Polygamy And Mercy

Creepy.  Like this synod.

Creepy.
Like this synod.

 

Via the usual Rorate (but strangely, their video does not work on my browser; you might have better luck) this beautiful excerpt of a video interview from the South African Archbishop Napier; who, I am afraid, will not see the red hat in this pontificate:

The good Archbishop is good in what he says. He could, though, in my eyes, have said more. Possibly he did, but it did not get in the video.

What he said:

1. How can parents chose the “easy way out” and say to their children they must make a lifelong commitment?

2. In life, you must carry your crosses with Christ.

3. If Europeans can be de facto polygamist and receive communion, how can you deny the same to the non-Catholic polygamist in Africa, who marries a “c”atholic wife (among others) and desires to “receive communion”? Such situations are (cough) not uncommon in Africa. Should the Church not take account of the “new reality” and “challenges of the modern times”?

I would add to this that the usual suspects would say: hey, think of the children! How can you ask the man to leave any of his three wives?That would be cruel! And if call him a polygamist, now “I think they would feel insulted and offended.”

What he did not say (or the video did not show):

1.   This particular cross is one of the own choosing of those who are now complaining. No doctor orders anyone to remarry. Divorce and remarriage does not just “happen”, like cancer or Alzheimer’s. It’s a conscious decision. Often (not always), this decision was made in conscious defiance of well-known Church laws, by people who call themselves Catholics. This is as much carrying a cross, as the drug addict “carries” his. Beds, and lying in them, come rather to mind.

2. It would be high time that Bishops and cardinal began to distinguish very loud in public what is meant for marriage. There is marriage and marriage. Unless the sacramental marriage is very clearly separated from a civil ceremony of some faggoty government, people will continue to be confused. They will think, particularly if they are poorly instructed or non-Catholics, that the Church arbitrarily decided “you have only one go”, for some vague desire of, basically, orderly society. It is, of course, also that, but this so much more than that. The sacramental marriage is the *real* and the *only* marriage. The other one is purely state-sanctioned concubinage. It’s a purely heathen construct.

Start calling the first marriage “the sacrament of marriage” and the second marriage “the state-sanctioned concubinage” and see people slowly getting it, or at least not able anymore to muddle the waters. Not even the Proddies, the atheists, or the Tablet readers. 

3. This might be too much for a bishop, but it’s not too much for your humble correspondent: I have no problem whatsoever in believing that both Kasper and Francis would not have any problem in giving communion to the African polygamist described above.

Kasper would tell us how “forever” the “commitment” of the polygamist to his many wives is.

Francis would (you know what is coming, don’t you…) say that hey, “if a person is polygamist and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge”?

M

Posted on October 8, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Hmmm. Well, there IS the institution of marriage, instituted by God, which is the natura upon which the sacrament acts. Sure, the state is a ga-ga pagan, but the institution of marriage is a gift to humanity, the sacrament to Catholics…

    • if you mean by that that the pagan institution reflects an underlying reality created by God, certainly. But something that is not Christian is not Christian. The first marriage is the sacrament. The second can only be a caricature of the order wanted by God.
      M

  2. ..Not to worry, Mundo et al.! Ganswein has spoken:

    http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=22864

    ..No comment on this from me.

  3. Agreed. And if indissolubilty belongs to the natural institution (which it does) then even the second after a valid natural marriage is a caricature of the original institution.

    There are, alas, many layers to this dysfunction and sin.

  4. One very important point: I’m a nurse in a big city and I’ve seen more than my share of disease. I’m also a mother. How in God’s name can any parent approve the behavior of any child engaging in homosexual relationships? These parents may be removed from God, but can they be so removed from reality that they do not understand the health risk and early death rate from the homosexual lifestyle, of either gender? It’s utter madness!! Take a look at the Morbidity and Mortality rates from the US Centers for Disease Control if there is any question about this. And then, with the encouragement from the Synod, carry on!!!

%d bloggers like this: