the compassionate and loving thing for the parish priest to do.
The issue making the rounds, however, is focusing more on the condition(s) for granting an annulment of that marriage, which is required after a civil divorce and prior to re-marrying another, other than one’s former spouse.
This statement by the Holy Father spades the ground, and doesn’t reveal a splinter of intent to change a single thing, yet.
The media, the cafeteria Catholics and those outside the Church, would seem to hope our practices become more liberal— to basically join the domino effect of fallen standards. This of course, would lessen the increasingly glaring contrast between the Church and the more liberal others inside and outside the Church.
I can’t imagine anything will be changed or diluted, but perhaps a better style of pastoral companionship and spiritual communion will be in the offing, for those making their path through the Tribunal stage.
Encouragement and preparation for the opinion the Tribunal may render may require its own special catechesis
After all, naturally, it is devastating to be denied Holy Communion. It does, in the flesh, come off as a high price to pay, so catechesis is very necessary, to deal with that brutal level of disappointment.
Yep. Even before my divorce (18 years ago, after 20 years) when someone complained about their spouse and was considering divorce I would say to them, “What part of ‘for better or worse’ and ‘until death do us part’ did you not understand?”
I devotedly wish that Pope Francis would not use words that are not common in the English language, less we are confused by them.
“Casuasity”
>>the use of clever arguments, especially on moral issues, to try to make someone believe something that is not true.>>
This is the reason that the media will ignore the Pope’s words. They do not fit in with their narrative of Pope Francis and his views of homosexuality.....which of course in this day and age includes homo “marriage”.
But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh.
This is by no means true of all homosexually oriented people. There's organizations like "Courage," a fellowship of chaste homosexual Catholics.
Then there are a bunch of Catholic writers --- Eve Tushnet, Melinda Selmys, Patrick Einheber, Steve Gershom, Gabriel Blanchard, Joshua Gonnerman are the ones whose names I can think of right off the bat --- who are fully Catholic, and who write about living celibately within that orientation. And I am sure they represent a whole lot of other people who are not necessarily organized, and not necessarily writers.
I respect tese people, and I know they would be disturbed at being lumped together with defiant anti-God sodomites.
Just a reminder not to make sweeping, all-inclusive generalizations.
This follows right along with Pope Francis’ further attempts to justify Holy Communion for adulterers, in deference to the German bishops who were behind his election.
Both Kasper and Francis start out by talking about the beauty of marriage but eventually dive into how to get around the indissolubility of the same. Take for instance this statement:
“When, however, this leaving ones father and mother, and joining oneself to a woman, and going forward... when this love fails because many times it fails we have to feel the pain of the failure, [we must] accompany those people who have had this failure in their love.”
What doe’s he mean by “accompany” these adulteress other than sacrilegiously give them Holy Communion?
This pope seems most concerned about this topic, which should not even be on the table.
Meanwhile, Belgium has legalized euthanasia for children this week and all Francis does is compare Communists in a favorable light with St. James.
What does he mean by accompany these adulteress adulterers other than sacrilegiously give them Holy Communion?
Leave it to you to twist around the Pope’s so you don’t have to agree with anything he says.
Leave it to you to twist around the Popes words so you dont have to agree with anything he says.
It was a beautiful homily on marriage. Looks like you are not going to get divorced(unless annuled) receiving communion or homo “marriage”. Sorry to disappoint you.
If you are not engaging in homosexual behavior, you are not homosexual.
I didn’t twist anything. I quoted the Pope verbatim. On other threads, I’ve quoted Kasper verbatim. I’ve quoted Marx verbatim.
These guys are up to no good.
You quoted nothing out of his homily on marriage and Kaspar is not mentioned in the homily. Your hatred of Pope Francis is not healthy. If you are Catholic, and from your bitter postings it’s hard to believe, you need to support your Pope, not constantly criticize him. You need to pray for him. He’s the pope that God gave the Church, no one else. In essence what you are saying is you know more than God and what is good for His Church.
"When, however, this leaving ones father and mother, and joining oneself to a woman, and going forward... when this love fails because many times it fails we have to feel the pain of the failure, [we must] accompany those people who have had this failure in their love.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.