Originally posted by NemesioYou know what I mean. I didn't mean to imply that the Pope could allow female priests or change the form of ordination. I meant the canonical requirements, such as vows of celibacy and obedience, the minimum of seven years formation, etc.
This is not true. Since the Church has asserted authoritatively (i.e., infallibly)
that only men are eligible for the priesthood, the Pope could not alter that
requirement.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau KWhy would it be inappropriate? Abortion is a far more controversial, graphic,
The Sunday Mass sermon is probably an inappropriate medium for priests to discuss the evils of contraception. And most priests, I suspect, do not believe that contraception is evil anyway.
and dramatic, and I'm sure a Sunday doesn't go by that abortion doesn't
come up. Fidelity in marriage comes up fairly regularly, particularly during
those readings from St Paul regarding the roles of husband and wife. Extra-
marital relation comes up. Homosexuality comes up.
Why is contraception suddenly inappropriate for homilies?
Furthermore, priests take a vow to support the teachings of the Church. Yes,
they are permitted to personally disagree and debate the point in forums
allowed for it, but they are still obligated to honor it even in disagreement
(just as they would be obligated to honor chastity, even if they disagree).
If they can't deliver a sermon on a topic they personally disagree on in
good faith, then how can they justify being a priest? One of the vows is
fealty to the teachings of the Church.
So, beyond the issue of allowing congregations to sully their souls by
communing while burdened by a mortal sin (a disingenuous stance indeed),
we have priests who offer poor examples of faith in the Church's teachings
by openly ignoring Her teachings.
This sounds uncommonly like politics to me: the Church recognizes that
it needs the money from these 95% of false Roman Catholics and turns
a blind eye.
If this is not the case, what other explanation can be offered to justify the
fact that the issue of contraception is not addressed to its contraception-
using congregation?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhy would it be inappropriate? Abortion is a far more controversial, graphic,
Why would it be inappropriate? Abortion is a far more controversial, graphic,
and dramatic, and I'm sure a Sunday doesn't go by that abortion doesn't
come up. Fidelity in marriage comes up fairly regularly, particularly during
those readings from St Paul regarding the roles of husband and wife. Extra-
marital relation comes up. Homosexuality comes up sue of contraception is not addressed to its contraception-
using congregation?
Nemesio
and dramatic, and I'm sure a Sunday doesn't go by that abortion doesn't
come up.
I have never heard the topic of abortion raised in a homily. Last year my state parliament, in Victoria, passed legislation which would allow the termination of a foetus at any stage of gestation, only requiring the consent from a doctor after 24 weeks. Obviously Catholics rallied against it. But not once did I hear the legislation mentioned in a sermon (and that year I was visiting different parishes.) There was a special liturgy at the Cathedral a week before the legislation passed the upper house. Even the Archbishop barely mentioned abortion directly in his speech (not technically a homily). Instead he spoke about the sanctity of life, a mother's love, etc.
Fidelity in marriage comes up fairly regularly, particularly during
those readings from St Paul regarding the roles of husband and wife. Extra-
marital relation comes up. Homosexuality comes up.
They certainly come up in the Scriptures. But I have never heard a homilist directly engage those issues. Should a priest want to instruct young couples on the virtues of fidelity, he would probably do that in their preparation for marriage, not during the Sunday Mass. He might use the confessional as an ideal time to counsel people to master their sexual impulses. Some parish priests also have catechical classes for parishioners. The Archdiocese of Melbourne has organised a program, which covers moral teachings, as well for adults who want to become Catholics. A Sunday homily, no.
Furthermore, priests take a vow to support the teachings of the Church. Yes,
they are permitted to personally disagree and debate the point in forums
allowed for it, but they are still obligated to honor it even in disagreement
(just as they would be obligated to honor chastity, even if they disagree).
They certainly do. But because of the shortage of priests, bishops are not inclined to discipline priests. I once heard my parish priest deny that baptism and marriage were sacraments, rather than 'ways of living'. Not at all uncommon. A case has emerged very recently in Australia. A priest has denied the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity; he has blessed gay unions in his church and allowed divorcees to marry there; he has changed the formula of baptism and placed a Buddha statue in the sanctuary. This has been going on for some years now, and only until this year has the archbishop acted and even then, he has acted very leniently (the priest's role as administrator has merely been terminated. He has not been defrocked nor lost faculties -- he may still say Mass.)
http://www.theage.com.au/national/church-accuses-rebel-priest-of-betraying-trust-20090227-8kdp.html
So, beyond the issue of allowing congregations to sully their souls by
communing while burdened by a mortal sin (a disingenuous stance indeed),
we have priests who offer poor examples of faith in the Church's teachings
by openly ignoring Her teachings.
I am not sure I understand you here. A priest has no right to stop people receiving Communion. That is their right barring they have publicly supported abortion or wear the rainbow sash. It is for the individual to judge whether they are in a state of mortal sin. (Personally, I suspect most people are not fully aware that contraception is a sin and are probably also unaware that a person in a state of mortal sin should not take Communion.)
This sounds uncommonly like politics to me: the Church recognizes that
it needs the money from these 95% of false Roman Catholics and turns
a blind eye.
I don't think so. Priests still advocate against contraception. Bishops are not silent, even if they avoid discipling their priests. They just do not do that in homilies.
Actually, I have rarely ever heard any doctrinal or moral topics raised in a homily. I have never heard the infallibility of the Pope and Magisterium mentioned, nor more basic doctrinal matters like the Trinity or Divinity of Christ. Is that because of greed as well?
Originally posted by Conrau K
I have never heard the topic of abortion raised in a homily.
The current and past Popes have mentioned abortion in their homilies.
You seem knowledgable about Roman Catholicism; you can't tell me
you've not heard the Pope speak on this!
In America, abortion homilies are commonplace.
Why would it be inappropriate to bring this in a homily, given that the
Church teaches that it is a grave moral issue?
They certainly come up in the Scriptures. But I have never heard a homilist directly engage those issues... A Sunday homily, no.
Why not? What do you believe the purpose of the homily is?
But because of the shortage of priests, bishops are not inclined to discipline priests. I once heard my parish priest deny that baptism and marriage were sacraments, rather than 'ways of living'. Not at all uncommon.
I am aware that it is not uncommon. A priest here in Pittsburgh made
similar sorts of pronouncements. But he did the intellectually and
spiritually honest thing: he formed his own church! He said, 'I can no
longer live a life where I am associated with a religious organization
which does not represent my point of view.' And I applaud him for his
honesty.
A 'shortage of priests' should be no excuse for tolerating what the Church
calls in its own language 'anathema!' A priest who denies the validity
of the Sacraments is excommunicating himself by definition! He is lying
to the people. The Church, if She wants to be an intellectually honest
institution, has an obligation to its flock and to Herself to pare out these
heretics.
The Church is guilty of negligent and defiant hypocrisy otherwise!
A priest has no right to stop people receiving Communion.
This is actually not true. Confer from Canon Law:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
If a priest is aware that the communicant is in a state of grave sin, he
must refuse that individual communion, assuming that he has at some
other point counseled the person individually or in the context of public
instruction.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kralis/040706
Pursuant to my last point, the priest has a duty to inform his faithful
that they are not to come to the Table if they are carrying the burden
of grave sin. If they do not do so (or are not doing so), then they are
enabling more sin to come into the hearts of the flock they claim to be
shepherding! If they are either tacitly presuming that their flock is
well-educated or (worse yet) quietly looking the other way while a gravely
sinful flock is communing, they are doing a disservice to both the Church
and the communicants.
(Personally, I suspect most people are not fully aware that contraception is a sin and are probably also unaware that a person in a state of mortal sin should not take Communion.)
Whose fault is that? The priests are charged with the education of the
faithful. Since you seem to advocate being silent on moral matters in
the pulpit, then what other opportunities are there for the faithful to
become learned?
Actually, I have rarely ever heard any doctrinal or moral topics raised in a homily. I have never heard the infallibility of the Pope and Magisterium mentioned, nor more basic doctrinal matters like the Trinity or Divinity of Christ. Is that because of greed as well?
How on earth is this possible? The Divinity of Christ comes up every
other sermon! The nature of the mystery of the Trinity is the focus of
'Trinity Sunday' after Pentacost! I'm not suggesting that every homily
ought to contain doctrinal or moral topics, but that none of them would
is just bizarre. I mean, this is certainly not the case in America!
But, again, I'll ask: How can the Church make any claim to intellectual
honesty if it's permitting the majority of Her members to commit what
She calls 'grave sin?' How can the Church justify distributing the Body
and Blood of Christ to those we can be confident are ill-disposed for
the Sacrament?
The only reason I can fathom is because the Church is, despite Ivanhoe's
idealistic claim to the contrary, a political vessel (sadly). Greed is driving
the tacit acceptence of a situation which She considers unacceptable.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe current and past Popes have mentioned abortion in their homilies.
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I have never heard the topic of abortion raised in a homily.
The current and past Popes have mentioned abortion in their homilies.
You seem knowledgable about Roman Catholicism; you can't tell me
you've not heard the Pope speak on this!
In America, abortion homilies are commonplace.
Why would i e tacit acceptence of a situation which She considers unacceptable.
Nemesio[/b]
You seem knowledgable about Roman Catholicism; you can't tell me
you've not heard the Pope speak on this!
I naturally discounted the Pope and I think it disingenous to include him. The Pope's homilies are delivered to very different audiences. I would be very surprised if he explicitly preached on abortion, contraception or homosexuality in front of an open audience and not in circumlocutions to, say, members of the curia.
In America, abortion homilies are commonplace.
I can only speculate from my own experiences in Australia. Our cultures are not radically different. Abortion homilies are almost non-existent. I really doubt that if I visited a random American parish, I would find abortion extensively discussed.
Why would it be inappropriate to bring this in a homily, given that the Church teaches that it is a grave moral issue?
Because the homily firstly is not a medium for theological education. Secondly, since many children are present at Mass, parents might not want their children exposed to the idea of sex and contraception quite yet. Maybe in some parishes that is acceptable, maybe in others it is not.
Nemesio, I really do not see why you are being so obstinate on this issue. Just because priests are uncomfortable about discussing it in a homily does not mean that the whole issue is completely ignored and does not mean that their immediate motivation is greed. As I pointed out earlier, a priest might counsel parishioners through other ways: the confessional, marriage preparation, catechesis classes. I have heard that the American conference of bishops has planned to return the special blessing of the womb to the marriage rite.
Why not? What do you believe the purpose of the homily is?
Firstly, to expound on the meaning of the Scripture in a non-academic manner and relate this to real life; seconly, to deal with the pastoral concerns of the parish. But the priest must also take into account whether a discourse on the three persons of God or contraception would really have any impact on the congregation. Maybe he would feel that by exhorting them to a better prayer life they would realise the evil of contraception and decide for themselves to learn about the Trinity.
A 'shortage of priests' should be no excuse for tolerating what the Church calls in its own language 'anathema!' A priest who denies the validity of the Sacraments is excommunicating himself by definition! He is lying to the people. The Church, if She wants to be an intellectually honest institution, has an obligation to its flock and to Herself to pare out these heretics.
I disagree. A priest is not a robot. He will at times have theological issues with the Church. He will have crises of doubt. Sometimes, he might not even be aware of being in conflict with the Church. The bishop has to take a broader view, seek to address his problems, and only when the priest refuses to toe the line should he take such action.
This is actually not true. Confer from Canon Law:
Yes, it it true. The person must be persevering in manifest grave sin. A priest does not have the right to deny Communion unless the person has publicly denied the moral teaching of the Church (such as a Catholic politician who supports abortion and, despite admonishment from the bishop, refuses to recant) or, for example, ahomosexual who presents for Communion while wearing the rainbow sash.
Under no other circumstances can the priest deny Communion. Firstly, because no one can know whether another is in a state of grave sin. The priest cannot know whether the person has repented and seeks Communion with a contrite heart. Nor can the priest know whether the person knew that the matter was of grave kind -- the person may have been misdirected by another priest or received a faulty moral education from his parents. So even if the priest knows that a couple practices contraception, he cannot know whether they are in a state of grave sin. And I really doubt that a priest would even know such details about their sex life.
Pursuant to my last point, the priest has a duty to inform his faithful
that they are not to come to the Table if they are carrying the burden
of grave sin.
Of course. I have never denied that duty. What I have denied is that the homily is an appopriate medium for this. I remember you once said that you would be more comfortable if more priests would discuss sexuality more in church. I think many parisioners disagree.
Whose fault is that? The priests are charged with the education of the
faithful. Since you seem to advocate being silent on moral matters in
the pulpit, then what other opportunities are there for the faithful to
become learned?
I mentioned this in my earlier post. Priests must prepare couples for marriage. Some parishes also have catechetical classes. It is also important to note that the true burden does not just lie with the priest but with parents.
[226]§2. Since they have given life to their children, parents have a most grave obligation and possess the right to educate them. Therefore, it is for Christian parents particularly to take care of the Christian education of their children according to the doctrine handed on by the Church.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PV.HTM
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also has several departments dealing with contraception which have the responsibility of communicating church teachings to the laity on matters of family and life.