Catholic vs. civil

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by Pete E on Oct 5, 2002


Hi Pete,

Well my defense of the Pope was probably misguided but I was trying to find an explanation that would explain what you were accusing the Pope of saying. It just didn't seem right to me based on my understanding of what the Church teaches about the existense of hell.  I assumed what you were saying was accurate but that you were taking it out of context perhaps.  Upon investigation I think you have gotten your information from the tabloids rather than from a reliable and accurate source.  I think stories tend to get exaggerated with time also and I'm guessing that's what's happened here.  

Anyway, I think you've read something that is not entirely accurate and something that gives a false and very misleading sense of what the Pope was expressing.  I talked with my Priest friend tonight and he remembered a string of stories coming out in the summer of 1999 claiming that the Pope denied the existence of hell as a place.  It was a case of people having problems with language and not having much of a theological background to make simple distinctions.  The story died down but it was never really corrected.  

The controversy occured after the Pope's weekly audience with the general public in June of 1999.  He was speaking about the existence of hell but as some times the case, the media reported some nuances in his message that just weren't there.  After the talk, there were jokes in the paper about the big freeze occuring over in hell and it gave the Catholic bashers a good oppurtunity to make something out of nothing.  (-:

In the Pope's weekly general audience, his message is spoken in Italian however at the end of his talk he will give a condensed highlight of his speach in English.  The Vatican newspaper (L'Osservatore Romana) puts out a British/English translation of the Italian and also reprints the condensed English spoken message also.  You can find both at petersnet.com.  

The controversy occurred because the Pope spoke of hell as a state and as something more than just a place.  He did not say it wasn't a place but that understanding it in only these terms was not sufficient.  This is what started the controversy and people like yourself started saying that the Church no longer believed in the existence of a literal hell.  Actually Pete you've taken the media a step further and quoted the Pope as not only saying that he didn't believe in a literal hell but that the Church never taught it.  Here's your quote for the Pope;  "we have never taught that hell was a literal place".   Then you called the Pope a lyer!!  (-:  

Here's the summation speech that the Pope spoke in English.  (This is not a translation but his exact words.)

......Pope speaking in English.......

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Our catechesis last week focused on heaven, and this week we consider the reality of hell, the final destiny of those who reject the love of God and refuse his forgiveness.

Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God, but the condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life. It is the ultimate consequence of sin itself. Sacred Scripture uses many images to describe the pain, frustration and emptiness of life without God. More than a physical place, HELL IS THE STATE of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. So eternal da**mnnation  is not God’s work but is actually our own doing.

Christian faith teaches us that there are creatures who have already given a definitive “no” to God; these are the spirits which rebelled against God and whom we call demons. They serve as a warning for human beings: eternal da**mnation remains a real possibility for us too. The reality of hell should not, however, be a cause of anxiety or despair for believers. Rather, it is a necessary and healthy reminder that human freedom has to be conformed to the example of Jesus, who always said “yes” to God, who conquered Satan, and who gave us his Spirit so that we too could call God “Father”.

I am pleased to greet the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors present at today’s audience, especially those from England, Scotland, Nigeria, Hong Kong and the United  States of America. I wish you a pleasant visit to Christian Rome and I invoke upon you the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
                                                         

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by El Diablo on Oct 6, 2002

E D ,
Well if the speech you present is the only one relative to the existence of hell than the pope's veracity is saved and he was misquoted.Actually the statement that I had read "we have never taught that hell was a literal place" was so outrageous based on their history that it would be hard to believe he said it,it would be so obviously untrue.
Are you sure this is the only thing he said relative to this?Its hard to believe he could be so misquoted.
The bad news is that the pope still believes hell is a literal place.I think it is a convenient creation of the church.I had read that the word for hell before it was translated was the name of an old gargage dump near some city where bodies of people with no one who cared to bury them were dumped.It is a story that was used to scare people in to submission.Early California Missions had scenes of torment painted on their walls to scare the indians in to submission.
So,if this is true,the church did not make a giant leap forward,but they didn't lie about it either.At least  that makes them consistent.
Glad you found a way out of this,I didn't really feel comfortable insulting your main man.Infallable he isn't though,being human as the rest of us.

Pete

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by Pete E on Oct 6, 2002


I think hell is translated in different places in Scripture from both Hades and Gehenna.  I think Hades would be translated into something like a hidden and dark hole.  I don't believe Hades always refers to those who are da**mned.  I may be wrong on this but it was also used to denote the place were the rightious dead went before the Kingdom of Heaven was opened by the coming of Christ. The dead in Hades were waiting for Christ to open the gates of Hades or hell.  But this hell is not the one we generally think of.

Gehanna is the word you are referring to I believe.  It  refers to a historical valley that was near to Jerusalem.  At one time the people there were Pagans and they worshipped a God called "Mulloch" SP?  Appearently as part of their ritual, they practiced human sacrifice and children were burned at an alter erected to their God.  Later in history, the valley was used as a refuse to burn criminals, animals and just plain garbage.   The Jews considered the valley  an abomination and it began to be used as a word to decribe the place of the da**mned.  The Christ of the New Testament adopts the same language.

Anyway, Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in a literal hell, they believe that the wicked just cease to exist and that our souls are not immortal.  

El Diablo

[Pete E]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by El Diablo on Oct 6, 2002

ED,
I didn't realise they didn't believe our souls our immortal,that seems inconsistent with religion.They do believe in a heaven on earth,they have pictures of the lion laying down with the lamb,which raises the question what does the lion eat.
I worked with a guy who was a Jehovahs witness.He was a converted hell raiser.Funny guy,but the belief system was rediculous.He believed the world as we new it was going to end/change around 1975 I believe,an updated exstimate,the original which did not happen was 1917 I think.I worked with him at my job at the city.He quit,I didn't see him for a few years.About 1973 here he is at the land development counter with some guys from the church and building plans for a new church.I said,Craig,its 1973,do you really think you are going to get your use out of this church?He just smiled.
I have to admire their devotion to spreading the word,even if I disagree with what they are saying.An no blood transfusions?Total lunacy.

Pete

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by Pete E on Oct 6, 2002


Pete, I didn't need to find a way out of this as I was pretty certain you were just shooting from the hip on that quote of yours.  (-:  No this is the right story for sure and I found a bunch of articles on it out on the internet and everytime they make reference to this one speech he made in 1999 at his weekly general audience in Rome.  I wasn't able to find a quote even close to the one you sight.

Here's a story I found from the Detriot News back in 1999.

http://www.detnews.com/1999/religion/9908/20/08210014.htm

Anyway, the longer Italian version is much more interesting than the short English comments he made at the very end of his talk.  In Italian, he did not say "more than a physical place" he said  "more than a place".   In the English translation of the Italian, it says "rather than a place" but this is British English and does not mean "instead of" but really means "more than".  The Spanish uses the word "mas" also.  

The Pope goes on to say that Scripture uses both symbolic and figurative language to describe hell.  The Pope is not backing away from Hell as a place but he does seem to be distancing himself from a literal interpretation of the imagery of hell as found in Scripture.  This departure from more stark views of Hell does not necessarily represent a change in Church teaching.  The Pope is also a theologian and while his opinion on matters is important, his speech would not be considered as an official church proclamation as would an encyclical or the documents of an Ecumenical Council would be.  

El Diablo

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by Pete E on Oct 5, 2002

Howdy Pete,

My point about your brother in law is that it was he who came to the Catholic Church and not the other way around, it's important to remember that.  If I were marrying a Morman girl for instance and requested that the marriage be a temple marriage despite not agreeing with one notion of their doctrine, I wouldn't be mad at the Morman Church for going through such an ordeal....hell I'd be mad at myself for not sticking to my own principles and values.  

El Diablo

[Pete E]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by El Diablo on Oct 5, 2002

E D ,
Alot of the anger was about what the main point of disagreement was about,the church's policy on birth control.My brother and law and sister did not intend to abide by that but didn't fight it too hard in the counseling to get the church wedding.Yes it is disengenuos.It can be hard to tell the parents to go to hell about the church wedding.No one expected the church to change its possition,they just thought the possition was rediculous,but played along to make my father happy.Once free of that social pressure they never went back to the institution they thought so ridiculous.Yeah,they were mad at themselves also for having to "fake it."

Pete

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by Pete E on Oct 4, 2002

Pete,

A dispensation to marry a non baptized person would not not come from a parish Preist but the Bishop himself.  A Catholic can not marry a non baptized person unless this impediment is removed by dispensation.  A Priest has no authority to remove the dispensation unless the Priest is infact the Bishop himself.  The Bishop would most likely be advised by a staff and by the Priest of the Parish where the marriage would occur but ultimately the decision is the Bishop's.  

The Church in Colombia is actually much more strict than the Church in the United States regarding these kind of things.  This is true in their interpretation of canon law as well.  Therefore a little gift here or there will probably have little affect on the ultimate decision.

Now the situation in the United States is very different.  The Catholic Church here is much more liberal and as a result of this I'm not surprised by some of the crazy things that happen.  You brought up annulments, to annul a marriage, it must be proved that the marriage contract never really existed.  The key to this is really at the time the marriage was entered into, for instance did both parties enter into the marriage in good faith etc.    In Colombia, the Church is rather strict in this.  In Colombia, you could get an annulment if you discovered your spouse was a homosexual for instance.  To get an annulment in the United States almost any excuse is considered sufficient.  The canon lawyers are taught at the secular Catholic universities and they come away with a sort of secular no fault view of annulment.  Annulment for all practical purposes is a Church sanctioned divorce.  In the United States 80% of the cases that come before the marriage tribunal are annuled.  These are cases were the couple have been married for many years and have children.  The Vatican has been critical of the Catholic Church in the United States for therir extremely liberal interpretation of canon law.

El Diablo

[Pete E]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by El Diablo on Oct 4, 2002

E D,
Hm,wonder if that would work.Hire Guido Sarduchi or another imposter,take him to Colombia and tell them he is the priest you have known forever and you brought him to marry you.
I jest here of course.Guess I should get my old attitudes about the church out of the way,except as you know I have a problem with their old attitudes.
Your up on this way more than me.At the time my sister maried,many years ago I know they met with the priest.If the bishops permission was required I was not aware.A guy I worked with married a girl in Hawaii,again many yers ago.At the first counseling session he told the priest what he thought of the church's ideas.That priest would not marry them.They found another one who would.

Pete

[El Diablo]

... in response to Hire Father Guido Sarduchi, posted by Pete E on Oct 4, 2002

Most marriages do not require a Bishop's approval however Cali-Vets case would.  The procedure is to talk with your local Priest and they get all the relevant info. in a interview process.  If there are any complications the local Priest would be the liason to the Bishop's office.

eL dIABLO

[Cali vet]

... in response to Hire Father Guido Sarduchi, posted by El Diablo on Oct 4, 2002

Well thanks for all the in-put above. Hell I may end up having to try them all from lying to the priest to paying him off. As to requirements or options in the US they don't apply because we're not going anywhere. In the end it may come down to whether or not she can live with a civil ceremony.

[El Diablo]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by Cali vet on Oct 3, 2002

For a Catholic to marry a non baptized person, a special dispensation would need to be granted by the Bishop in the diocese were the marriage would take place.  A marriage of this type is generally discouraged by the Church however the Bishop may very well grant it depending on the circumstances etc.. The normal procedure is to bring the issue up in the Parish of your fiancee and her local Priest will carry it forward to the diocesan offices.

If the dispensation were granted, the Church would consider your marriage as valid however it would not be considered Sacramental. A marriage is only considered Sacramental when both parties are baptized.

El Diablo

[Cali vet]

... in response to Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by El Diablo on Oct 4, 2002

Ok thanks El D I'll pass that info on to my novia and we'll see where we get. Sounds like we better get started early.

[Michael B]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by Cali vet on Oct 3, 2002

Nah, no problem. My father was a Baptist (although 20 some years later her turned Catholic) and my mother was Catholic. You have to promise not to interfere with her practicing and to raise your kids Catholic and have a couple of counsoleing sessions and/or go to a class. Then they will approve it. Of course, they got married in the US, things could be different in Colombia, but I think what I said will hold true there as well. Of course your best bet, instead of asking US, go talk to her priest.

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by Michael B on Oct 4, 2002


The example of your father is not really on point and may give Cali Vet a false impression.  Cali-Vet is not baptized whereas a Baptist presumably would be. This is not a small distinction.

The Church is clearly more strict in this situation as marriage to a non baptized person is considered an impediment to marriage whereas as marriage to a baptized non Catholic is not.  Marriage to a Baptist would require permission from the Bishop also however this is not nearly as severe as removing an impediment with a special dispensation.

El Diablo