The Crisis Is All In My Head – Part XVII

We most certainly do differ. Whether God "accepts" vows is a matter that no human being or group of human beings on earth can determine. It would be extreme hubris to claim such an ability. In the annulment context, that's why the Church looks at whether one or both had the capacity and intention to make such a vow. That CAN be determined, at least with some modicum of reliability. No, these determinations are not infallible. But they are a far sight more reliable that one's own personal self-interested opinion, even if one's conscience is well formed. And many (most?) are not. Again, how many people convince themselves that pre-marital relations or contraception or even abortion are acceptable/excusable, at least in their own personal circumstances? And that's even with Humanae vitae being the teaching of the Church. What would result if the law of the Church was a wink and a nod?

Just 'making a mess' as per Bishop Frank's instructions.

Well, it's only a double process if you appeal. But I guess those who appeal felt down deep that they were correct. And indeed sometimes they were. But other times not. So much for private judgment.

Our lady warned us about this at Fatima.
Bishops opposing bishops in the open

What else will happen?

Bill, your premise is faulty. We can not make any judgement on the action of the Almighty in accepting or rejecting any vows. A marriage tribunal can only make a judgment of the capacity of the individuals to truly make such a vow with full knowledge and consent. That is all they do because that is all they can do.

"Idon't fear this controversy. There'll be no change in the Eucharist. The change might come in raising the status of the internal forum (iethe sincere prayerful conscience) of the spouse to the level of it beingpermitted but not affirmed like private revelations of saints are permitted but not affirmed by the Church."

And in the mean time thousands, perhaps millions of souls could be bringing about condemnation upon themselves. Forget about the politics for one minute. The words of Saint Paul should haunt us on this matter. Even more so, the warning Christ gave to those who lead people astray ring even louder. In the end, we must follow The Man (Christ) and not any Synod. Bill, you and people like you are playing with fire.

I don't disagree that he is smart. But somehow I think this must be similar to the buildup before Pope Paul VI rebaselined everyone with HV. And even then there were still some high-ranking dissenters.

But one area where I think we definitely agree is that this type of thinking needs to nipped in the bud much quicker for the sake of the people. I'm quite confident that many folks back in the early 70s began contracepting because they just knew that the teaching was gong to change.

There's two versions…the written in the catechism which says it's extremely rarely necessary even though heavily Catholic Mexico as of 2009 had 100,000 cartel foot soldiers who according to a Mexican justice official control 60% of the prisons.
And then there's the papal verbal version: John Paul calling the dp cruel in St. Louis despite God mandating it for all men in Genesis 9:6…. and Benedict congradulating the Phillipine president after she announced it's abolishment there. Abolishment in reality…affirm the dp in the ccc but then say modern penology is protecting so well that we don't need it….errrr…. except they never looked at the record of Catholic countries in northern South America where 6 Catholic countries are among the most dangerous on earth and have no death penalty. Honduras and El Salvador are the two worst murderous countries on earth…heavily Catholic…no working death penalty. Mexico and Brazil two largest Catholic populations and 20 times more dangerous as to murder than China who has hundreds of millions of poor people.