My offenses truly I know them; my sin is always before me. Against you, you alone, I have sinned; what is evil in your sight I have done.
We will returns to our series of Summa Contra Gentiles next week. We’re almost at the point of showing the soul is immortal!
Meanwhile, since the subject of the dubia has become so important, we’ll pause by pointing to One Peter Five.
Such answers are needed. For one small instance, here is an exchange about men pretending to be women in which a Catholic priest “in good standing” laments that women who pretend they are cats aren’t provided public litter boxes. No, wait. He wants men who are pretending to be women to be able to go into the toilets with your daughters. Anybody’s ears tickled?
…This is no small dispute between the two groups. Either we take God (as Jesus) at His word, or we don’t. Tempers are flaring, friendships are dissolving, and camps are forming. The terms heresy and schism are being tossed about.
Hence the True-False quiz, or dubia. The dubia were formed to see into which camp one falls.
Here they are. You will want to print these out: also, there is a long explanation of the nature of each dubium here.
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
- After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
- After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
- After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
- After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Full details are at One Peter Five.
Isn’t annulment how one fixes the divorce problem?
If one defines religion as a social organization, then the answers of modern day people are correct. If one defined religion as teaching of a moral system, then the old answers are correct. Since no one like absolute morality unless it somehow defends what THEY believe, my guess is a social organization is what we have now (all morality is fluid unless being fluid means having to give up your own beliefs—we all KNOW that, okay). Not to mention fund-raising is so much easier when you tell people whatever they want to hear. Ask Hillary.
Ah a dutch photograph from 1978, former prime minister Joop de Uijl (ledpft) and minster of education Jos van Kemenade(right), playing the knowledge quiz 2 voor twaalf hosted by Joop Koopman (center)
Indeed. and the curious thing is that Den Uyl and Van Kemenade are Social-Democrats, both not being famous fir being very religious.
An annulment is simply a statement (after due investigation) the there never was a valid marriage in the first place. It requires the pre-existence of an impediment that makes marriage impossible (such as an existing valid marriage, among other things).
The Church is a social organisation like everything else to do with the society of Man… but it does not derive its moral authority from the opinions or convenience of Men.
Let me just state, re the whole post at 1P5, that I am tired of the ‘slippery slope’ argument. We’ve left the slippery slope long ago; we’re just exploring the bottom lands now.