The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionArchbishop Sheehan: How to lose Catholics and alienate people
by Jamie L Manson on Apr. 11, 2011
One of my earliest memories of church is watching my mother being forced to abstain from the Eucharist during my First Holy Communion. The scene is still vivid for me.
I sat in the third pew, squirming in the frilly, miniature bridal gown and veil that we were required to wear. When I returned from my first taste of the host and sacramental wine, I turned around to watch my family receive communion.
I saw my mother kneeling alone in a pew, looking at turns sad and embarrassed. The pews around her had been vacated by Catholics worthy of receiving communion. My mother kneeled in that empty pew. She was the only parent of a new communicant who didn’t receive Eucharist that day.
I wasn’t surprised to see my mother there. Five years earlier, she divorced my father. Two years after that she remarried. Not having the several thousand dollars she was told the annulment process would cost, her second marriage took place with a justice of the peace. When I was in sacramental preparation, my mother met with the pastor of our Long Island parish to ask if she could receive communion at my ceremony.
“Absolutely not,” he immediately replied, “you are excommunicated.”
My formal introduction to Holy Communion was defined by this image of my mother’s excommunication. Sometimes I wonder whether this moment didn’t give birth to my vocation as an outspoken, progressive Catholic.
Reading Archbishop Michael Sheehan’s recent letter of admonishment to divorcees and cohabitating couples immediately brought me back to that pew. Sheehan, who is the archbishop of Santa Fe, offers a lamentation on “three groups of people who are living contrary to the Gospel teaching on marriage: those who cohabit; those who have a merely civil union with no previous marriage; and those who have a civil union who were married before.”
If you belong to any of these groups, Sheehan would like to remind you that you are in “great spiritual danger.” And, as a result, you “are objectively living in a state of mortal sin and may not receive Holy Communion.” You should also abstain from being a Eucharistic minister and from taking on the role of godparent. When it comes to your participating in other parish activities or organizations, the pastor should be consulted for a final judgment.
But, Sheehan counsels, “Prudence is needed, avoiding all occasions of scandal.”
Throughout Sheehan’s letter, the archbishop appeals to the “teachings of the gospels” to support his enforcement of the church’s teachings on marriage and divorce. In fact, there is only one passage in one of the gospels on marriage, in Matthew 19: 1-12. Sadly, the rest of Jesus’ teachings in the four gospels seem lost on Sheehan.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
If Jesus believed that anyone he met was in “great spiritual danger,” the first thing he would do would be to invite that person to his table. Jesus would want to learn the individual’s story. Jesus would invite that person into community and remind her that she is God’s beloved. Jesus also might have called the religious authorities hypocrites, as he does in Matthew 23:13, 28, for “locking people out of the kingdom of heaven” and for being like “white washed tombs . . . full of hypocrisy and lawlessness inside.”
For five years after my communion, my mother continued to abstain from the Eucharist. Around the time that I was preparing for Confirmation, a group of Franciscans came to our parish to offer a mission week. By this time, she had divorced her second husband (on grounds that would have quickly earned her an annulment, if she had applied for one).
Something about the Franciscans’ message resonated with my mother, so she made her confession to one of their priests. She explained to the priest the reasons why she didn’t take communion, but expressed her desire to be able to receive at my confirmation Mass. The priest listened to her story. And he strongly encouraged her to start receiving the Eucharist again.
This priest understood that the table of the Eucharist was established by Jesus and, ultimately, belongs to God alone, not to any human being or institution.
Years later my mother and I moved to a new parish. They put out a call for Eucharistic ministers. My mother was eager to serve, but feared that the pastor would ban once he learned of her divorces. To my mother’s joy, the pastor welcomed her.
The years that she has served as a Eucharistic minister have been the most meaningful time that she ever spent in church. She is honored to be able to offer Jesus to others, and always tears up whenever she looks into the eyes of those who came to her to receive communion.
There are few people more able to offer the broken body of Jesus to a hungry people than those who themselves who have been broken by loss, abusive relationships, or shattered love. It’s hard to imagine a better image of the resurrected Jesus than a wounded human being offering the bread of life to another vulnerable human being.
Sheehan’s letter leaves no place for God’s grace to work in this way within the institutional church. The sacraments are meant to work in people’s lives to deepen our communion with God and others, to heal wounds, and to offer meaning and consolation. They are not a prize awarded only to those who follow doctrine and church law to the letter.
Few cohabitating Catholics will endure processes like annulment or change their living arrangements in order to be welcomed back into church and its sacraments. The institutional Church simply does not hold this kind of power over the lives of Catholics anymore.
Words like Sheehan’s only create feelings of judgment and shame and, therefore, only further sever a Catholic’s ties to the institution. Once again, the hierarchy fails to understand that it has a far better chance of communicating the teachings of Jesus and the meaning and power of the sacraments by welcoming Catholics into the church as ministers or godparents, regardless of their married state and living situation.
There is little doubt that Sheehan’s reassertion of the church’s doctrine of marriage is one small prelude to the Catholic institution’s forthcoming symphony of anti-gay marriage movements, composed, no doubt, to coincide with the 2012 elections. The hierarchy’s deepening involvement in politics is symptomatic of religious leadership scrambling for power in reaction to a loss of influence and moral authority over its flock.
How tragic that the church is willing to cut off so many of its faithful from the sacraments in order achieve the conformity it needs to achieve its political goals. How many more eight-year-olds will not have their parents join them the first time they approach Jesus’ table?
Though Sheehan delivered this letter in the middle of Lent, he signs it, “Sincerely yours in the Risen Lord.” For reasons far deeper than the liturgical calendar, it might have been more apt to have signed it “yours in the crucified Lord.” For in his words and actions, he has only further fractured the body of Christ.
[Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.]
| Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Jamie Manson’s column, "Grace on the Margins", is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Grace on the Margins" to your list. |
The Church of Rome is so very
The Church of Rome is so very far removed from the essential gospel message.
"And Jesus wept."
And the rigid, legalistic mentality among the hierarchs will continue.
Truly, they are the pharisees of our day.
Christ chided the Samaritan
Christ chided the Samaritan woman for living with a man who was not her husband. He told sinners to go and sin no more. He told us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.
The essential gospel message is that we are fallen and need to turn to Christ. By telling Catholics who are conscious of grave, public sin to confess their sin and amend their life, the Church is preaching the essential Gospel message. What do you think the essential Gospel message is instead?
"The essential gospel message
"The essential gospel message is that we are fallen and need to turn to Christ."
No, the essential gospel message is the Good News of our salvation. It has already been achieved. Furthermore, we know from Luke 15 that it is God, not you or me or anybody else, who takes the initiative to bring us home to our heavenly reward. Contrary to popular understanding, for instance, the prodigal son does not repent to his father upon returning home, yet the father tells the servant to prepare a feast of celebration anyway. The father tells the older son, Your brother was lost but HAS BEEN FOUND. Ultimately, it was the father who enabled the prodigal son's return home.
"[Jesus] told sinners to go and sin no more."
Yes, and Jesus also told his listeners to forgive without limit (that's the part you left out). To the extent we can do so, we become perfect in forgiveness like the Father. (On the other hand, we cannot become perfect in all things like God.)
It should be obvious that God is not going to expect more of us than what God is prepared to do.
As even B16 noted in an encyclical, God is Love. On the other hand, God is not a punisher. Even JPII acknowledged this truth when he once observed that we make our own hells. It is ultimately God who delivers us from our hells.
God does the finding and the heavy lifting of our salvation.
This is the Good News, the gospel message.
The good news of our
The good news of our salvation from what? We are saved from sin and death. The facts of salvation, atonement, forgiveness, and redemption require some knowledge of the fact of sin.
Yes, ultimately, it was the father who was responsible for the prodigal son's return. However, it isn't the case that he went, picked the prodigal son up, and carried him in. The prodigal son saw the awfulness of his situation and how far he had fallen from his status as a son, and that was what moved him to return. Ultimately it is God who saves us, but we aren't passive recipients. We cooperate with God by repenting and by conforming our lives to His commandments.
I'm not saying the Church should shun people or deny the sacraments from people who've sinned. In fact, there are two sacraments that exist precisely for the people this column is about -- reconciliation and marriage. I want these Catholics to receive many sacraments, including communion.
The Church does forgive without limit. That's what confession is. The whole point of the Archbishop's statement is to facilitate forgiveness - to get these people into the confessional where they can be absolved. God forgives, as does the Church, but people nonetheless need to repent their sins. That's why we have Lent, confession, the confiteor, the kyrie, the agnus dei, etc. We need God's mercy and redemption because we are sinners. Some of us have to be reminded of that.
"The good news of our
"The good news of our salvation from what?"
From ourselves, from each other, that's what. It is our own self-fallen humanity that moved God to enter human history in a most unique way via the Incarnation. The Son of God showed us, and told us, how to live in a healthy and responsible way. Again, to note JPII's observation, we make our own hells. If we abide by the Commandments and the teachings of Jesus, we experience a bit of heaven right here on earth; we avoid making our hells.
"The prodigal son saw the awfulness of his situation and how far he had fallen from his status as a son, and that was what moved him to return."
I agree with your first part, i.e., awareness of "the awfulness of his situation." However, I disagree with the suggestion in the second part, i.e., "how far he had fallen from his status as a son," that the young lad was moved to repent. As theologian James Tunstead Burtchaell has noted, the younger son did not return to the father from a change of heart but, instead, for a change in diet! Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Yet, in spite of the boy's bad behavior, the father orders the preparation of a feast to celebrate the family reunification. In this story, there is no repentance, only a spiel that the prodigal son was prepared to give his father. A comparison of the "line" practiced in the pig pen, on the one hand, and the lad's actual words to the father, on the other hand, show that the son did not finish his so-called "apology". Out of sheer joy, the father has interrupted the lad's delivery and embraced his son.
Jesus met people where they were in life. He accepted them in their fallen daily state. He dined with them. He did not condemn them. While Jesus told folks to sin no more, he also told them to forgive indefinitely, without limit.
Confession was originally a service of reconciliation with the local Christian community. Expulsion from the community was a last resort to protect the good name of the believing fellowship in what could and at times was a hostile socio-political environment. Christians were understandably concerned with maintaining their good name and reputation within the broader non-Christian community. At the same time, Christians were challenged by Jesus' teaching to forgive without limit. "Let he who is without sin..."
The church today, however, imposes a condition on the reception of the eucharist --- often for sins that have no factual impact on a Catholic community. It is one thing to preach God's forgiveness. It is one thing to make sacramental reconciliation and pastoral counseling available to those living in so-called "irregular" situations. It is another thing altogether, however, to tell struggling sinners that they may not legitimately receive the eucharist unless/until they "go to confession", etc.
There is little if any scandal today vis-a-vis couples living together in otherwise stable and responsible partnerships without benefit of marriage. There is even less or no scandal today involving Catholic couples in second marriages not recognized as sacramental unions by the church. In fact, if my experience is any indication, there seems to be greater scandal among Catholics and non-Catholics alike who see the church granting "divorces" to remarried couples through the annulment process!
If I recall, the last canon in the 1983 Code of Canon Law states (in so many words) that when the proverbial "push comes to shove", mercy comes first. The law is at the service of man, not man at the service of the law.
In the gospel, Jesus says, "I want mercy, not sacrifice."
That says it all!
Yes, and the law serves man
Yes, and the law serves man by calling him or her to repentance.
The scandal caused by cohabitating couples isn't simply the public-ness of their sin. It's also their public refusal to accept the good of marriage.
How can you say that the prodigal son didn't repent? He realized that being part of his father's household was better than not being part of his father's household, so he returned to his father to ask to be part of his household, and was not only welcomed back into his father's household, but was welcomed back as the son he had been. How do you not see repentance there? But even if we imagine that he didn't repent (which is absurd) and that he was really motivated by diet, my point still stands. He returned to his father as a result of losing the food he would eat as a son of his father, and when he came back, he was fed as a son of his father. Losing the food that should be theirs (i.e., the Eucharist) may help move people in irregular situations back to the Church.
I'm not saying we should condemn people in irregular situations. I'm not saying we should expel them. I'm saying we should encourage them to accept the graces God provides in marriage and in confession.
Look at it this way. Marriage is good. Confession and repentance are good. Cohabitation is less good than marriage, and persisting willfully in sin is less good than repentance, just as eating pig slop is less good than being a son in your father's household. If you're neighbor perversely preferred pig slop to fatted calves, wouldn't you do whatever was in your power to encourage him to eat fatted calf instead? If your neighbor preferred cohabitation to marriage, or sin to grace, wouldn't you do the same thing? This can take of one two forms. You can talk about how defective pig slop is, or you can talk about how delicious fatted calf is. Perhaps one would be more effective than the other, and one could argue that the Church should focus more on how great marriage and confession are than on how terrible cohabitation and sin are. Nonetheless, if we fail to encourage people away form pig slop - away from cohabitation - and towards fatted calves - confession and marriage - we do them a disservice.
This is what Manson, as well as you, seem to be arguing for. Rather than calling people towards holiness or towards embracing their rightful status as co-heirs with Christ, we should instead affirm whatever sin they feel like indulging in, lest they feel ashamed. This is absurd. God calls us to be his sons and daughters, and that means we have to leave behind sin. If someone persists in public sin (e.g., cohabitation), they should be called away from it. If we believe anything Jesus tells us, if we believe in the promises of Christ, we're not doing our neighbor any favors by not encouraging them to repentance. It isn't true mercy to pretend that sin isn't sin.
"The scandal caused by
"The scandal caused by cohabiting couples isn't simply the public-ness of their sin."
How do you know a couple is cohabiting without benefit of marriage? Does display of a wedding ring mean that someone is married? If a couple with children move in next door and otherwise show responsible behavior as parents, neighbors, and citizens, how do you know they are not married? If a couple do not show decent traits, how do you know they are married? What is more important here, compliance with "the law" or faithfulness to the spirit of the law? Marriage wasn't always a sacrament in the church. Indeed, marriage has seen varied cultural expression down through the ages.
"[The scandal is] also their public refusal to accept the good of marriage."
You give another generality, and you presume bad faith on the part of a cohabiting couple. There are many serious reasons --- legal, financial, familial --- why legally single persons might not marry. Again, what is more important, possession of a legal marriage certificate or demonstration of faithful and responsible behavior?
"Cohabitation is less good than marriage."
Still another generality, not to mention a questionable assumption. How do you know that cohabitation is --- always --- less good than marriage? Marriage is always good? Psychology, sociology, and criminology would suggest otherwise. Marriage, in fact, can be downright toxic to one's physical and mental health. Responsible and faithful cohabitation, on the other hand, can be good for one's health. Even the church acknowldges the propriety of some married couples separating and, if necessary, divorcing to protect the parties, including any children. If a custodial parent remarries, does this legal act guarantee a successful family outcome? If a custodial parent moves in with a partner without benefit of marriage, does such an arrangement guarantee anything but a successful outcome? Anecdotal evidence would suggest that so-called "blended families" can be a major challenge even for the best of remarried couples, and such attempts don't always work out successfully.
I'm relieved, on the other hand, that you asserted that Ms. Manson and I only "seem to be arguing for" affirming people in their sinful living arrangements. I don't recommend sin, and I can only surmise that neither does Ms. Manson. On the other hand, I do not judge people (ditto, I hope, for Ms. Manson). I judge behavior in terms of whether it satisfies the spirit, not the letter, of the law. Many crooks, after all, "get away with murder" --- legally! I acknowledge the power of God to work in its own way, in its own time. Jesus told listeners to be careful in judging others' behavior: Remove the plank from your own eye before attempting to remove the speck from the other's eye! Only God can read the human heart.
"If someone persists in public sin (e.g., cohabitation), they should be called away from it."
I don't think meddling in someone else's personal relationships constitutes intelligent behavior. Getting punched in the nose can hurt. Getting killed by the other party is not martyrdom. It is stupidity. Even law enforcement takes precautions when dealing with others' domestic affairs.
"[W]e're not doing our neighbor any favors by not encouraging them to repentance."
You're also not doing them any favor by alienating them from the Christian message. Actions speak louder than words. Live your own life according to Christian teaching. Be a positive role model. Be a listener (you may need to learn what listening entails; it is much more than hearing). Appeal to the "other" by example, not by judgment. Be available to answer questions if they come your way. Offer resources --- if you are asked!
"It isn't true mercy to pretend that sin isn't sin."
First of all, it is God who grants mercy, not you.
Second, you do not know the "other's" moral disposition. You are not a mind-reader. You cannot read the human heart.
In Mt 23, Jesus warns his listeners against the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. He tells his followers to do what the religious authorities say, not what they do. "They tie onto people's backs loads that are heavy and hard to carry, yet they aren't willing even to lift a finger to help them carry those loads." If the official teachers can be sinfully inept, what guarantees you won't be the same?
Finally, remember you are dealing with fellow adults who, according to Vatican II, have the right to freedom of conscience (see DH 3 and GS 16-17). The CCC has a section on "Moral Conscience". A future pope wrote more than forty years ago:
"Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal [God], and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will" (Joseph Ratzinger, Part I, Chapter 1, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Vol. V of COMMENTARY ON THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler [New York: Herder and Herder, 1969], p. 134).
How can we say that being
How can we say that being allowed to receive communion is better than not being allowed to receive communion. You're just speaking in generalities.
If you don't accept that sacraments are better than cheap imitations thereof (e.g., marriage as opposed to cohabitation), it's unclear to me why you care about whether people are allowed to receive the Eucharist. Why can't they just responsibly eat a cracker instead, according to the autonomy of their conscious? There may be many serious reasons - legal, financial, familial - not to receive the Eucharist. If you don't accept that marriage is better than shacking up, I don't see why you assume the Eucharist is better than matzoh.
God forgives without limit, but nonetheless, the way that leads to His kingdom is narrow. By pretending it's wider than it is, we're failing to lead people to God's mercy. Unless you edit out the bits of the Gospels you don't like, God sends people to Hell for not taking seriously the invitation to his kingdom. How many parables end with weeping and gnashing of teeth? People who don't accept the invitation don't go to the feast, are people who accept but wear inappropriate clothes are cast into the darkness. The Church needs to make sure people understand the demands of the Christian life.
How is the Church being unwilling to help carry the loads here? Churches perform weddings. When the Church tells people they need to get married, the Church also offers the solution to their not being married.
Conscience is only inviolate when it's well-formed. Someone would have to have a well-formed conscience that forbids them from marriage and mandates that they receive the eucharist for that to be relevant. Even if we grant arguendo that all cohabitating couples have a well-formed conscience that errantly prohibits them from receiving the sacrament of marriage and mandates that they receive communion, doesn't the Bishop have a duty and a right to try to form those consciences correctly? Is the Church not even allowed to present her vision of what the Christian life entails, lest we sin against conscience? How do you think consciences become well-formed?
a. "How can we say that
a. "How can we say that being allowed to receive communion is better than not being allowed to receive communion?"
Have you ever been told by family or friends you're not welcome to eat with them? How would you feel?
b. "There may be many serious reasons --- legal, financial, familial -- not to receive the Eucharist."
Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are heavily burdened, and I will refresh you." To his disciples, Jesus said to let the children come to him. Jesus ate with sinners, the scum of society. Jesus imposed no conditions on access to him. Not only did folks seek him out, but Jesus sought them out.
c. "[T]he way that leads to His kingdom is narrow."
And Jesus told his listeners that his Father has many mansions.
d. "God sends people to Hell."
How do you know? Even the Church has never declared anybody to be in Hell.
e. "How is the Church being unwilling to help people carry the loads here?"
If people were not complaining, we would not be having this discussion. Too many hierarchs and presbyters embrace a legalistic, not pastoral, mentality and approach to dealing with very real human problems today. Jesus invited "heavily burdened" people to come to him, and he also sought them out. How many "JPII hierarchs and priests" can be said to emulate the Master?
f. "Conscience is only inviolate when it's well-formed."
Conscience is inviolate, period --- unless, of course, you disagree with Joseph Ratzinger's thoughts on the subject more than forty years ago!
What constitutes a "well-formed" conscience? I challenge you to cite any provision in the CCC's text on "Moral Conscience" that defines a "well formed conscience". See http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.shtml.
g. Finally, you accuse me of "speaking in generalities."
In fact, please go back to my earlier response. I was addressing your shortcoming of speaking in generalities --- which you continue to do. Rules are black-and-white. Life is anything but! Dichotomous thinking on your part doesn't help matters any.
CCC 1783 through 1785 are
CCC 1783 through 1785 are expressly about the need for conscience to be well-formed. Additionally, 1781 and 1790- 1794 expressly include the possibility of conscience being wrong, and the fact that following your conscience doesn't make evil acts good, it simply makes them less evil. 1793 includes the possibility of misunderstanding the Gospel and the autonomy of conscience. 1785 explicitly includes the authority of the Church as a formator of conscience. This section of the CCC blatantly and explicitly doesn't say what it claims it does.
You're maintaining that the Church is wrong to tell cohabitating couples to participate fully in the Church's sacramental life by getting married. You're also maintaining that it's wrong for the Church to prevent people from participating in her sacramental life (in the Eucharist) on the basis of their refusal to participate in the sacrament of marriage. You make this argument by appealing to precisely one parable, ignoring the key element that the prodigal son was welcomed back by his father when and only when the son left his prodigality and returned to his father. You back this up by appealing to a part of the catechism which repeatedly and expressly says the precise opposite of what you're claiming.
This argument is done.
Again, I challenge you to
Again, I challenge you to show where the CCC in its treatment of "Moral Conscience" defines the phrase "well formed". In fact, there is no definition.
Consider, too, that there would be no need for the CCC's section on moral conscience (well formed or not) if we were told by Rome how to behave in every single circumstance. After all, there'd be no need to discuss what need not be discussed! We'd be nothing more than morally neutral automatons. There'd also have been no credence to Joseph Ratzinger's reflection more than forty years ago on the necessity to obey one's conscience --- even against the requirement(s) of church authority!
I have no problem with the church promoting marriage. I have no problem with the church making resources available to cohabiting couples who may be considering marriage and have approached the church for help in this regard.
I have a very real problem, however, with a presbyter/bishop/deacon/eucharistic minister knowingly refusing communion to a cohabiting couple. The gospel examples of Jesus are on my side here.
You accuse me of "appealing to precisely one parable". In fact, I have appealed to three parables (lost sheep, lost coin, lost son/s), not to mention other scriptural teachings of Jesus about the rain, the sun, love for one's enemies, etc.
You mention that "the prodigal son was welcomed back by his father when and only when the son left his prodigality and returned to his father." And your point, Jamie R?
CCC 1783 through 1785 define
CCC 1783 through 1785 define a well-formed conscience. The CCC is not vague or ambiguous on the point at issue - conscience must be formed according to the word of God:
"1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. the education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. the education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church."
How can you read that and maintain that the Church doesn't teach that conscience must be well-formed? On all other points, you could be arguing in good faith and bad judgment; here, you are claiming that the text of the CCC says something which no possible interpretation of that text supports.
Again, this argument is done. You're making claims which no honest interpretation of your evidence can conceivably support.
These CCC paragraphs do not
These CCC paragraphs do not *define* a well formed conscience. Instead, they offer a *general description* of what a well formed conscience should be. A general description does not satisfy the precision of definition.
The descriptions in paragraphs 1783 - 1785 do not exclude conscientious support for women's ordination, gay/lesbian civil marriage, or other non-infallible measures that are opposed by Rome. In other words, one's conscience formation can be consistent with the descriptions in these paragraphs AND include support for what Rome opposes in its teaching.
I have no problem with the church's teaching that moral conscience must be well formed. I have a very real problem, though, with the suggestion that a well formed conscience is only that which conforms precisely with official albeit non-infallible teaching of the church.
I remind you of what I noted earlier: If Rome defined a well formed conscience as that which is conformed with its official teaching, we would have no reason, in the first place, for this section on "Moral Conscience" in the CCC! We would merely need to support without qualification all official non-infallible teaching.
In sum, to be informed is not necessarily to be conformed.
This isn't an argument about
This isn't an argument about women's ordination etc. This is an argument about Sheehan telling couples who publicly reject the sacrament marriage by cohabitating that they can't receive communion unless they regularize their situation.
Let's grant arguendo the absurd proposition that conscience can forbid marriage yet still feel compelled to receive the Eucharist. The Church would nonetheless, consistent with CCC 1785, to help that peson conform their conscience to the Word of God and to the authoritative teaching of the Church. CCC 1790 states that conscience can err. 1791 states that when that's due to willful ignorance or habitual sin, that the person is still culpable for the errors of conscience, and 1792 clarifies that "Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity" all result in the erroneous conscience discussed in 1790 and 1791. 1793 grants that one isn't culpable for evils committed due to invincible ignorance, but those evils are still privations, and need to be corrected.
Even if conscience forbade marriage and compelled cohabitation and communion, the Church would still be right to correct that. The cohabiter's conscience may be vincibly ignorant, in which case they're guilty of sin, or invincibly ignorant, in which case they're merely suffering an evil, though not culpably. In either the case, the Church has a duty to help them turn from their sin or simply their evil.
Church teaching on conscience positively says the exact opposite of what you want it to and what you would need it to for it to be an argument against Abp. Sheehan. In fact, Church teaching on conscience clearly provides the strongest justification for Sheehan's argument: those who are invincibly ignorant of what the Church requires are suffering an evil by cohabitating; those who are willfully ignorant or indifferent are sinning.
Unless, of course, you don't actually believe in Church teaching on conscience, or anything else. In which case, why do you care who does or doesn't receive the Eucharist, which has been confected by a priest validly ordained by a Bishop validly ordained in the Apostolic succession? If you reject the Church's ability to call people to repentance and to marriage, why do you accept the Church as the place where Christ is truly present under the accidents of bread and wine?
a. "This is an argument
a. "This is an argument about Sheehan telling couples who publicly reject the sacrament [of] marriage by cohabiting that they can't receive communion unless they regularize their situation."
"Publicly"???
So --- if a couple does not "go public" about living together outside of marriage, they may receive communion? Within one of Sheehan's three unapproved categories, to wit, "[those in] a civil union who were married before," there are some couples, under some circumstances, who *can* receive communion in good faith. These couples legitimately avail themselves of the internal forum solution. The archbishop, however, does not nuance his remarks. Presenting official teaching that is inherently black-and-white, Sheehan tells such couples they "are objectively living in a state of mortal sin and may not receive Holy Communion."
On the other hand, consider the invitation of Jesus to everyone he encounters: "Come to me, all of you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke and put it on you, and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest. For my yoke is easy, and my burdent light" (Mt 11:28-30).
No legalism. No preliminaries. No conditions. No judgment.
To his credit --- perhaps, Sheehan counsels, "Prudence is needed, avoiding all occasions of scandal." My theology dictionary defines 'prudence' as "the capacity to translate general norms and ideals into practice." My lay dictionary defines the term, inter alia, as "express[ing] caution and wisdom [including] the capacity for judging in advance the probable results of one's actions."
Perhaps Sheehan is asking self-described "orthodox" Catholics to refrain from judging people, to stop telling couples in irregular unions that they are sinning and may not receive communion? (This would certainly be consistent with Jesus' admonition to "[j]udge not lest ye be judged.") What are your thoughts here, "Jamie R"? How do you construe the archbishop's counseling prudence within this context?
I have no problem whatsoever with the CCC's treatment of "Moral Conscience" in paragraphs 1776 through 1802, much less with a bishop's duty to preach and teach, including presenting official church doctrine. In fact, I have no problem with Joseph Ratzinger's acknowledgement more than forty years ago that "one's own conscience...must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority." Such "ecclesiastical authority" necessarily includes the CCC. Again, "Jamie R", what are your thoughts here? Do you agree with Ratzinger?
b. "[T]hose who are invincibly ignorant of what the Church requires are suffering an evil by cohabiting; those who are willfully ignorant are sinning."
Is cohabitation sinful/evil? I think its moral status depends on the character of the particular arrangement. Is the couple's relationship life-affirming, life-giving? Are the partners faithful to each other? Do they intend to stay together until death? Does the couple live responsibly, fulfilling legal and other obligations? If the couple has children, are they being raised to responsible adulthood? But for compelling personal, familial, financial, or legal constraints, would the couple otherwise be open to marriage? Regarding Catholic couples in particular, do the parties attach real importance to their faith and to their participation in the life of the church? If these questions can be answered "Yes", I do not think such cohabitation is evil as this term is used in CCC-1791 and -1793.
There are instances of cohabitation that can be evil (excluding, of course, those couples remarried outside the church and enjoying the benefit of the internal forum solution [I mention this group since you may consider such couples, albeit legally married, as "cohabiting"]). For that matter, even a sacramental marriage can be evil when it is toxic to the couple and those around them. If the couple cannot reconcile, the church may recommend legal separation, perhaps even legal divorce to protect everyone involved. Let's "muddy the waters" a bit: One or both parties want the church to declare their union null and void as a sacramental marriage --- even though it lasted many years during which time their kids grew up and eventually "left the roost"!
What's nice about Jesus is that, regardless of situation, he imposes no preconditions on folks, good or bad, to approach him. "People who are well do not need a physician, but only those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners" (Lk 5:31-32). "I want mercy, not sacrifice" (Mt 9:13).
Archbishop Sheehan refers to three unapproved living arrangements. He's communicating in the abstract. He is teaching.
On the other hand, the archbishop is telling certain people they may not approach Jesus in the eucharist. This is interference between the sick and their healing Physician (CCC-1503 through 1505). "But the Lord said to him,...'I do not judge as man judges. Man looks at the outward appearance, but I look at the heart" (1 S 16:7).
May I suggest, "Jamie R", the next time you see an "irregular" couple approach their Physician, you say to yourself, "There but for the grace of God go I."
Then let go, and let God.
It's called 'forgiveness', exactly what Jesus the Healer wants you to do --- without limit!!!
Additionally, in what world
Additionally, in what world is telling people who are cohabitating to get married alienating them from the Christian message? That's part of the Christian message. I realize your Bible includes only Luke 15, but Christ talks about marriage, divorce, and adultery in the sermon on the mount. Was Christ doing that to alienate people from the Christian message?
Obviously, I'm not an expert on any one chapter of the Gospels, like you are, but I feel that Jesus' teachings throughout the Gospels are probably part of the Christian message. "Christ" is in the word "Christian" after all. So, when Jesus talks about lust being tantamount to adultery, or when He describes divorce and remarriage as also being adultery, that's probably part of the Christian message. Or when the prophet who baptized Christ rebukes Herod for the sin of affinity, judging his private relationship, that may be part of the Christian message. Maybe St. John the Baptist should've heard the Christian message from you, then he would've known that he shouldn't say anything to Herod, lest he alienate him. After all, maybe Herod's conscience told him that affinity was okay?
Your comments reflect in this
Your comments reflect in this instance the subtext of dichotomous thinking that alienates people from the Christian message.
Jesus taught and preached to the people, but he also met folks individually where they were in life. He condemned, to be sure, especially the behaviors of the religious authorities who taught and enforced the law without mercy toward the people!
While Jesus told folks to sin no more, he also told them to forgive without limit. Jesus asked them to do no more than what he and the Father were prepared to do.
Healing, God's ultimate goal for sinners, presupposes forgiveness to the Nth degree --- as demonstrated by Jesus on the cross:
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
No conditions!
You can't just say "that's
You can't just say "that's dichotomous thinking" and then ignore the argument. In the sermon on the mount, Christ condemned adultery, divorce, and divorce and remarriage. You're arguing that condemning those things alienates people from the Christian message, despite the fact that that's manifestly a part of the Christian message, since that's part of Christ's preaching. I don't know what you mean here by "dichotomous thinking," but the Church's message in Sheehan's statement is one with at least part of Christ's message in the Sermon on the Mount. How do you not get this?
Yes, Jesus condemned
Yes, Jesus condemned adultery.
On the other hand, Jesus did not condemn divorce. He condemned divorce and remarriage --- except, of course, he "muddied the waters" a bit with that darn "exceptive clause" in one of the gospels.
Condemning behavior is one thing.
Condemning people is another thing altogether.
When cohabiting couples are refused access to Jesus in the eucharist, they have effectively been condemned by the community whose Master has said to forgive without limit! Jesus welcomed everyone at table, no exceptions (even at the Last Supper).
We don't necessarily know the particular circumstances that prompt a couple to live together outside of marriage. On the other hand, we are confronted with a choice: Keep them isolated, away from the Good News, or give them a place in the community where they have the opportunity to behold couples living (hopefully) in good marriages. Honey works better than vinegar.
Dichotomous thinking is simplistic thinking, black-and-white thinking. A place for everything, and everything in its place. No exceptions. Rigidity. Law rules.
Life doesn't work that way.
Jesus knew it.
Why can't you?
Thanks for clear answers of
Thanks for clear answers of the mercy, taught in the gospels. Teaching is one thing, condemning another. Cracking the whip in line with the officials of our church serves only them to keep power and control, nothing else, nobody else.
Thanks for clear answers of
Thanks for clear answers of the mercy, taught in the gospels. Teaching is one thing, condemning another. Cracking the whip in line with the officials of our church serves only them to keep power and control, nothing else, nobody else.
CONTINUED "[A]nd the law
CONTINUED
"[A]nd the law serves man by calling him or her to repentance."
Not really.
"That God loves and heals the unrepentant sinner might seem strange to many of us raised in the 'Deuteronomic Code mentality.' According to Richard Rohr, the Deuteronomic Code, exemplified by the Ten Commandments, was based on punishing (not healing) the unrepentant sinner. Thus the Deuteronomic Code had the following movement: I sin, God punishes me, I repent, God loves and rewards me. In such a movement, I *earn* God's love and my reward through repentance. But stories such as Paul's conversion or the return of the unrepentant prodigal son turn the Deuteronomic Code upside down. They have a different movement: I sin, I am unrepentant, I am loved and rewarded by God, this heals me so I can repent. In such stories I do not earn God's love and reward through repentance. Instead, 'grace' or God's love and reward is *unearned*, a free gift which heals me and makes my eventual repentance possible.
"This radical break with the Deuteronomic Code was the hallmark of the covenant introduced by the prophets. In this covenant, God's *mercy* would no longer be in contrast to God's retributive *justice*. Rather, the concepts of mercy and justice are used together. Justice for God now means God being true to Godself as the merciful one, the magnanimous one, the unconditional lover. God would never again vengefully punish sin (Is. 54:9) but rather would heal the hard-hearted by being excessive to the excessive degree, by 'astonishing this people with prodigies and wonders' (Is. 29:14, Jerusalem Bible)" (Dennis Linn, Sheila Fabricant Linn, and Matthew Linn, GOOD GOATS: HEALING OUR IMAGE OF GOD, Paulist Press, 1994, p. 62).
To repent requires that one be healed. In the story of Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector, Jesus takes the initiative: he tells the man to climb down from the tree so he can be hospitable to the Lord. "Salvation has come to this house today...The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost." As a result of Jesus' loving outreach, Zacchaeus repents. In the gospels, Jesus tells us he did not come to save the righteous but to heal sinners. Jesus is the Physician (CCC 1503-1505). Jesus comes to fulfill the law. That law is love (Mt 22:37-40). "We love because God first loved us" (1 Jn 4:19). The Lord's love would extend all the way to the cross --- while we were still sinners!
Jesus turns conventional teaching about dealing with one's enemies upside down (Lk 6:27-36; Mt 5:43-48). "I want mercy, not sacrifice" (Mt 9:13). "Happy are those who are merciful to others; God will be merciful to them" (Mt 5:7).
Galatians has several passages that highlight the limitations of the law:
+ "Does God give you the Spirit and work miracles among you because you do what the Law requires or because you hear the gospel and believe it?" (3:5);
+ "Those who depend on obeying the Law live under a curse...Now it is clear that no one is put right with God by means of the Law..." (3:10-11);
+ "Christ has redeemed us from the curse that the Law brings..." (3:13);
+ "But the Law has nothng to do with faith." (3:12);
+ "But before the time for faith came, the Law kept us all locked up as prisoners until this coming faith should be revealed. And so the Law was in charge of us until Christ came, in order that we might then be put right with God through faith. Now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us. It is through faith that all of you are God's children in union with Christ Jesus." (3:23-26)
Finally, the 1983 Code of Canon Law ends in relevant part as follows:
"[T]he salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one's eyes" (canon 1752). It's another way, perhaps, of saying that genuine pastoral care must always take precedence over pure application of the law if there is a conflict. Canon law is intended to serve the church, the People of God. Such an interpretation would certainly be consistent with application of the gospel message delivered by Jesus.
So, when Jesus says he comes
So, when Jesus says he comes to fulfill the law, not to abolish it, he meant that his teachings constituted a radical break with the Deuteronomic code?
Yes. Jesus stresses mercy.
Yes. Jesus stresses mercy. He tells his listeners to forgive without limit. He condemns the behaviors of the religious authorities. Jesus gives us the Two Greatest Commandments: love God and love neighbor.
The emphasis is on mercy, not punishment. As JPII observed, we make our own hells. It is Jesus who heals, who delivers us from our self-created hells.
CONTINUED Regarding the story
CONTINUED
Regarding the story of the prodigal son and the other two parables in Luke 15:
"Although the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-30 is often given as an example of forgiveness, it is actually a story of how God forgives and heals the unrepentant sinner. This story is Jesus' answer to the Pharisees who ask why he welcomes tax collectors or other unrepentant sinners, and even eats with them (Lk. 15:1-3). Jesus portrays the prodigal as the greatest possible sinner. He committed what to the Jews was the worst possible crime, to treat the father of the family as if he were dead. It was inconceivable for any Jew to ask for his father's inheritance while his father was still healthy (let alone spend that inheritance in a Gentile, pagan land). As Kenneth Bailey writes, 'In all of Middle Eastern literature (aside from the prodigal story) from ancient times to the present, there is no case of any son, older or younger, asking for his inheritance from a father who is still in good health.'
"This story is sometimes read as if the prodigal had a change of heart while in the 'far country,' and planned to ask his father to make him a 'hired servant' as a gesture of repentance. Scripture scholarship, however, indicates that the prodigal's motive at this point is more likely self-interest. Although the words of his prepared speech sound like repentance, he composes them after observing that he would get a lot more to eat if he were back in his father's house. James Burtchaell writes, 'The ruined and desperate son heads home not because he is repentant but because he is starving. The story never suggests that he has had a change of heart; only a change of diet. He is still the same schlemiel [yiddish equivalent of "jerk"] of a son who comes scuffling up the road to the homestead.' The son regrets that he has lost all the money he got from his father, but it is unlikely that he has yet repented of breaking his father's heart [brackets original].
"Another indication of the prodigal's lack of repentance is found in Luke 15:20. While the son 'was still a long way off,' the father saw him and ran out to greet him. In a personal conversation, scripture scholar Kenneth Bailey told us that the words 'while still a long way off' are not meant to indicate the son's geographic distance from the father, but rather his emotional distance, i.e., the son's hardhearted lack of repentance.
"The father offers reconciliation to his son before the prodigal has truly repented and without even first asking for a change of heart. According to Bailey, later the father will forgive the elder son before the elder son repents. By arguing with his father in public, the elder son puts a break in the relationship 'with his father that is nearly as radical as the break between the father and the younger son at the beginning of the parable.' Yet the father will love the unrepentant elder brother and promise that, even if he doesn't come to the banquet, 'Everything I have is yours.'
"The prodigal son is only one of three parables in Luke 15 about how God loves the unrepentant sinner. The parable of the lost prodigal son is preceded by the parable of the lost sheep (Lk. 15:3-7) and the parable of the lost coin (Lk. 15:8-11). Like the lost son, the lost sheep and the lost coin represent the unrepentant sinner. In each of the three parables, God takes the initiative to seek out what is still lost and unrepentant, rather than waiting for the lost one to repent and come back.
"God's willingness to seek out the lost one is significant for all the 'found ones' (or those who think they're found) as well. Writing on the parable of the lost sheep, Bailey says, 'it is the shepherd's willingness to go after the one that gives the ninety-nine their real security.' In the same way, God's willingness to keep seeking out the unrepentant sinner assures all the rest of us that God will never let go of us and allows us to rest secure in that love.
"This acceptance of the unrepentant sinner is echoed many other times in the New Testament and it will continue to scandalize the Pharisees. For example:
'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same (Mt. 5:44-46)?'
'Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person - though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us (Rom. 5:7-8).'"
Dennis Linn, Sheila Fabricant Linn, and Matthew Linn, GOOD GOATS: HEALING OUR IMAGE OF GOD, Paulist Press, 1994, pp. 59 - 61.
God does make the sun to
God does make the sun to shine on the just and the unjust alike. But he wants the unjust to be just. He wants the unjust to become just. He wants the unjust to repent and accept their status as sons and daughters of God. This requires that they go and sin no more. This requires that they harden not your hearts. Jesus came for sinners to help them not be sinners.
Do you hate sinners? Do you want them to persist in their sin? Or do you want them to be holy, and for the Church to assist them fulfill their call to holiness?
Your hatred of repentance doesn't make any sense to me. What do you want people to do? To turn away from their sin, or to persist in it? The Church is for sinners as well as saints; the Church wants to make sinners of saints. The Church is full of sinners. Why don't you want us all to turn away from our sin?
"[Jesus] wants the unjust to
"[Jesus] wants the unjust to repent and accept their status as sons and daughters of God."
Jesus wants the unjust to be healed so they can repent. Sinners are lost in their sin, are not truly free. Jesus delivers them from their captivity to sin. Jesus is the Physician, the Healer. A person lost in sin cannot repent without the Lord's healing. An analogy might be your going to the doctor because of an ailment. The doctor diagnoses your ailment, does what she can to get you on the road to recovery. Following her instructions, you get better and are eventually able to get on with your life, unhindered by what limited you before. When you were ill, you could not repent because you were preoccupied with your sin/ailment.
"Your hatred of repentance..."
I neither wrote nor suggested any such thing; I did not leave out repentance.
"[T]he Church wants to make sinners of saints."
I think you meant that the Church wants to make saints of sinners.
As for your other assertions, you appear to be engaging in eisegesis, i.e., reading stuff into my comments that is not there.
It is your recognition of
It is your recognition of your illness, and your desire to be well, that brings you to the physician. Yet when the Church tries to help people diagnose their illnesses (i.e., recognize their sin) so that they can seek treatment (repent and confess) and be healed, you claim that the Church is denying the Christian message.
The Church has a duty to diagnose sin, just as a doctor has a duty to diagnose illnesses. If a doctor refused to diagnose someone with syphilis for fear of making the patient feel ashamed, we would recognize this doctor as evil. Yet you and Manson want the Church not to diagnose cohabitation and adultery for the same reason.
What do you think I mean by repentance? Perhaps this is simply a misunderstanding. Repentance means to turn away from sin. It doesn't necessarily meant to stop sinning altogether. It just means to to try to turn away from it. In most salient respects, it's another way of talking about conversion - a turning away from sin and towards God. You can't turn towards God without turning away from sin. In order to turn away from sin, you have to know that you're turned towards sin. The Church has a duty to help you recognize that sin and turn away from it, just as a doctor has a duty to help your body turn away from disease and towards health.
Jesus did not make sinners
Jesus did not make sinners feel shamed. He made them feel welcomed --- at the table! It may very well be the case that many of these sinners did not even realize they were in sin; for them, sin was habitual, part of their daily routine like the tax collectors, for instance. Being with Jesus at table, like Zacchaeus, helped them realize they'd been in the moral wrong. And how did the sick Zacchaeus respond? By paying back the money he'd wrongfully (but apparently legally) taken from the folks taxed! And the woman about to be stoned for adultery? "Neither do I judge you."
It is through the welcoming at table that sinners can come to experience the unconditional love of God --- mirrored in Christian community --- that is essential to their healing. This is the opportunity for the Christian community to obey Jesus' instruction to forgive without limit. This is the opportunity for the sinner to feel the embrace of Christian community without judgment. This is the beginning of healing in the Lord's name.
This entire scenario is process, not a one-time event.
Like healing.
CORRECTION: The first
CORRECTION:
The first sentence in the first paragraph *should* read, "Although the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-30 is often given as an example of REPENTANCE, it is actually a story....."
Yes, Luke 15 is the only
Yes, Luke 15 is the only chapter in the New Testament. The evangelists wrote all that other stuff just to throw us off the track.
That sure gave me a chuckle!
That sure gave me a chuckle!
The Lord makes his sun to
The Lord makes his sun to shine, and rain to fall, on good and bad alike. (No expectation of repentance here.)
It's easy to do good to those who do good to you, but it's not easy to do good to those who do evil toward you. (No expectation of repentance here.)
Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing. (No expectation of repentance here.)
What do you refuse to accept about Jesus' teachings???
It's not for nothing we call God's love unconditional.
Unless, of course, you believe that God's love comes with conditions --- like repentance, for instance!
God loves us unconditionally,
God loves us unconditionally, but His love makes demands of us. Namely, repentance.
"...but His love makes
"...but His love makes demands of us. Namely, repentance."
You have contradicted yourself.
A "demand" is a condition.
God's love, as you've acknowledged (but apparently don't understand), is without condition.
God is not saying "I'll love you if..."
Perfect love says "I love you regardless..."
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
We make our own hell(s).
Perfect love extends itself for the sake of the beloved without condition.
God is Love.
While it is true that God's
While it is true that God's love for human beings is unconditional, i.e., He loves both the evil & the good on the earth, repentance is still necessary for those who wish to avoid damnation in the next life. It is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that those who die in the state of unrepentant mortal sin will spend eternity in the fires of hell. You left that little tidbit out!
After nearly two centuries,
After nearly two centuries, the Church has never declared anybody to be in hell.
You left that little tidbit out!
It has never been the
It has never been the Church's understanding of the doctrine of predestination that all are predestined to glory. Furthermore, there is a distinct doctrine on reprobation which speaks of "some men" which is clearly not the empty set. It would not be appropriate for the Church in an official capacity to name names of people in hell. Anyway this information is withheld from the Church by God. Only God knows who He will allow to fall into the pit of fire. Further the Vision at Fatima, an approved apparition showed human souls in hell.
a. "It has never been the
a. "It has never been the Church's understanding of the doctrine of predestination that all are predestined to glory. Furthermore, there is a distinct doctrine on reprobation..."
It has also never been the Church's understanding that all are not predestined to glory. Reprobation is an "[a]ct whereby God excludes those in the state of unrepentant mortal sin from final salvation and condemns them to eternal punishment (see Mt 25:41-46)" (Gerald O'Collins, SJ and Edward Farrugia, SJ. A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY. Paulist Press, 2000). Note the word 'unrepentant', a critical qualifier. Note also, unfortunately, a toxic reference to "God" doing the excluding and condemning. Hopefully, we are beginning to see theology moving away from this negative view of God.
"Neither Jesus, nor the Church after him, ever stated that persons actually go to hell or are there now. He --- as does the Church --- restricts himself to the *possibility*. *If* someone really and deliberately rejected God, *this* is what he or she would be choosing instead of God: a totally isolated existence. Even in this sense, hell is not the product of divine vindictiveness. Rather *it is God yielding to our freedom*. To reject God is to reject life in community. Conversely, it is to choose life in isolation. Hell is absolute isolation. The radical sinner *chooses* that. God does not impose it as a punishment" (Richard McBrien, CATHOLICISM, p. 1176). "God wills the salvation of all, and God will achieve that purpose 'unless human beings themselves fail in [God's] grace'" (quoting from Trent's Decree on Justification).
Is it possible that a person could reject God's love in the final analysis? Yes, it's conceivably possible, but "given what we know of the loving nature of God we may have real hope that God will actually save everyone...Karl Barth called the choice of hell an 'impossible possibility,' because human unbelief becomes entirely ineffective in the face of divine love" (Dennis Linn, Sheila Fabricant Linn, Matthew Linn, SJ. GOOD GOATS: HEALING OUR IMAGE OF GOD. Paulist Press, 1994, p. 66).
b. "It would not be appropriate for the Church in an official capacity to name names of people in hell."
Why not? Identifying people in hell could help prod the rest of us to do (more) good and avoid evil. It could literally scare the hell out of us!!! Besides, we would even be able to ask God (respectfully, of course) to please reconsider his decision to keep the poor soul in hell. No harm asking.
c. "Anyway this information [identity of folks in hell] is withheld from the Church by God."
How do you know?
d. "Only God knows who He will allow to fall into the pit of fire."
You are presupposing that God "will allow" someone to damn himself. The more we learn about God, including revisiting "traditionalist" teaching that portrays a toxic God, the more we can only conclude that God's love is truly unconditional, i.e. without conditions. Even the CCC has a reference to Jesus as Healer.
e. "Further the Vision at Fatima, an approved apparition showed human souls in hell."
An "approved apparition" is still private revelation and, as such, is not part of the deposit of faith, i.e., what God has definitively revealed through Christ for our salvation.
"Just as we cannot take all the images in scripture literally, neither can we take all the images in visions (such as fire and hell) literally. The Church has never done so. Karl Rahner wrote, 'The Church, which invokes its infallibility in the canonization of the saints, has never done so with regard to the damned. We cannot know with certainty if even one human soul does in fact go to hell" (GOOD GOATS, p. 66).
Our salvation is hardly
Our salvation is hardly guaranteed! What kind of Protestant are you anyway? The Protestants believe that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation. The Catholics believe that sorrow for sin is necessary to avoid hell. You seem to be a minority of one in your beliefs. Are all the Hindus saved by what Christ did on the Cross in the JJ religion of one?
From the CATECHISM OF THE
From the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
VI. The Necessity of Baptism
1257
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259
For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260
"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Please note especially, paulte, the last sentence in paragraph 1257, not to mention the entirety of paragraph 1260.
"Our salvation is hardly guaranteed!"
I'm going to attribute your belief to invincible ignorance, not heresy.
First of all, I have never
First of all, I have never maintained that God is bound to or by the sacraments (1257). God can dispense his grace as he sees fit & He does so, even granting sanctifying grace to those who have a perfect contrition. The whole question of Limbo revolves around the question of whether God can baptize directly in extreme cases. I believe He can. St Thomas even advances a notion of how God remits the Original Sin in non-believers when they make their first moral choice for him.
As to 1260, please note the phrase "the possibility" of salvation basically. Christ redeemed all but he did not save all. Universal salvation is what you are driving at & that is a heresy.
I'm not sure what your point is anyway. Everything you quoted above is in line with the doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." Pius XII advanced the notion in explaining this doctrine that those non-Catholics who have some unconcious connection to the Catholic Church will be saved through her. And Pius IX maintained that a person must have a fault in order to be denied salvation by God. Basically, no good person can fall into the pit of hell.
I stand by what I say. The salvation of Christians is not guaranteed. Although some of the Fathers maintained that a very large number of Christians will end up being saved, not all will be & even fewer non-Christians will be saved.
a. "...I have never
a. "...I have never maintained that God is bound to or by the sacraments (1257)...The whole question of Limbo revolves around the question of whether God can baptize directly in extreme cases. I believe He can."
You appear to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you are stating that God is not bound by the sacraments, but, on the other hand, you are asserting (or so it seems to me) that baptism is key to resolving the "whole question of Limbo." If God is not bound to the sacraments, then God does not have to baptize. Limbo, of course, is not mentioned at all in the CCC.
b. "As to 1260, please note the phrase 'the possibility' of salvation. Christ redeemed all but he did not save all. Universal salvation is what you are driving at & that is a heresy."
"It is important to distinguish between the doctrine of 'apokatastasis' (universal restoration), which says that all *must* be saved, and universalism, which says that all *will* be saved. As [Esteban] Deak writes, 'The "doctrine of apokatastasis" assumes that some day the entire creation will be brought home to God in full eschatological harmony and peace; whereas universalism, though believing the same, refrains from advocating it as a necessity.'
"The critical difference is that *apokatastasis* seems to eliminate free will entirely, while universalism preserves it but assumes that all people will eventually use their free will to choose God. To summarize the idea of universalism, Deak writes, 'God not only *wants* all to be saved, but He will *in reality* effect this through the free cooperation of man, so that when time runs out and gives place to eternity, He will be indeed all in all (Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:20).
"One objection that is sometimes raised to the idea of universal salvation is the belief that Origen (born in 186 A.D.) was condemned for it. However, it appears that Origen was condemned at the Synod of Constantinople in 543 for *apokatastasis* and for his theory of salvation history as returning aeons rather than as uni-linear. According to Deak and [William J.] Dalton, evidence in support of this is that Gregory of Nyssa (380 A.D.), who was a strong proponent of universalism, but who rejected the idea of returning aeons, was never condemned by any council. Paul Smith lists other early universalists who were not condemned, such as Clement of Alexandria (190 A.D., head of the catechetical school there), Hilary (deacon of the Roman Church), Titus, Bishop of Bostra (364 A.D.), Gregory of Nazianzus (373 A.D., president of the second great Ecumenical Council), and Jerome (346 A.D., translator of the Latin Bible).
"Paul [emphasizes] the seriousness of turning away from God and the condemnation this warrants (e.g., Rom. 2:5-8; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:5-9; Phil. 3:19). However, he never affirms that any human being, given the love and mercy of God, actually does turn away permanently. In other words, his statements may be taken as warnings, not as descriptions of actual future events. Dalton writes that overall, in Paul's thinking, 'human sin is seen as explicable only as a stage on the way towards the triumph of God's grace.' Thus Paul can say, 'God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all' (Rom. 11:32)" (Dennis Linn, Sheila Fabricant Linn, and Matthew Linn. GOOD GOATS: HEALING OUR IMAGE OF GOD, Paulist Press, 1994, pp. 68 - 69).
Paul writes, "And just as all people were made sinners as the result of the disobedience of one man, in the same way they will all be put right with God as the result of the obedience of the one man" (Rom. 5:19) [HT "70ish" 3/18/11 on separate thread re: Roman Missal].
Regarding Rom. 5:12-21, Raymond Brown writes, "[Paul] contends that Christ's act of righteousness led to justification and life for all --- something much harder to observe than universal sinfulness. Indeed, some would argue from this passage for universal salvation!" (AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library p. 581).
"It is noteworthy that Rom[ans], which speaks so eloquently about sin and justification, is relatively silent about repentance...Many interpreters would explain that for Paul divine forgiveness is not a response to human repentance but is purely gracious, for God acts without previous human initiative...Are NT writers who insist on repentance proposing a purely human initiative; or is repentance itself a grace from God? The Lucan proclamation (Lk 24:47) could involve double grace: Be open to the God-given impetus to repent, and receive God-given forgiveness. Would Paul disagree with that approach?" (R. Brown, p. 583).
c. "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
This doctrine has morphed (been nuanced) over the centuries. The best reference is Francis A. Sullivan's SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH? TRACING THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE, Paulist Press (1992) and Wipf & Stock Publishers (2002).
d. "The salvation of Christians is not guaranteed [and] even fewer non-Christians will be saved."
As seen from earlier information, orthodox opinion is divided on the matter of universal salvation, but there seems to be a growing consensus that a God of unconditional love, a Healer par excellence, cannot be resisted even by the most hardened of hearts. As for non-Christians, your statement is without foundation if Vatican II's teaching is any indication.
The message is FORGIVENESS!
The message is FORGIVENESS! Every other Christian demonination understands the necessity of this message, with the exception of the Catholic Church. Divorced Catholics are denied the Eucharist, but in the cases of Priest Pedophiles, forgiveness is given promptly and they are allowed to consecrate the Eucharist, take the Eucharist, distribute the Eucharist and decide who should and shouldn't get the Eucharist. A one time, two time or twenty time sin of Pedophilia isn't going to be an obstruction of a Priest's ability to perform Eucharistic functions, and still act within the Body of Christ as a full-fledged member, but let a member of the Laity get a divorce, then paint him or her with the Scarlet Letter, and deny them the Eucharist for the rest of their life. Where is the sanity in all of this (question mark broken).
Ms. Guzman, you must
Ms. Guzman, you must understand that the *ordained* priest enjoys an "ontological superiority" over us *unordained* priests. He stands on his clerical pedestal, and the higher the order, the higher the pedestal!
[sarcasm intended; I'm with you]
Jamie does it again. As an
Jamie does it again. As an old priest, I often looked the other way. But some priests simply cannot give themselves permission to act outside of institional guidelines.
"I often looked the other
"I often looked the other way."
Words of wisdom and humility gained through pastoral experience.
Thank you.
What does "pastoral" mean?
What does "pastoral" mean?
It means behaving like
It means behaving like Christ, not being legalistic.
As one of those "broken"
As one of those "broken" people I want to say that this article is exactly right. Fortunately, I had the ministry of compassionate and caring clergy who recognized I had never needed Eucharist more than when I deserved it the least. Where has our compassionate church gone?
"never needed the Eucharist
"never needed the Eucharist more than when I deserved it the least"; very well said! I can't add anything more.
You are so right. Each of us
You are so right. Each of us carry burdens that at times overwhelm us. It is at these times that we must know that The Christ is there to love us. We are all part of this human condition called sinners. We need to forgive ourselves, forgive others and move about the business of doing good. Pastors, bishops and others who would intervene in out relationship with Christ by essentially destroying it's outward signs need only be ignored and with hope know they will eventually dry up and fly away.
Yes! The broken body of
Yes! The broken body of Christ! You are so right that Christ would have invited to the table any person He felt was in danger. We can't pick and choose our isolated biblical verses to prove our rightness. Thank you for this wonderful column.
Is this the same bishop
Is this the same bishop featured in this article; http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishop-decries-combative-tactics-mino...
What got into him?
Brian Pinter on Apr. 11,
Brian Pinter on Apr. 11, 2011.
You stated:
"Is this the same bishop featured in this article; http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishop-decries-combative-tactics-mino...
What got into him?"
----------------------------------------
Brian, he probably got a couple of phone calls from some of his bishop buddies telling him that it is time for him to make a statement or take an
"orthodox" stand. I do know that they do that---call one another up and plan strategy over the phone. It called 'keep the people distracted as much as possible.'
He is dong his job, thats
He is dong his job, thats what.
The really awful thing about this little nutty of a story is that the underlying message is this: let me commit my sins in peace because I do not want anyone, not even those who act in the person of Christ and informed by the Holy Spirit to tell me that what I am doing is objectively selfish and evil. Divorce is an awful thing for a child and remarriage is adultery. Plain and simple. If you divorce, you ought not remarry. Its bad enough that you thought that you could just make your children miserable for the rest of their lives whenever they think of their "family" but on top of that to actually have the hubris to add someone else and reassign the roles of parent? That is the real problem here.
I pray to Our Lord that more Bishops will have the courage to proclaim the truth in the loving, pastoral way that ArchBishop Sheehan did.
James, some divorces actually
James, some divorces actually rescue children and allow them a healthier life than what they would have living in a bad, abusive marriage (emotionally or physically abusive to either the children of the other parent).
Perhaps, but the exception
Perhaps, but the exception should not make the rule. Separation is viable often and if needed, you can get restraining orders.
You're quite the all knowing
You're quite the all knowing judge
'excetions don't make the
'excetions don't make the rule" James neither you nor I have any idea what percentage would fall under "the exception". So, I suggest what it should do is cause one not to judge.
"[T]he exception should not
"[T]he exception should not make the rule."
Boy-o-boy, another example of that rigid, dichotomous thinking that tells us that life's problems can always be solved by application of a simplistic, black-and-white approach.
Restraining orders???
Tell *that* to the dead!!!
The dead? Talk about
The dead? Talk about hyperbolic!
A restraining order is a
A restraining order is a piece of paper.
Dead is dead.
Nothing "hyperbolic" about it.
Even law enforcement is quick to acknowledge the very real danger to police officers in responding to domestic disputes.
Get real!
Either you put some faith in
Either you put some faith in the law or you ignore it. You are being hyperbolic by assuming that murders happen all the time because a divorce did not occur. While I sure that this has occurred before, you are being dumb by claiming that it is a common thing.
Seriously, straw man much?
No one is arguing for
No one is arguing for ignoring the law.
And no one is arguing that "murders happen all the time". (It is a fact, however, that law enforcement regards domestic disputes as potentially as dangerous as other situations to which police officers must respond.)
"John David" merely noted that divorce *can* be beneficial for the parties.
My concern began with your response to "John David" as here noted. I did not have remarriage in mind at this point.
If anything, your comments here (as I noted before) reflect dichotomous thinking.
His job is a shepard, a
His job is a shepard, a shepard of people to guide and protect.To leave the flock of 100 and find the 1 that strayed off and carry it back on his shoulders,not to cast them to the wolves and for them fend for them selfs.Bring them back to the flock and let them feel the love and security of the flock.
Plain and simple NOT!If you sin, do not ask for forgiviness and start fresh.I don't think Jesus was miserable for the rest of his life when Joseph step in and was assigned the role of parent.That is a true christian not a real problem.
I pray to Our Lord that more Bishops will have the courage to open their hearts to proclaim the truth in the loving,pastoral way that Jesus Christ did.
"[L]et me commit my sins in
"[L]et me commit my sins in peace..."
Do not judge lest ye be judged. Stop your unChristlike presumption, Mr. Locke. You don't necessarily know others' familial situations.
"Divorce is an awful thing for a child."
Oh??????? What makes *you* qualified to make such a universal declaration?
"If you divorce, you ought not remarry."
Again, a universal statement reflecting simplistic, black-and-white thinking.
You mention "hubris".
Sir, look in your mirror!
I was deeply moved by this
I was deeply moved by this column and its call for truly pastoral care for those Catholics consigned to the margins of the Church. I do want to put in a positive word for annulment. I filed for annulment at the urging of my pastor, years before there was a second spouse in the picture. It was painful, but it was also a process that brought healing and peace. Yes, it did cost some money, but it was well worth it. I would recommend that all divorced Catholics be encouraged to at least explore the annulment process as a way toward personal and spiritual growth.
The teaching that requires an
The teaching that requires an annulment process is that a valid consummated marriage between two baptized persons can only be ended by death. This teaching, I believe, does not come from Our Lord, but from a hierarchy locked in to a canon law that cannot and does not reflect the understanding and forgiving mind of Christ.
JR
As Jesus said, "I want mercy,
As Jesus said, "I want mercy, not sacrifice."
This teaching, to be appreciated, must be understood as a universal wish on the part of the Son of God.
As you've suggested, the law is to serve man, not vice versa.
Even in secular law, there is not only justice but also equity.
Application of the law doesn't always serve God's will.
Which is what Jesus is telling us in the gospels!
Post new comment