. . . you rang?
Posted on 10/24/2005 11:22:50 AM PDT by marshmallow
Rome, Oct. 24 (CWNews.com) - Just hours after the Synod of Bishops released its final report, confirming that Catholics who are divorced and remarried should not receive Communion, Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news) said that the question should be reconsidered.
"I cannot imagine that the discussion is closed," said Cardinal Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. "It is a question that exists, and we have to reflect on it in order to be able to respond."
Er...they already did reflect on it. And they said "no".
Shut up already.
For anyone old enough to remember the Vatican II aftermath, this is like deja vu all over again!!! For those who don't remember, this is what it was like, in miniature. The Council says one thing and the very next day some "expert" starts opening his yap and undermining it.
The question is quite clear for anyone who knows and accepts the Church's teaching on marriage. There is no need for further reflection.
Yes, the answer is No...well what about "No" is not clear?
Allegedly, Kasper tried to intervene on his buddy's behalf at the time.
Hmmmm. Memo from Virginia to "cardinal" Kasper:
Zip it, cardinal carpetbagger, or I'll send Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, JEB Stuart, John Singleton Mosby, and my mean old cat down from Heaven to come down on you like stink on an old hog and then commence to hurt you!
Deliver us from these "cardinals" who continuously undermine doctrine to suit their sorry-tired agendas.
. . . you rang?
Very good. Whos's the artist?
He is good. Most "Civil War artists" can't draw the anatomy of a horse correctly to save their lives. (I notice it because I've groomed probably 8 or 10,000 square miles of horse in the course of a misspent life.)
He also seems to know how a horse jumps in sticky fallen timber - Forrest's mount first hesitated, probably dropping down out of a trot, then rocked back on his hocks and launched almost from a standstill, with an exaggerated high leap (what we would call "popping over it" - it's like being suddenly launched from a catapult.) Forrest is riding this out correctly, behind the horse's motion but balanced and giving the horse his head.
The bay horse in the right background is snorting and balking as he negotiates the timber. His neck is bent at the fifth vertebra as he attempts to evade the bit.
Mr. Strain has spent a good deal of time looking at horses and how they move. Good for him. I can't stomach most Civil War "art" because the "artists" haven't bothered to pay attention to how a horse is put together. Good art doesn't consist of plugging copies of famous faces into a prepainted background . . . that's what the old itinerant portraitists used to do.
Couldn't have put in words as well as you, but you are right. It is as accurate as stop motion photopgraphy.
Here are a couple of examples of the worst offenders. One of them is VERY famous and VERY expensive - but his horses look like freaks.
Well, I was talking about the motion of the horses. Works that copy photographs are not very artistic. My son has such a drawing. It was based on a photograph taken of a battle in Iraq in which he took part. Seldom does a photograph have the dramatic effect that is needed. It has to be posed just right to look both interesting and natural.
I still haven't figured out how he managed to become a cardinal.
Would you be so kind as to indicate (for us ground-plodders) what's so unnatural about those horse paintings?
Yes. Such a person can receive communion. Jesus said that anyone who divorces AND marries another commits adultery (Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, Luke 16:18). The issue isn't so much the divorce (though that, of course, is strongly discouraged, as in 1 Corinthians 7) as it is the state of adultery existing with a subsequent remarriage.
The "perpetual" adulterous state is what bans one from communion. It can't be honestly confessed, since the sin is ongoing. Since one in this situation cannot remedy the problem short of putting away the "new spouse" and returning to the actual spouse, as long as the second marriage exists and the original spouse still lives, the person is not able to receive communion.
If the original spouse dies, then the remarried couple can have their marriage sanated in the Church, and it can be recognized from that point on as legitimate. The couple can then return to the Sacraments.
A second possibility exists under limited circumstances. If there are dependent children resulting from the second marriage, it may be financially and psychologically impossible for the couple to separate. The good of the children is a legitimate consideration. Under those circumstances, IF the couple "live as brother and sister" and IF they can maintain the household without scandal in the parish where they attend Mass, then,having explained the situation to their priest, they may receive communion. If they are living up to their commitment not to have sexual relations because they know to do so is wrong, then they are not actively committing the adultery that is presumed in the "normal" circumstances. God will know their hearts. If they are merely saying what they think the Church wants to hear, and they are still maintaining relations, then, obviously, they are only compounding their sin before God. The Church would trust that they're being truthful, but, if they are not, God will not be mocked.
These days, though, how many divorced and remarried couples with young families are even *attempting* to confront their ongoing "situation" in such a way? It's almost a theoretical circumstance, rather than anything that happens much.
I think the real problem with paintings done from photographs is that the photo completely flattens perspective, and then you are drawing a 2 dimensional object from another 2 dimensional object --- not from 3 dimensional life. It plays tricks on the copyist.
Excellent point. Since perspective was developed, every artist drawing from life produces a somewhat steroscopic effect.
In the first painting, the problem is that the artist appears to have painted the front end of the horses first, and the hindquarters only as an afterthought. The head, neck and chest are out of proportion (oversized) to the barrel and hindquarters. Grade horses do sometimes have big heads, but the whole front end is too big. The hocks are drawn too low (a horse's hocks are almost always higher than his knees, not on the same level as the artist drew them) and the legs are too thin to support the weight of the body. And the chestnut (brown-red) horse facing right is both cow- and sickle-hocked (the hocks point towards each other, and the line of the upper rear leg forms a sickle shape instead of the graceful open curve that it should be.)
Here's a typical grade (non purebred) horse from a Civil War photograph. He's a sturdy looking fellow, not well bred at all, with a heavy front end and bad feet. The Yankees' horses weren't as good as the Southern ones, they tended to have a lot of plow horse in them. But you can see how he's put together.
The second painting is just a stylized Victorian image of a horse - long swanlike neck with the cheek merging into the throttle. Elbows too large but spindly little legs and the hindquarters vanishing into nothing. Mule ears -- Traveller was a much better looking horse than that.
- more than you probably wanted to know about horse anatomy.
That's why when artists studied at an Academy, they sketched and painted from plaster casts, not other paintings.
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.