Posted on 06/16/2016 9:22:17 PM PDT by ebb tide
Pope Francis, spiritual leader of a billion people, has just informed them that ‘the great majority’ of sacramental marriages are invalid because couples don’t go into them with the right intentions. He was speaking at a press conference in Rome. Here’s the context, from the Catholic News Agency (my emphases):
‘I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said “I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years”. It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,’ he said.
‘It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say “yes, for the rest of my life!” but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.’
Uh? You can read the full report here but you won’t be much the wiser. The Pope, thinking aloud in the manner of some maverick parish priest after a couple of glasses of wine at dinner, has just told millions of his flock that they are not really married.
Did he mean to say that? What does he really think? What authority do his words carry?
And why should Catholics even have to ask these questions? Francis’s off-the-cuff ramblings on matters of extreme pastoral sensitivity are wreaking havoc in the Catholic Church, as I’ve written here.
Ross Douthat of the New York Times has just tweeted this response:
Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 23.54.41
I suspect that even the Pope’s most liberal admirers will have difficulty extricating him from this mess.
See above. Supernaturally making a virgin pregnant is an activity reserved to God, who Joseph and Mary owed all to, and is simply not that of adultery.
The Tin Man has carte blanche here.
In the mortal, human realm that is the case.
If impregnating Mary as a married/betrothed woman was committing adultery with her, then impregnating a single woman would leave Him open to the charge of fornication.
If it was sexual sin with a married woman it would be sexual sin with a single woman.
But it wasn't, even though she was impregnated because NO SEX OCCURRED.
Being impregnated is a "conjugal" thing --- related to the marriage covenant --- whether or not it involves intercourse.
Chapter and verse?
You analogy of Ted and Ann is ludicrous. That is a pathetic, desperate grasping at straws.
Mary didn't remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus according to Scripture and nobody sinned in that happening.
I'm sure you can grasp the concept in theory, at ;east: you are so often a thoughtful commentator.
And you are not giving an adequate judgment of reproductive adultery. You didn't comment on whether "Ann's" choice violated the integrity of her marriage.
You think the whole story is ludicrous? Like it couldn't happen? My friend, we live in the Golden Age of no-sex motherhood. There are so-called clinics ---I knew of one years ago in Oakland, and there are many more today --- whose major "health service" consists of impregnating women who have never had sex with a man. Lesbian motherhood centers. And who knows how many are not lesbians, but married women, simply being impregnated outside of their marriages? it's certainly a reality today.
How does this escape your moral evaluation?
I'm sure you don't think it's OK?
Ignoring the question? ... If GOD is required to use a gamete/female sex cell from Mary in your catholiciism calculus, where did the male gamete come from?
I do know that there had to be a female gamete from Mary.
I know that the Messiah had to be "born of a woman, born under the law" as St. Paul said (Galatians 4:4). So He had to have a natural human mother.
I also know He had to be "the seed of the woman" (Genesis 5:15). To be her seed, He must be the true natural Child of His mother, and beyond that, the true natural descendant of His ancestors, in the full sense of the word.
And the whole point of the genealogies, is that His mother Mary linked Him to His whole constellation of human kinship going back in an unbroken chain of generation to David, to Abraham, to Noah, to Adam and Eve. This tremendous epic of Divine Providence loses its entire significance if the "chain" breaks when it comes to Mary.
And what was God doing through the whole "family story" of the O.T.? Generation after generation, He was preparing this pure seed that would constitute the body of His Christ: "When Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me." (Hebrews 10:4).
Thus God brought true natural offspring to all through whom the Messiah would come: "The Lord God has sworn to David in truth and he will not turn from it: 'One from the fruits of your loins I shall set upon your throne.'" (Psalm 132:11).
So Mary's gamete--- which means ovum --- which means "seed" --- is not an incidental or technical detail here. It is the fulfillment of several thousands years of providence and prophecy. May God be glorified forever.
As for sperm? I don't know. Maybe God created a male gamete? Maybe He quickened her (female) seed to produce a (male) Son in a way entirely unknown to us? That part is shrouded in complete mystery, before which I can only bow in reverent silence.
You proclaimed, “I do know that there had to be a female gamete from Mary.” No, you do not know that, you presume it because it fits in the circular reasoning which supports the unbiblical catholic proclamations about Mary. I’m afraid you are unable to discern carnal mind from Truth.
Which doesn't make any difference in the God impregnating her makes Him guilty of sexual sin.
If she was consecrated to God then her marriage to Joseph made both of them adulterers.
Also, your argument about conception being tied to sex does not work well.
It seems to be presupposing that the only purpose for sex is procreation. That is NOT the only purpose for sex.
But that still does not make God an adulterer for impregnating a married woman.
"reproductive adultery"?
And just where did that phrase come from?
You sound constipated.My marriage is not valid by the laws of our church.I married at 16 pregnant.My husband was to be sent to Tennessee on the night before the wedding but he stayed and we married in an empty church.We were both 16.This story is not for you constipated but for others.Married 57 years.:)
It’s just a descriptive phrase. You should probably just deal with it as an adjective and a noun.
Shameful. Having premarital sex and getting pregnant before marriage.
Don’t ask me to pat you or your husband on the back. But I’m sure Francis will.
Yet you claim you’ve been “married” for 57 years in a “marriage” that is not valid. What a sham.
Fatima is long-time freeper and her prayers have a special power you will never comprehend. Do not insult her further ... you really should apologize, but that spirit is not in you, is it?
Who’s the other Catholic apologist on this thread?
It’s certainly not you. Did I call anyone “constipated”?
((((Hugs)))))
I cherish your prayers given so often on prayer threads. The Lord be with your glowing spirit.
>>fatima to ebb tide
Horrible constipated one.Take a shit and get over it.<<
The above was posted by your “catholic apologist” friend/relative in Tennessee. Very charitable of her, yet you claim she has “special power”. Satan has special powers also.
Are you married Ebb Tide?
Yes, and it’s a valid, sacramental marriage, unlike yours.
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.