tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post8335501626978600530..comments2024-03-25T20:03:03.657-06:00Comments on Καθολικός διάκονος: "Gloria...in te domine Gloria...exultate"Deacon Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01385969740195992108noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-5755236389408910132008-09-12T10:49:00.000-06:002008-09-12T10:49:00.000-06:00I have a question, Deacon. Consider someone who h...I have a question, Deacon. Consider someone who has divorced and remarried. Now he <i>may</i> be in a state of grave sin, or he may not, depending on the status of the first marriage.<br><br>While we wait for the tribunal to make that judgment, do we give this person the benefit of the doubt about receiving communion? No - they are told not to receive until the church determines their status.<br><br>Yet in the case of politicians whose words and deeds are arguably facilitating the sin of abortion, we <i>do</i> give them the benefit of the doubt by allowing them to receive the Lord, unless and until the Church decides otherwise. Which it never seems to do.<br><br>Why is this? It seems to me that it must be very discouraging to people who have divorced and remarried and find themselves unable to receive communion for months or years. Perhaps it is one reason why so many people in that situation end up leaving the church.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03402788402018206599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-75420789519923345492008-09-12T17:57:00.000-06:002008-09-12T17:57:00.000-06:00So, are you arguing that people in irregular marri...So, are you arguing that people in irregular marriage sitiuations should be permitted to communion, or that certain Catholic politicians should not? Cutting to the chase, there is no analogy here, not even an indirect one. One's marital status is objective, easy to determine, and in a great many cases not difficult to resolve. The pastoral complexity regarding many Catholic politicians and their relationship to what the church clearly teaches about abortion arises from the fact that it is not so objective. This is why the matter is best left up to individual bishops to deal with in a pastoral manner. This is also the reason that different bishops may arrive at different prudential judgments in different cases involving different politicians.<br><br>Once again, you cannot dismiss it when a politician says s/he is personally and morally opposed to abortion and then proceeds to give the reasons why there is a disconnect between that and the way they vote. It is <i>that</i> reason (i.e., one that keeps them from making a consistent judgment based on their moral conviction- Sen. Biden's claim that his belief about when life begins- at conception- is both a <i>"personal and private matter,"</i> for example) not questioning their stated moral conviction that becomes the focus of dialogue.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-35323833824021376952008-09-12T20:14:00.000-06:002008-09-12T20:14:00.000-06:00I'm not arguing for either, just pointing out ...I'm not arguing for either, just pointing out what looks like a great inconsistency.<br><br>I also don't think marriage cases are always as objective as you say. Retroactively judging someone's capacity to enter into marriage years after the fact is of necessity an extremely <i>subjective</i> matter. God in His Grace has given the church wisdom to make these decisions.<br><br>I agree that the motivations of politicians are not always so clear. But sometimes they are very clear. Yet even in these cases, bishops never seem to act. That is what confuses me, and apparently a great many more of the faithful.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03402788402018206599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-1243580619572053992008-09-12T20:49:00.000-06:002008-09-12T20:49:00.000-06:00While the process to determine the sacramental val...While the process to determine the sacramental validity of a marriage, regardless of the kind of case, is objective and not a subjective judgment, arriving at a judgment, especially in a formal case, is not a forgone conclusion. Nonetheless, I didn't write that marriage <i>cases</i> are always objective. I wrote that a person's marital <i>status</i> is objective and easy to determine. To wit:<br><br>Are you currently married? Yes/No If yes, have you been married previously? Yes/No. If yes, have you submitted the appropriate petition to the Marriage Tribunal in order to resolve your previous marriage? Yes/No. If yes, was your petition granted? Yes/no. It doesn't get any more objective than that. <br><br>One important point that needs to be made is that neither you nor I know what a bishop may or may not have done in a specific instance. As Abp Niederauer wrote, it is regretful whenever a public correction has to be made.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.com