A Pastoral Plan for Marriage and Family Is Unveiled

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 03-04-18 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[ealgeone]

Same circumstances....only no other wives.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If you "forget polygamy," I don't see what the point is to this theoretical question about whether David or Bathsheba could be admitted to the church.

Just erase everything except their mere existence --- you have two random people named David and Bathsheba? --- then of course, the can be admitted to the Church. Everyone can be admitted to the Church upon a profession of faith, repentance for sin, and baptism.

If that's not the answer you're looking for, might you possibly clarify what your question is about?

[ealgeone]

If you "forget polygamy," I don't see what the point is to this theoretical question about whether David or Bathsheba could be admitted to the church.

The point is would David and Bathsheba be allowed to join the RCC and participate in communion in light of the prior sins committed.

Some of your fellow Roman Catholics would say no.

Isn't that what all of the bru-ha is about Amoris Laetitia?

[Mrs. Don-o]

" The point is would David and Bathsheba be allowed to join the RCC and participate in communion in light of the prior sins committed."

Oh geez, so that's it!!!

"Some of your fellow Roman Catholics would say no."

NONE of my fellow Catholics would say no. ALL of my fellow Catholics know that sins are forgiven by repentance, Confession, receiving from Jesus Christ total absolution for our sins and the strength and grace from HIM to turn away from our previous sinful way of life and overcome temptation in the future.

None of that is controversial.

"Go, and sin no more.".

Every Catholic knows that unless they are retarded or something.

The Amoris Laetitia controversy is not about whether people can repent and be absolved of sin. It is about if they can be absolved if they do NOT repent and do NOT turn away from it. AL implied, without quite saying, that for some people an adulterous union is not so bad, not a mortal sin/ It implies that they need not take the negative precept "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" all that seriously, if their adulterous "civil marriage" is kinda working out for them.

It's that old error of Situation Ethics rearing up its repulsive head again. What is this, 1966? Who does Francis think he is, Joseph Fletcher?

Glad you gave me a chance to clear that up.

As for David and Bathsheba, if they are actually unmarried, and have no "previous spouses" hanging around, and they want to get well and truly married, as in honest Christian monogamy, great. Get honestly repented and honestly wedded, that's all.

"Isn't that what all of the bru-ha is about Amoris Laetitia?"

The brouhaha about Amoris Laetitia centers on several larger questions, such as whether the negative precepts of God's law are really exceptionless norms. Does "no murder" really mean NO MURDER? Does "no adultery" mean NO ADULTERY? Same for PERJURY and APOSTASY, and SODOMY, and other serious sins?

Or do the Commandments boil down to "Thou shalt not sin... unless thou art really, really tempted."

"NO means NO" is the Catholic position. It looks like Pope Francis disagrees, although he expresses himself so ambiguously that it's hard to see if he is actually, formally trying to overturn doctrine that's been settled for millennia. It's an unprecedented situation: a Pope who hints and winks and refuses to make a clear commitment to Catholicism.

[ealgeone]

"Some of your fellow Roman Catholics would say no."

NONE of my fellow Catholics would say no.

Respectfully suggest you read these threads more. There is a contingent, though I don't know if it represents mainstream Roman Catholic thought or not [ya'll do seem to have a whole lot of differing opinion on these topics in light of the supposed claim to be of one mind] , that disagrees with you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

No, ealgeone.

Really. No.

I've been all over these Amoris Laetitia threads FOR TWO FLIPPIN' YEARS NOW, and I know very well what fellow Catholics are saying.

Nobody is saying that person living in an adulterous union cannot receive the Sacraments or Confession and Communion if they are repentant. That means they have to leave the adulterous union, which is to say, cease to commit adultery.

If they stop committing illicit intercourse, then they're A-OK. They repent, they confess, they turn away from their sin, and they are welcome back to the Sacraments with open arms.

If you find any Catholic who disagrees with that, name names, buddy, and I will chase them around Free Republic with hammer and tongs, and I will whip their butts.

OK?

[ealgeone]

Nobody is saying that person living in an adulterous union cannot receive the Sacraments or Confession and Communion if they are repentant. That means they have to leave the adulterous union, which is to say, cease to commit adultery.

Leave the adulterous union?? Divorce?? David and Bathsheba would have to divorce??

[Mrs. Don-o]

If one of them had another, living spouse. In that case they could would not be *eligible* to marry, because we don't do bigamy. Or trigamy or quadrigamy. If there's no impediment, e.g. no third party who's already married to one of them, then David and Bathsheba could have their marriage convalidated in the Catholic Church and they're good to go.

BTW, do you think people should continue in adultery, if it's stable and caring and so forth?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mmmm... and, does your church let people get married if they’re already, and still, married to somebody else?

[ealgeone]

Mmmm... and, does your church let people get married if they’re already, and still, married to somebody else?

No. I'm not aware of a Bible based church that would.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, there you go. It seems we were in agreement all along.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, there you go. It seems we were in agreement all along.