Posted on 07/07/2017 7:45:07 PM PDT by marshmallow
Archbishop Charles Chaput also stated that gay Catholics should also ‘live chastely’ in new rules issued after Pope Francis urged more acceptance of others
Catholics in Philadelphia who are divorced and civilly remarried will be welcome to accept Holy Communion – as long as they abstain from sex and live out their relationships like “brother and sister”.
New guidelines published by the conservative archbishop of Philadelphia this month also called on priests within the archdiocese to help Catholics who are attracted to people of the same sex and “find chastity very difficult”, saying such individuals should be advised to frequently seek penance. Because same-sex attraction takes “diverse forms”, the archdiocese also said that some people can still live out a vocation of heterosexual marriage with children, notwithstanding “some degree of same-sex attraction”.
The guidelines, which took effect on 1 July, come three months after Pope Francis urged bishops to be more accepting of Catholics who lived outside of the church’s social teaching and doctrine, including people who have divorced and remarried, and people in same-sex relationships. The pope’s views were published in April in a document titled Amoris Laetitia (Joy of Love), which was hailed as potentially groundbreaking. Because the document called on bishops to show greater mercy and flexibility to bring Catholics back to the church, while also calling on bishops not to veer from church doctrine, it was seen as giving both traditional and more progressively minded bishops the chance to interpret the document as they saw fit.
The Philadelphia archbishop, Charles Chaput, is known as one of the staunchest conservative leaders in the US Catholic church, a view that is reflected in the rules the archdiocese published.
John Allen, a veteran Vatican journalist, said he believed Philadelphia was among the first archdiocese to publish such rules based on.....
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Tens of thousands?
That’s a huge number.
What are all these annulments based on?
Sure is. Compare that with only about 338 annulments at the time of Vatican II (1968).
Mostly, grave defect in the parties’ capacity to give consent.
Mostly, grave defect in the parties’ capacity to give consent.
Mostly, grave defect in the parties’ capacity to give consent.
The archdiocese of Boston was reversed in their annulment of Joe (?) Kennedy’s annulment. So he went ahead and married out of the Church.
Ted Kennedy’s annulment was not a scandal. The rest of his life was.
When you think about it, in addition to having no belly buttons, Adam and Eve also possessed some rather unique DNA in their bodies. (Adam had the DNA of a mud-pie, and Eve did as well, but hers was modified a bit by some bone DNA.)
Please elaborate. I'm trying to understand how tens of thousands of people had trouble giving consent to their marriages.
I have no argument with those who want the Catholic church to continue in the traditional beliefs. I even understand the traditionalists who want to hold to the ancient Latin tongue in Church rites.
But I’m pretty sure that Christ didn’t speak in Latin so these traditions were set by time and circumstances of the Catholic Church and the leadership of the clergy. The difficulty in religions as they age is what doctrine or tradition is based on the original and what is simply added by Man.
Truthfully, I like the sonorous phrases of the King James Bible as opposed to modern interpretations, but maybe that is because I grew up with them. And I wouldn’t change a word of Shakespeare, even the parts which are arcane because they belong to the 17th Century.
The most reliable source is Dr Ed Peters. Start with 101 QUESTIONS ABOUT ANNULMENTS.
Absolute baloney.
I guess the inference here is if they do not remarry Sex is okay!
Jesus was using “husbands” to mean her five PUTATIVE husbands. Obviously, he did not mean five actual husbands, because in the same breath he denied that her current husband was a real husband.
Her first husband would be her real husband.
Jesus was using “husbands” to mean her five PUTATIVE husbands. Obviously, he did not mean five actual husbands, because in the same breath he denied that her current husband was a real husband.
Her first husband would be her real husband.
No.
Could you give me the answer to the one question that I have (rather than have me look into/buy a book that will give me answers to 100 other questions that I don't have)?
How is it that there are tens of thousands of people who lack the capacity to give consent post-1968 but before then there were merely a few hundred annulments total?
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.