What of those rules that are 2000+ years old -one may also question the seriousness of any rule never enforced (sounds like the spirit of Vatican II) -is the Church required to enforce something to maintain it as legitimate requirement/teaching?
In my opinion, seriousness embodies legitimacy based in absolute truth... Effective enforcement of a rule is another matter all together and can not be used to moral relatively ascertain a rule to be non-serious etcetera.
e.g. The rule against adultery is no less serious if all are doing it or the Church can not enforce it...
Dear DBeers,
"What of those rules that are 2000+ years old -one may also question the seriousness of any rule never enforced (sounds like the spirit of Vatican II) -is the Church required to enforce something to maintain it as legitimate requirement/teaching?"
To which 2000-year old rules are you referring?
Whether it sounds like the "spirit of Vatican II" or not, it is a defense that I've heard used.
And guess what? As much as I hate it, until the pope actually does something about enforcing the rule, it's a pretty good defense, from a practical perspective.
"You're all worked up over the ordination of homosexuals, sitetest, but the pope, for all the rhetoric of 44 years ago, doesn't really seem to care. He doesn't discipline any bishop for ordaining known homosexuals."
It's similar to Chappaquiddick Ted's self-defense on abortion. He says, it's the bishops' problem, not his. He has his position, and they don't nail him personally on it, so he assumes that for all their rhetoric about the topic, they don't really mean it.
And you know, he's got a point.
If the bishops were serious about the issue of abortion, they'd excommunicate him, and Arnie, and Tom Ridge, and Barbara Mikulski, and George Pataki, and a couple of thousand other pro-choice "Catholic" politicians.
But they don't. So the pro-choice "Catholic" pols laugh at the Church, laugh at pro-lifers, laugh at the bishops.
And those who would turn away from their crimes if the gauntlet were thrown down before them, they don't. Because it isn't necessary (at least in their own judgment). Sure, they'll get their comeuppance when they must answer for their lives, but how many might repent if they were disciplined appropriately? As well, they drag others down into scandal with them. I can't tell you how many pro-choice "Catholics" who sit in the pews on Sunday have used the same lame-a$$ argument to me. "The bishops don't doing anything about Kennedy. They don't really mean it."
"Sitetest, you're a fanatic on this issue. But even the bishops and the pope disagree with you. After all, they haven't done anything to Sen. Kennedy, or our own Sen. Mikulski. Obviously, the issue isn't REALLY that important to them. Catholics can disagree in peace on this issue. All that 'there can be no dissent on this topic' is just hot air. They don't do anything to back it up."
Gee, and you know, the folks who say that to me are right. As far as I can determine by their ACTIONS, the bishops don't seem to mean it. At least, not most of them.
And if the pope were serious about not ordaining homosexuals, he'd reiterate the rule, and crack some skulls when bishops disobeyed.
If you make a rule, and don't enforce it, don't be surprised if people who don't want to follow it wind up not following it.
sitetest