Posted on 08/28/2014 8:18:21 AM PDT by marshmallow
The secretary-general of the Italian bishops’ conference has said that the Church must make efforts to welcome “unconventional couples.”
"Couples in irregular matrimonial situations are also Christians, but they are sometimes looked upon with prejudice," said Bishop Nunzio Galantino of Cassano all’Jonio, who was appointed secretary-general of the Italian episcopal conference by Pope Francis.
According to Italy’s ANSA news service, Bishop Galantino went on to say that when couples in irregular marital situations are excluded from the sacraments, it “is an unjustified price to pay, in addition to de facto discrimination.”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
In other words, forget the Word of God—We’ll decide what is and isn’t OK.
Meanwhile, church membership continues to plunge.
They can still receive Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick.
Their children can most be likely Baptized and Confirmed.
The unconventional couple cannot take Communion, cannot be Married, and cannot take Holy Orders.
Four out of seven is being denied the sacraments.
I’m denied one of those sacraments.
That would be like inviting IS to have lunch with us. No one would leave alive. When is common sense and discernment going to descend on those whom you would think should already have it?
“in irregular marital situations are excluded from the sacraments, it “is an unjustified price to pay, in addition to de facto discrimination.””
True. A discrimination not found in Scripture to receive the Lord’s Supper and baptism. The rest are made up.
Pretty sure that is not true.
You can always go to confession, unless you’re outright excommunicated. A strict confessor who adheres to the “intend to sin no more” standard will not offer absolution of a sinful “unconventional relationship” that is going to continue, but he can absolve the repented sins.
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1 Cor 23-30)...or the Gospel of Mark?
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.' `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."Re: Baptism... didn't you read what heartwood wrote? Any adult in danger of death can be baptized; but if an adult is an unrepentant adulterer, would you accept them into Baptism? Does your version of Baptism not require faith or repentance? It's an odd type, if so.
Won’t happen.
Genesis 1
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
If the “unconventional couple” have purple hair or dress in kimonos, I don’t see the problem.
If the all-too-conventional problem is that they are living as husband and wife but not in a valid Christian marriage, that’s a problem.
irregular marital situations
(((
Hey, bishop, get a clue. That is called “shacking up”; there is no marriage.
“Meanwhile, church membership continues to plunge”.
The numbers..........
Church membership in 2011 was 1.214 billion (17.5% of the world population),[1] an increase from 437 million in 1950[58] and 654 million in 1970.[59] Since 2010, the rate of increase was 1.5% with a 2.3% increase in Africa and a 0.3% increase in the Americas and Europe. 48.8% of Catholics live in the Americas, 23.5% in Europe, 16.0% in Africa, 10.9% in Asia and 0.8% in Oceania.[1] Catholics represent over half of all Christians.[60]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
“FRiend, are you just *trying* to be a troll? This is obviously a Catholic issue, dealing with internal policies (I use those words specifically for those who don’t acknowledge Divine mandates and obedience to Church Law) of the Catholic Church... so: why would you have a gripe with it at all? I’m not at all sure why you’d complain.”
Open Threads are open to comments. Caucus Threads are closed to everyone outside the caucus designation. This is an open thread, ergo I’m posting a comment. I’m afraid you’ll have to cope.
As to the rest, I understand the Roman position, but it is inaccurate - read false. This is why I pointed it out.
You misunderstand me, FRiend. I didn’t say that you didn’t have the RIGHT to be a troll (given the lack of a “Caucus” title); of course, you do. Troll away, as you wish. I merely said that you seemed to be aspiring to be a troll, with your drive-by, illogical, inflammatory comment about something about which you’d have no good reason to be concerned in the least (outside of spite, and an urge to kick the Catholic Church when you see an opportunity which appeals to you). Who’s forcing your local faith community not to baptize or to include as many adulterers to your “Lord’s Supper” celebration as you please?
Let me put it another way, in case that wasn’t clear enough: your comment was almost completely false; and the extent to which it was not false was the extent to which it was so wildly illogical as to be a non-sequitur. Given your comment, I’m afraid I have to say that you’re throwing rocks at something which you don’t understand at all.
Another Francis appointment, eh?
“You misunderstand me, FRiend. I didn’t say that you didn’t have the RIGHT to be a troll (given the lack of a “Caucus” title); of course, you do. Troll away, as you wish.”
No trolling. I made a comment.
” I merely said that you seemed to be aspiring to be a troll, with your drive-by, illogical, inflammatory comment about something about which you’d have no good reason to be concerned in the least (outside of spite, and an urge to kick the Catholic Church when you see an opportunity which appeals to you). “
You are simply wrong in many ways. I am always interested in God’s Word. When it is used falsely, I comment. I do this without regard to denomination.
“Let me put it another way, in case that wasn’t clear enough: your comment was almost completely false; and the extent to which it was not false was the extent to which it was so wildly illogical as to be a non-sequitur.
I’d ask for actual evidence to support your claims, but so far your posts don’t promise a meaningful conversation. I’ll pass.
“Given your comment, I’m afraid I have to say that you’re throwing rocks at something which you don’t understand at all.”
Thanks for sharing your opinions.
I don’t think the children would be baptized, since a condition of that would be the parents raising them in a particular manner. A co-worker whined to me that a Catholic relative couldn’t have her son baptized because she was living in a lesbian relationship (the Pastor refused to do it). She was even more upset when I said I agreed with the Pastor...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.