I trust him. I'd trust him with my life and follow him anywhere. (Including if a bunch of conservatives think it's a heresy.) Everything about his actions, his words, his ministry is clearly marked by the Holy Spirit.
A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang.
The opposite of cringe, some times the opposite of biased.
"People in polygamous marriages" -- is it Western to be horrified at that statement? All individuals should be welcomed, but why does that specific situation need consideration?
Some of the document feels like therapy babble. It's not wrong -- listening is good! -- but how is it actionable?
For me, the elephant in the room is how the Church shut her doors during the pandemic. When we most needed the reassurance of our sacraments, they were pulled away. On the one hand, the Church should answer for that. Why did our faith bend so easily to civil government? On the other hand, a digital relationship with the Church opened up. They speak of wanting to accommodate the disabled. How do these two aspects interact? What are the parameters of a livestreaming Church?
If the synodal process is relegated to an argument about women deacons, then it will feel like a merry-go-round with no purpose.
In my experience of knowing a number of people who have divorced without getting an annulment, most of them have not attempted to get one because they think it will make their children from that marriage illegitimate. I have tried to change minds to no avail. If someone could come up with a functional solution for this issue, I suspect the problem of remarried without an annulment would mostly disappear.
I'm a Nullity Sponsor, and I'm not really sure what to say besides "Where in canon law does it say that?" If the issue is treated as something we have to prove, then I feel it's a non-starter. The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim, not the person who has to respond to it, so if their children are going to be declared illegitimate according to the Church, then they should tell me where exactly the Church says that.
Another thing I'd mention is that an annulment is a declaration that a marriage never occurred between both parties. While marriage enjoys the favor of the law, a null marriage is a null marriage before and after the declaration is issued. The annulment isn't ending anything, it's declaring something to have never existed in the first place. Even if they don't get an annulment then, assuming they're in an invalid marriage, the fact remains that they conceived their children (unknowingly, and without incuring sin) out of wedlock. To be worried about the implications of the annulment on their children then is a non issue.
Nota Bene: Just for the sake of clarity, for those of you reading this and wondering if an annulment will make your children illegitimate, the answer is no. Absolutely not. Your children are your children and there is nothing wrong with them. Please do not let this worry keep you from beginning the process.
The problem is that people think if the Church says there was never a marriage then their children are illegitimate. I am not talking about people who might be willing to take the Church's silence on this as an affirmation of the legitimacy of their children. I am talking about people who have decided in their own minds that an annulment would make their children illegitimate and who won't take my word for it that it's not true.
Right, but even so there would have to be something that speaks on that in canon law. For instance, in the 1917 CIC, there's a canon regarding legitimizing previously illegitimate children (Canon 1051), but you don't see a peep about it in the current Code. Also, I'll add regarding Canon 1051 that it's about legitimizing children who aren't "adulterous or sacrilegious [offspring]", neither of which covers a couple in a putative marriage because they're not guilty of either such sin. So even an appeal to the 1917 CIC wouldn't work.
As for taking your word on it, you're welcome to use mine, for whatever that's worth! Tell them that someone who helps people with annulments told you this (not a canon lawyer though, I'm not a canonist).
That's a common problem across many areas of today's culture. People believe "what they hear" or "I saw somewhere on the TikToks" over what authoritative sources say. It's another version of hearing "what our itching ears long to hear".
We have so much access to "information" of spurious quality and have gotten so used to being able to search the global digital assertion swamp on our own that we are losing our ability to accept the word of another who should have our trust.
Probably we just need to find out which famous YouTuber these specific people get all their information from and have him put out a brief and catchy explainer (my acquaintances fall into at least three distinct self-made-Catholic-celebrity fandoms so I cannot make any immediate guesses which one would work).
What does it even mean for children to be illegitimate or not, in the eyes of the Church? Is being illegitimate an impediment to anything?
If it turned out that my parents were never married, then that *would* mean that my parents weren't married when I was conceived. If that's what "illegitimate" means, then I guess I would be "illegitimate" on that definition. But this wouldn't block me from getting confirmed, or getting married, or being ordained, or anything, right?
I'm trying to figure out what the question really is. Is illegitimacy some kind of legal status in the Church?
So the document is as bad as many thought it would be. Swell. It's disheartening to see that so many people in the world are so ashamed of the faith as its been handed down that they feel such a need to make word-salads to feel justified in dismissing the faith....instead of just owning up that they do not believe the Catholic faith anymore (if they ever did in the first place).
Does anyone else get a sick feeling in their stomach every time they read/hear the word "synodal"?
I honestly don't know what it means at this point. There has to be another word or phrase that sums it up better than "walking together" and doesn't implicitly mean that it is a process without a goal, ending, or guideposts to keep it from veering off into heterodoxy. If there isn't one, maybe that would explain the unease I've felt about the entire "synodal" process since it started. I have faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I've never seen a good defense that this is being guided by God instead of by ideologues who wish to move the Church into conformity with secular morals.
If disciples are walking together, discussing their disappointment in recent events and (if someone asks them for details) explaining what specifically they have been hoping for, and if even after being listened to by someone with authority they do not get what they thought they had wanted, and they are left dumbfounded, this is very Biblical.
I can't help but shake my head at the following: “When might a Bishop feel obliged to take a decision that differs from the considered advice offered by the consultative bodies? What would be the basis for such a decision?”
It's the bishop's neck that's on the line in case things fall apart. The bishop will catch any flack for any official decision that's made in his diocese, regardless of the level of lay involvement in that decision, and the laity can conveniently retreat to the sidelines and commentate on the situation.
The bishop in the first picture of the article, foreground, second from the left: that's how I'm feeling reading through this. Just means I (always) need to conform my life more to Jesus.
The all-consuming issue in American politics is whether "femininity" exists and whether "motherhood" should be prioritized in the political order. Wokism is just feminism.
The war on the "patriarchy" is really a war over femininity. It's seen in many contexts. The explosion of transgenderism is amongst the daughters of progressive feminist women. The Pelosi-led House tried to eliminate the use of the word "mother." "Mothers" are derided and depicted as handmaidens by feminist Hollywood. It shows up just about everywhere. Will the synod reflect those issues in a direct way? Is it obvious that the Church is an oppressive patriarchy that can only be remedied by putting women in power? Or is the feminist push for power simply clericalism in its truest form? The Blessed Virgin is the archetype of the Christian life and of femininity and some would argue, like GK Chesterton and Karl Stern, that respect for femininity is the foundation of western society.
In England and Wales the Goverment did not require the Churches to be closed until we were told:
"'Professor Jim McManus has spoken with a senior civil servant and it was quite clear they just had not thought through the issues of infection and security of churches and when he made these points clear, they were appalled and agreed they had made a mistake."
McManus, a LGBTQ activist, was representing the Bishops Conference. The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster then said that those Catholics who regretted losing access to the sacraments were suffering from self-pity. God help us.
I trust him. I'd trust him with my life and follow him anywhere. (Including if a bunch of conservatives think it's a heresy.) Everything about his actions, his words, his ministry is clearly marked by the Holy Spirit.
based document
What does based mean when you say that?
From the Urban Dictionary:
A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang.
The opposite of cringe, some times the opposite of biased.
Thank you. I knew I didn't know what it means.
"People in polygamous marriages" -- is it Western to be horrified at that statement? All individuals should be welcomed, but why does that specific situation need consideration?
Some of the document feels like therapy babble. It's not wrong -- listening is good! -- but how is it actionable?
For me, the elephant in the room is how the Church shut her doors during the pandemic. When we most needed the reassurance of our sacraments, they were pulled away. On the one hand, the Church should answer for that. Why did our faith bend so easily to civil government? On the other hand, a digital relationship with the Church opened up. They speak of wanting to accommodate the disabled. How do these two aspects interact? What are the parameters of a livestreaming Church?
If the synodal process is relegated to an argument about women deacons, then it will feel like a merry-go-round with no purpose.
I believe polygamous marriage is a bigger issue in Africa, where in some countries it's legal. https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/why-is-polygamy-in-the-vaticans-synod-document
In my experience of knowing a number of people who have divorced without getting an annulment, most of them have not attempted to get one because they think it will make their children from that marriage illegitimate. I have tried to change minds to no avail. If someone could come up with a functional solution for this issue, I suspect the problem of remarried without an annulment would mostly disappear.
I'm a Nullity Sponsor, and I'm not really sure what to say besides "Where in canon law does it say that?" If the issue is treated as something we have to prove, then I feel it's a non-starter. The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim, not the person who has to respond to it, so if their children are going to be declared illegitimate according to the Church, then they should tell me where exactly the Church says that.
Another thing I'd mention is that an annulment is a declaration that a marriage never occurred between both parties. While marriage enjoys the favor of the law, a null marriage is a null marriage before and after the declaration is issued. The annulment isn't ending anything, it's declaring something to have never existed in the first place. Even if they don't get an annulment then, assuming they're in an invalid marriage, the fact remains that they conceived their children (unknowingly, and without incuring sin) out of wedlock. To be worried about the implications of the annulment on their children then is a non issue.
Nota Bene: Just for the sake of clarity, for those of you reading this and wondering if an annulment will make your children illegitimate, the answer is no. Absolutely not. Your children are your children and there is nothing wrong with them. Please do not let this worry keep you from beginning the process.
The problem is that people think if the Church says there was never a marriage then their children are illegitimate. I am not talking about people who might be willing to take the Church's silence on this as an affirmation of the legitimacy of their children. I am talking about people who have decided in their own minds that an annulment would make their children illegitimate and who won't take my word for it that it's not true.
Amen
Right, but even so there would have to be something that speaks on that in canon law. For instance, in the 1917 CIC, there's a canon regarding legitimizing previously illegitimate children (Canon 1051), but you don't see a peep about it in the current Code. Also, I'll add regarding Canon 1051 that it's about legitimizing children who aren't "adulterous or sacrilegious [offspring]", neither of which covers a couple in a putative marriage because they're not guilty of either such sin. So even an appeal to the 1917 CIC wouldn't work.
As for taking your word on it, you're welcome to use mine, for whatever that's worth! Tell them that someone who helps people with annulments told you this (not a canon lawyer though, I'm not a canonist).
That's a common problem across many areas of today's culture. People believe "what they hear" or "I saw somewhere on the TikToks" over what authoritative sources say. It's another version of hearing "what our itching ears long to hear".
We have so much access to "information" of spurious quality and have gotten so used to being able to search the global digital assertion swamp on our own that we are losing our ability to accept the word of another who should have our trust.
Oh dear, now I'm imagining people saying on TikTok that annulments make people's children illegitimate. Oof.
Probably we just need to find out which famous YouTuber these specific people get all their information from and have him put out a brief and catchy explainer (my acquaintances fall into at least three distinct self-made-Catholic-celebrity fandoms so I cannot make any immediate guesses which one would work).
What does it even mean for children to be illegitimate or not, in the eyes of the Church? Is being illegitimate an impediment to anything?
If it turned out that my parents were never married, then that *would* mean that my parents weren't married when I was conceived. If that's what "illegitimate" means, then I guess I would be "illegitimate" on that definition. But this wouldn't block me from getting confirmed, or getting married, or being ordained, or anything, right?
I'm trying to figure out what the question really is. Is illegitimacy some kind of legal status in the Church?
"What does it even mean for children to be illegitimate or not, in the eyes of the Church? Is being illegitimate an impediment to anything?"
No, it's not.
"I'm trying to figure out what the question really is. Is illegitimacy some kind of legal status in the Church?"
It isn't. Whether your parents were married or not when you were conceived has no bearing on you and your status in the Church whatsoever.
So the document is as bad as many thought it would be. Swell. It's disheartening to see that so many people in the world are so ashamed of the faith as its been handed down that they feel such a need to make word-salads to feel justified in dismissing the faith....instead of just owning up that they do not believe the Catholic faith anymore (if they ever did in the first place).
Absolutely terrifying. Complete justification to change and contradict the clear teachings of the Church, that has been unbroken.
except it isn't.
Does anyone else get a sick feeling in their stomach every time they read/hear the word "synodal"?
I honestly don't know what it means at this point. There has to be another word or phrase that sums it up better than "walking together" and doesn't implicitly mean that it is a process without a goal, ending, or guideposts to keep it from veering off into heterodoxy. If there isn't one, maybe that would explain the unease I've felt about the entire "synodal" process since it started. I have faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I've never seen a good defense that this is being guided by God instead of by ideologues who wish to move the Church into conformity with secular morals.
If disciples are walking together, discussing their disappointment in recent events and (if someone asks them for details) explaining what specifically they have been hoping for, and if even after being listened to by someone with authority they do not get what they thought they had wanted, and they are left dumbfounded, this is very Biblical.
I can't help but shake my head at the following: “When might a Bishop feel obliged to take a decision that differs from the considered advice offered by the consultative bodies? What would be the basis for such a decision?”
It's the bishop's neck that's on the line in case things fall apart. The bishop will catch any flack for any official decision that's made in his diocese, regardless of the level of lay involvement in that decision, and the laity can conveniently retreat to the sidelines and commentate on the situation.
The bishop in the first picture of the article, foreground, second from the left: that's how I'm feeling reading through this. Just means I (always) need to conform my life more to Jesus.
The all-consuming issue in American politics is whether "femininity" exists and whether "motherhood" should be prioritized in the political order. Wokism is just feminism.
The war on the "patriarchy" is really a war over femininity. It's seen in many contexts. The explosion of transgenderism is amongst the daughters of progressive feminist women. The Pelosi-led House tried to eliminate the use of the word "mother." "Mothers" are derided and depicted as handmaidens by feminist Hollywood. It shows up just about everywhere. Will the synod reflect those issues in a direct way? Is it obvious that the Church is an oppressive patriarchy that can only be remedied by putting women in power? Or is the feminist push for power simply clericalism in its truest form? The Blessed Virgin is the archetype of the Christian life and of femininity and some would argue, like GK Chesterton and Karl Stern, that respect for femininity is the foundation of western society.
So basically you are telling me that this synod on synodality is basically the basically the same as the German synod on synodality?
nope, though plenty of good things in the German synodal way too, I'm sure.
Jesuit nonsense is taking a few deep breaths, everyone stating their opinion undebated, and saying the Holy Spirit did it.
In England and Wales the Goverment did not require the Churches to be closed until we were told:
"'Professor Jim McManus has spoken with a senior civil servant and it was quite clear they just had not thought through the issues of infection and security of churches and when he made these points clear, they were appalled and agreed they had made a mistake."
McManus, a LGBTQ activist, was representing the Bishops Conference. The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster then said that those Catholics who regretted losing access to the sacraments were suffering from self-pity. God help us.