Skip to comments.Pope says “no” to hasty, bureaucratic judgements on marriage annulments
Posted on 11/09/2013 3:08:36 AM PST by markomalley
click here to read article
Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
I don't see where ebbtide judged the moral fault of anyone, including Francis. Could you provide the actual quote, Mrs. Don-o? It seems to me that he refers to Francis making more mistakes and since he's already made quite a few of them that doesn't seem to be a rash statement so much as a statement based on Francis' past actions.
Wrt the subject at hand, I can see what ebbtide is saying and yet I am still not sure what all of this means because it doesn't seem clear to me (although things not being clear is a hallmark of Vatican II and post-Vatican II verbiage). I'm certainly not going to sit here and tell him he shouldn't be feeling the way he does. He has every right to express his concerns. He has good reason to be concerned.
I'm speechless. "Textless".
In all sincerity --- where did I insinuate you were going to hell?
This thread is becoming too weird. Just a few posts back Mamzelle said I implied she was going to hell (what the???) --- and here's the common factor: I'm cautioning about moral hazards, near occasions of sin, and these cautions are being taken as personal accusations.
I know that some Catholics are distressed and concerned about Pope Francis, so that every initiative of his inspires prefatory worry. The worry itself is not a fault, but the constant, public "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" applied to the Roman Pontiff's intentions, words,and deeds is unfair and unedifying.
"Hermeneutic of Suspicion" should be left to the sadoevangelicals --- or the LCWR.
There are plenty of actual, documented faults that can be dissected (e.g. the cringe-worthy La Repubbblica pseudo-interview). Dissect that with pliers and a sawzall, if you need to. But please leave off the preemptive public keening over imagined future papal offenses.
As Our Lord said, "Sufficient to the day are the evils hereof."
(Now I have a time-sensitive need to practice my Latin Propers. I'm outta here!)
You accused him of rash judgment and the correct definition of that includes judging someone’s moral fault. If he did not do that, then you can not accuse him of rash judgment.
This is exactly why people question Francis. His own words and actions make people suspect his future words and actions.
I apologize for over reacting.
The pope this time around is an odd bird and he has made me uneasy from the outset, including the unusual way he came into office. So many are coming into leadership out if nowhere, and I generally suspect some behind the scenes billionaire oligarch pulling the strings.
I'd like to turn down the heat-pumps in this thread, not fire them up. There's always been considerable mutual amity between you and me, Mamzelle. I nurture the hope that nothing has injured that good will.
We need to include the excluded and preach peace. Vatican II, inspired by Pope Paul VI and John, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to be open to modern culture. The Council Fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something."
"To open oneself to modernity is a duty."
If he looks like a modernist, walks like a modernist and talks like a modernist...
Not at all. I may need to stay out of religion threads.
In other words, this puts me in a "let's see what he means" attitude.
BTW, I'm much more concerned about his promotion of Maradiaga as his advisor. On that, I have a "let's see what he means" attitude, frankly frowning.
In other news, I notice Pope Francis recently said Mass Ad Orientem. He chose one of those altars which is back flush with the East wall, and allowed pictures to be taken. Pope John Paul II had celebrated Mass at that altar too, but had not allowed pictures or videos.
Why is your venom reserved for the Church? The state granted both of them a divorce first, didn't it? Why is the state not guilty of "putting them away"?
The state only speaks for the state. The Church speaks to the spiritual. It’s not the divorce that is my issue. That was bad enough. It’s the spectacle of a congregation and priest gathering to declare that a True Family never existed. It did exist. How would that congregation look in the eyes of the wronged family after adding insult to tragedy? If there must be some kind of ritual, why not require an apology to the True Family in front of witnesses and a penance?