The Pope & divorced women

Bro Curtis>>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparantly the Pope says divorced folks cannot accept the eucharist unless they practice celibacy.

http://www.heraldonline.com/24hour/world/story/858099p-6003758c.html

But the dirty hands of a pedophile can give it

Does anybody else think this is silly of him ?

Go ahead and tell me how hateful I am, and how much I don't understand the RCC. I know you will, but with a leader like that, who needs Baptists to point out the obvious.

And I personally want to thank him, because due to his refusal to adress trhge real issues, My dear mother is leaving the RCC. Praise God!!! <<<

Bro Curtis,

I am not sure what you are protesting here. Is it the Church's position on divorce? Is that why you left the church?

Does the church you attend still use 'til death do us part'as part of the marriage vow? Do you think that's honest, when it is not the teaching of your church? Shouldn't you say: 'til --fill in the blank---do us part'?

your brother

 

Yes! I do! But then he gets to make the rules as he goes. Someone died and made him boss. Not sure who tho?

Glad your mother is leaving the RCC.

Sherrie

 

quote by Curtis>>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anybody else think this is silly of him ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherrie>>>>
Yes! I do! But then he gets to make the rules as he goes. Someone died and made him boss. Not sure who tho? <<<<<

Dear Sherrie,

What rule, in your mind, is the Pope making up here? The point of the article, since you obviously did not read it, was that the Pope was angering American Catholics by re-affirming the ancient and constant teaching of the Catholic Church regarding divorce.

You seem to be jeering at the Church because she opposes divorce. Am I misunderstanding?

your brother

 

Greetings Curtis: A couple of points here in what you said;

It makes no difference on the state of the priest giving the Eucharist. Though sinners crucified Christ, we are saved by His precious blood they shed. Whether a person is holy or not does not change who Jesus Christ is.

Actually this is biblical of him. Jesus is pretty clear on his stance against divorce and re-marriage. Likewise Paul gives a strong warning about one partaking of communion in an unworthy manner and not examining himself.(1 Corinthians 11:27-30).

This view is not popular among some Catholics and many others, but since when did biblical teachings depend on their popularity with the public?

 

Curtis, it would seem then that you think that unmarried sexually active persons should be welcomed to Communion.

Is this the case in your church? Does your pastor encourage unmarried sexually active church members to partake of the Lord's Supper?

How about those living with their "significant partner" without the benefit of marriage?

How about sexually active homosexuals?

Is there anyone not permitted to partake?

Ron

 

raymond, T2U, etal . . .

You guys know full well that Curtis is not condoning or forgiving fornication outside of a marital union. The point is, "how hypocritical can the Pope be by condemning divorcees and allowing child molesters to not only partake of communion, but also perform the sacrament?"

 

So, I'm assuming that Curtis would agree that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young."

Which is, of course, Pope John Paul II's position on that issue.

Mark H.

P.S. -- Hi Lisa! Long time no see! (I know, it's been me that's been gone).

 

Curtis, I'll pray for her.

And I'll also pray for you while I'm at it.

Ron

 

Lisa>>>>
You guys know full well that Curtis is not condoning or forgiving fornication outside of a marital union. The point is, "how hypocritical can the Pope be by condemning divorcees and allowing child molesters to not only partake of communion, but also perform the sacrament?" <<<<

Dear Lisa,

What you seem to be protesting is the Church's teaching that God can forgive any sin, but only if the sinner repents. Someone who was truly married, but then 'moves on' and then wants the Church's blessing on the latest 'true marriage'...that's not repenting, it is asking God to repent for making too strict a rule. Do you personally think 'til death do us part?' is just too much to ask?

On the second part of your argument, you seem to be saying that a minister who sins gravely can never be forgiven. The Church says all sinners may be forgiven, if they repent. That person's suitability for future ministry is a judgment call. But to even imply as you do, that the Pope is 'ok' with having pedophile priests, is a calumny I would not have expected from you.

I am disappointed.

your brother

 

I think someone is missing the fact. Why can the pedophile?

From what I am reading you have all twisted this around to be different than what Bro. Curtis has posted. If I am wrong in my reading than I apologize.

Sherrie

 

Mark,

Howdy!!!!! Yep, it's been really slow without you guys around. I tried to start a "Let's bash the Catholics while they're gone" topic. But, nobody seemed to have a sense of humor, and the thread died before it got started.

 

raymond,

I'm not protesting anything. Just trying to help clarify Curtis' intent.

I'm sorry but, I don't believe that divorce is any different than an annulment. I would pray that I do neither. I'm married working on my twentieth year, and there have been many, many times that "getting out" would have been a lot easier than staying and working things out.

I personally think that most people who get married do mean to be together until 'death do them part.' If they are willing to make that pledge, then I don't believe it was too much to ask. However, life happens--sad as that is.

No. I'm not. You know the point. If a person in the position of a Priest, minister, or Rabbi, abuses his position by committing such offences, it is certainly forgiveable by God, and is forgiven if they repent and do not repeat the offense. However, irregardless of repentance, they should be removed from such positions--FOREVER!!! (BTW, I've told you guys that I work at a prison which sponsors a Sex Offender Treatment Program. Well, last week we received a Rabbi. Now, when a priest walks in our gates, I may pass smooth out. )

Well, actually, I think it was God who said that. And of course, since He's the man, He's right.

No, it's not. No man can judge the suitability of another man's heart. I think the history of the repetiveness of the molestations and the musical chairs of the priests proves, that it's not worth ever taking a second chance. There are other ways a person can serve the Church.

raymond, I actually admire John Paul II. I think he's a Godly man. I feel that his heart is true to his cause. I just disagree with him on matters such as Catholic doctrine.

I'm disappointed that you are disapointed.

 

I suggest you go the the source rather than believe AP's story. The encyclical says nothing about divorce. What it says is that "anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion." Divorced Catholics who remarry are guilty of grave sin, and therefore they cannot receive communion without first confessing their sin, which includes a firm resolve to stop the sinful behavior.

So you believe that Catholics should be denied their Sacraments because of the unknown sins of their priest (for I doubt there are any known pedophile/ephebophile priests now celebrating Mass in public!). In fact, such a priest would be compounding his own sin by receiving communion, but his consecration of the Eucharist is still valid.

At least the latter, pretty clearly.

But you did feel the need to point it out. Note that claiming something is obvious is easier than proving it.

What are the real issues that, had he addressed them, would have kept your mother in the Church?

Mike

 

Please list the names of any Catholic priests who have been found guilty of pedophilia who are currently serving communion. I'm curious, because from what I've heard, the RCC is being rather aggressive about defrocking thee folks.

Unless you automatically assume that all priests are pedophiles.

No need to tell you how hateful you are, because you already know that.

 

Johnv,

Not sure who you are talking to, but I'll respond. Yes, now the RCC may be taking aggressive action. But, as has become apparent since this scandal has broken out, defrocking nor removal from priestly duties has not been the norm for previous, known abusive priests! The Pope may not have had first hand knowledge, however other authoritative men within the RCC obviously did.

When you look at the numerous counts of molestation of some of these priests, clearly you can infer that they performed communion while being guilty of this offense.

 

Lisa,

Now , we all know that Pedophilia incurable. We KNOW that ones with those tendencies will have them all their lives.

However, before this, 'common wisdom' was that it could be cured with therapy. So, if a priest or anyone for that matter, went to therapy for any condition, it was thought that the person could be changed.

I'm not condoning the "musical chair" assignments of offending priests, I'm just asking for a little leeway in trying to see from a bishop's point of view in light of past "common wisdom."

I mean, if you're in the business of forgiving people, and are told that the person is cured of an illness, (and that person has repented) can you say, "Okay, you're cured. You're forgiven. Now, get out of my church and never come back?"

The Church has learned from the sins of the past. So can we cut it a little slack in the present?

 

Yes! I do! But then he gets to make the rules as he goes. Someone died and made him boss. Not sure who tho?

Glad your mother is leaving the RCC.

Sherrie </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Yes! I do! But then he gets to make the rules as he goes. Someone died and made him boss. Not sure who tho?

Glad your mother is leaving the RCC.

Sherrie </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Folks,

Noting that this person happens to be a Southern Baptist, I find this post to be rather interesting. My understanding of the Southern Baptists is that historically they have not allowed anyone to remarry so apparently what the author is thinking is that fornication outside of marriage for these divorced people. Or is it. I am quite confused as to what the SB stand is on this issue these days. Of course when morality changes within a denomination then that breeds confusion. The Holy Father is only affirming what has been taught for 2000 years by all of Christianity up until the age divorce and remarriage that started about 40 years ago, where anything goes. Would you dare deny that this is the historical Christian position. And oh yes, contraception is a big part of this divorce craze. Somehow we have determined that "be fruitful and multiply" no longer applies to us and Psalm 127 is no longer valid. I would much rather be with a Church that is consistent with itself AND THE BIBLE ("what God has joined let no man put assunder", "GOD HATES DIVORCE").

By the way my Mother in Law was SB (now Catholic after last weekend) when she divorced her husband (now deceased) they ostracized not only her but her children as well.

Blessings