Vatican commissions a Poll on the Family...

KeanoIsALegend

In yet another progressive move by Pope Francis he has given his blessing to every diocese on the Planet to be polled on the relationship between the Church and the Modern Family.

The results of which will be used as a platform for an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in Rome next year...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/180575701/Letter-from-Msgr-Ronny-Jenkins-to-the-USCCB

El_Duderino 09

KeanoIsALegend wrote: »

In yet another progressive move by Pope Francis he has given his blessing to every diocese on the Planet to be polled on the relationship between the Church and the Modern Family.

The results of which will be used as a platform for an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in Rome next year...

I don't know what this means. Isn't the church's relationship with everyone except the traditional family pretty clear?

Is this about changing the church's view on the modern/non-traditional family?

apple5s

The "poll" is just to get the opinion of the church on how various family situations can be approached pastorally. The teaching of the Church is not going to change, but its approach to teaching can.

scidive

There's nothing progressive about polling parishioners on their views on the relationship between the Church and the Modern Family. Church Authorities are supposed to be shepherd's leading their flock not the other way round the sheep leading the shepherds.

Some recent polls done on Catholics show that a slim majority are in favour of same sex marriages and women priests.For church authorities to go asking ordinary parishioners their views is leading the church on a dangerous path.

According to Catholic World News "A majority of Catholics in the United States who attend Mass weekly support same-sex marriage and the ordination of women to the priesthood, according to a Quinnipiac University survey released October 4.The survey found that 56% of Americans, 53% of Catholics who attend Mass weekly, and 65% of Catholics who attend Mass less frequently would support “a law in your state that would allow same-sex couples to get married.” "

Its the historical equivalent of Moses instead of going up mount Sinai and asking God for his commandments he instead polls his people on their views and opinions on morality .

Manach

It would seem a good opportunity to promote a deeper re-engagement between the Church laity and clerical so as to give Catholic families a sense of establishment within the community and re-assert their value system.

Ismhunter

scidive wrote: »

Its the historical equivalent of Moses instead of going up mount Sinai and asking God for his commandments he instead polls his people on their views and opinions on morality .

I'll be using this in the future!

Ismhunter

In fairness this is not about changing doctrine but seeing how the RCC can pastorally respond to challenges of modern families by seeing what is already being done and what is already being thought. No new doctrines will appear.

Ambersky

Its the historical equivalent of Moses instead of going up mount Sinai and asking God for his commandments he instead polls his people on their views and opinions on morality .

This is the model of Obedience and some would say this is what the bible is all about, doing what the father figure says, without consultation and with no opinion of your own, simply the free will to obey or not to obey and there are dire consequences to no obeying, as in torment for all eternity. Or as the Godfather would say, "make him an offer he cant refuse".
Lets have a look at what Obedience looks like from another perspective.

Here is one of Gods tests of unquestioning obedience, its a little game of "How Far Would You Go". It seems God the father was willing to go this far with his own son and further, a very dysfunctional model of family relations. This is our first example of institutional child abuse.
In this case the institution was the family. Abraham had other interesting practices in his family such as Genesis 16: 3 states, "And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid....and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife”. Hagar conceived Ishmael from Abraham, and the Ishmaelites descend from him.
Not exactly the kind of traditional family model we are usually led to believe comes from the Bible is it.
Sacrifice of Issac


Moses had a bit of a temper too and there is a bit of hand wringing going on with a clear message someones very unhappy and people are going to get hurt or at least in a lot of trouble. Moses struck a rock twice instead of once to draw out water as God had commanded and that little bit of insecurity was taken as questioning God and for this he was apparently punished by not being allowed to enter the promised land that he had struggled so hard to get to. This is a pretty harsh God isnt he, demanding and jealous and looking for proof of loyalty and unquestioning obedience.
On the traditional family theme in the bible we need to remember Moses was adopted himself even though he had living parents and by a foreign couple who came from a rich country too, very modern.


All that unquestioning obedience to a jealous god ( he says so himself) doesnt look very different than this does it.


The bible is full of so called non traditional family relationships. Jesus himself was born into a family where his mother was pregnant before she was married.
Personally I dont like the models of relationship in the images above. I would much rather a relationship of mutual respect and one where my opinion does matter to the other person.
It seems the church needs to ask the people about family because they seem to have a very dysfunctional model of it themselves.

Turtwig

MOd: Original poster was a serial re-reg and is now banned. I'm not sure how much life is left in this thread but we should at least try to keep it focused on the original topic. It's certainly not meant to be a critique of the bible.

scidive

Ismhunter wrote: »

In fairness this is not about changing doctrine but seeing how the RCC can pastorally respond to challenges of modern families by seeing what is already being done and what is already being thought. No new doctrines will appear.

How do you know its not about changing church doctrine. With questions like "Do cohabiting couples feel marginalised from receiving the sacraments" or "Do Divorced people ask for the sacraments" these questions are challenging the church doctrines more than they are finding new pastoral methods .

The very act of polling parishioners and the questions being asked is setting off various alarm bells. It gives justification to liberals in the church that can point to democratic majority and a new pastoral approach as a means for changing church doctrine.

Ambersky

Perhaps I wasnt clear enough in the points I was making and their relevance to both the Op and the train of thoughts so far expressed in this thread.

Scdive used a bible story to express what seemed to be a preference for a model of moral authority which is literally handed down from on high without any consultation with anyone, ie Moses on mount Sinai.
This biblical analogy was used to express a disagreement with the Pope giving his blessing on a poll about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the modern family. It seems Scdive would like the Pope to take a more Moses not consulting anyone, what I say goes, you dont question just obey, kind of approach.
Ismhunter seemed to like this analogy.

I like the idea of a discussion on the modern family and dont like the idea of unquestioning obedience to anyone. A dictatorial leader demanding unquestioning obedience wouldnt be put forward in the social or political sphere except by, well, dictators so I dont see why we should think it is a good idea in our spiritual lives.
I disagree with people being compared to sheep in areas of decision making and morals.
In order to put forward a fresh look at unquestioning obedience and its consequences I too used familiar bible stories but told from a different perspective.

Traditional conservative Christianity seems to put a high value on Obedience and I am saying this is not Love. Love is not expressed in and it does not seek unquestioning Obedience. There was a time when unquestioning obedience was put forward as Love and it still might be by the Taliban etc and stricter traditional families of any religion headed by men who see themselves as patriarchs in control of everyone else, but we now know it is hardly a healthy model of relationship. It is not a healthy model of church either.
The New Testament is suppose to be about Love

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

We may need to learn healthier ways of relating to and loving one another and I think consulting people and asking them what they think and what they have learned about loving relationships and family instead of dictating to them is a step forward. The unquestioning obedience thing needs to end, it is not a model of adult relationship and it is downright dangerous, it is really incomprehensible to me that people are holding onto it so strongly. It is understandable that people are afraid of things like change and may see things like consultation and co operation as the initial stages of those changes . I know change can feel scary and people often feel the need to cling to the familiar but everything needs to change and evolve or die. Anyway change has always happened what you may be use to in this part of your life and in this part of the world is not how it always is or always has been, even in the Catholic church.
As for traditional family values I was pointing out that the man woman two point two children thing may not be that traditional and certainly isnt the only model we see examples of in the bible.

apple5s

scidive wrote: »

How do you know its not about changing church doctrine. With questions like "Do cohabiting couples feel marginalised from receiving the sacraments" or "Do Divorced people ask for the sacraments" these questions are challenging the church doctrines more than they are finding new pastoral methods .

The very act of polling parishioners and the questions being asked is setting off various alarm bells. It gives justification to liberals in the church that can point to democratic majority and a new pastoral approach as a means for changing church doctrine.

Church Doctrine or Dogma can never change. What the Church could be trying to do is see how Privilegium Paulinum could maybe be applied to certain marital circumstances. The Church as only teach the Faith as was given to them The "poll" is simply a task of seeing how this faith should be taught pastorally.

Ambersky

Historically, Catholicism solved the problem of change simply by denying it.............. Theologians joked that when a pope or other official circuitously introduced a modification of church teaching, he would begin, ''As the church has always taught. . . .''

From 'A Church That Can and Cannot Change': Dogma
By PETER STEINFELS

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Not all teachings are dogma. People are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmata. This leaves quite a lot of room for maneuver as only a few teachings have been given this status. Quite a few others have been seen to have changed already in the Catholic Church.

In the article linked to above Steinfels whom I think is more of a conservative Catholic than a liberal uses several examples of change in Catholic church teaching.

The first example of changing Catholic church teaching is on Slavery.
Slavery in some form was accepted as a fact of life in both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, in much Christian theology and in Catholic teaching well into the 19th century. But John Paul II included slavery among matters that are ''intrinsically evil'' -- prohibited ''always and forever'' and ''without any exception'' -- a violation of a universal, immutable norm.

The next example of a change in law is the attitude to what was for so long considered and condemned as usury. Lending money for interest became accepted as lawful.

In certain cases, modern popes have claimed the power to dissolve marriages once considered indissoluble.

The Catholic church has also changed its relationship with government's imposing legal penalties, including death, to uphold religious truth, today the church positively forbids it.

Other examples of change in Catholic Church teaching are but not limited to.

In the early Church married men were permitted to be ordained as priests in the West. This custom was changed in the tenth century and since then, in the Latin Rite, candidates for the priesthood must be celibate.

Until recent years it was forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. The Church has "loosed" this discipline and now allows the faithful to eat meat on Fridays provided some other act of mortification is performed.

Prior to Vatican II, the pre-Communion fast extended from midnight until the time one received Communion; no food or water were to be consumed. This discipline was relaxed first to a three-hour fast and then to the one-hour fast the Church now observes.

Up untill recently a Catholic had to attend Mass on Sunday under pain of mortal sin. That law has changed to convenience people to attend Mass on Saturday instead of Sunday which is considered the Sabbath.

So Yeah the Catholic Church could change its attitude to certain things, it has a long history of doing so.

georgieporgy

Looks like the Vatican did not commission a poll on the family;

Vatican City, Nov 4, 2013 / 02:46 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The director of the Holy See press office has clarified that Pope Francis has not presented a questionnaire to Catholics worldwide to consult on homosexual unions and divorced persons, as some news outlets have reported.


read the full article:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-counters-claims-of-pope-polling-catholics-on-gay-marriage/

scidive

Ambersky wrote: »

Scdive used a bible story to express what seemed to be a preference for a model of moral authority which is literally handed down from on high without any consultation with anyone, ie Moses on mount Sinai.
This biblical analogy was used to express a disagreement with the Pope giving his blessing on a poll about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the modern family. It seems Scdive would like the Pope to take a more Moses not consulting anyone, what I say goes, you dont question just obey, kind of approach.

I like the idea of a discussion on the modern family and dont like the idea of unquestioning obedience to anyone. A dictatorial leader demanding unquestioning obedience wouldnt be put forward in the social or political sphere except by, well, dictators so I dont see why we should think it is a good idea in our spiritual lives.

What you say goes against the word of God and as christians believe is against the truth. Obedience to God is one of the cornerstones of the bible even in the new testament. Jesus warns us against man made laws in place of Gods laws as he said, “This people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, the worship they offer me is worthless, for what they teach are only human rules. you even put aside the commandment of God to hold fast to human tradition” (Mark 7:6-9).

Ambersky

scidive wrote: »

What you say goes against the word of God and as christians believe is against the truth. Obedience to God is one of the cornerstones of the bible even in the new testament. Jesus warns us against man made laws in place of Gods laws as he said, “This people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, the worship they offer me is worthless, for what they teach are only human rules. you even put aside the commandment of God to hold fast to human tradition” (Mark 7:6-9).

Much of the teaching on human morality is exactly that, human tradition. There are very few laws directly handed down from God on family and relationships and few Church teachings that are declared infallible. Jesus was talking about those who put law before all else, their hearts were not full of Love and Compassion which is the Golden rule and which Christ said was the New Commandment he brought to us. All the things he did in love and compassion, taking water from the Samaritan woman at the well, healing on the Sabbath, associating with social rejects, standing in the way of a woman about to be stoned for adultery, were criticised by those saying he was going directly against Gods laws as handed down in scripture, in tradition and by Gods appointed representatives on earth. How familiar that sounds.

That's what he was tried for in the Jewish court, breaking Gods laws, blasphemy and healing on the Sabbath were included and part of why he was killed. They would have preferred Jesus to keep to tradition, keep to Gods law holding back on compassion but observant of the law. Jesus was saying love and compassion are Gods law and a new commandment. He wasn't holding up unquestioning obedience as the way you would recognise his followers, quite the opposite in fact.
Jesus brought about a lot of change and what he was saying was very challenging at the time, its very challenging now. It wouldn't have been easy for conservative traditional religious people at the time to hear or take on board what he was saying.

But listen to me, I'm not even a Christian
As Gandhi said "I think Christianity sounds like a good idea". If it was put into practice it would have a lot going for it.

Manach

Christianity has stood for, and strengthen the cohesive nature of the family by its naturing of the sense of community, its core doctrine that has reflected and expanded on its biblical roots and its involving with framing societal laws that have ameliorated the worst of the various waves of attempts either to impose perfection or else total negligent by the state within the past centuries. Because it was not an institution served perfectly there were terrible mistakes made and should not be forgotten, but on the main the core aims were followed and much good within the socio-familial sphere was achieved.

lmaopml

KeanoIsALegend wrote: »

In yet another progressive move by Pope Francis he has given his blessing to every diocese on the Planet to be polled on the relationship between the Church and the Modern Family.

The results of which will be used as a platform for an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in Rome next year...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/180575701/Letter-from-Msgr-Ronny-Jenkins-to-the-USCCB

Jeepurs, I love Pope Francis, but I think you might be misinformed as to the objective of it, some media do tend to not be quite so in touch with run of the mill stuff until they think it sells - and think it's new - this is merely routine, has been for years and years.....that's the truth, sorry, but that's the truth.

neemish

apple5s wrote: »

Church Doctrine or Dogma can never change. What the Church could be trying to do is see how Privilegium Paulinum could maybe be applied to certain marital circumstances. The Church as only teach the Faith as was given to them The "poll" is simply a task of seeing how this faith should be taught pastorally.

The central truths may never change, but surely our attitude can. It's not that long since babies who were not baptised were being buried outside of Church walls. My parents were taught not even to LOOK at a Protestant Church, lest they be in some way "corrupted". These were ATTITUDE not doctrinal difficulties.

Have you read the questionnaire? What we are being asked is what is the pastoral reality on the ground. It's all very well saying that people in second marriages are committing sin but how do we deal with the situation when they present a child for Sacraments? It's not a case of the tail wagging the dog but Pope Francis simply asking the question.

Two points on the biblical argument
1. How would Jesus react if he arrived the local RC Church on a Sunday morning and was told who was being excluded for not being in line with Church teaching
2. Have a look at Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem around 50 AD. "The apostles, the elders and the whole church" were involved in a decision. Peter listened carefully before making a proclamation, but everyone was heard.