Pope Francis extends Catholic priests' power to forgive abortion

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Freedom Extension.

[RFayette]

Freedom Extension.

Agreed.  Abortion is a grievous evil, but there is no sin that can't be forgiven by the atoning blood of Christ.

[RI]

Non-story

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Non-story

I'm pretty sure it's a story if you're a woman who's had an abortion and has still been trying to get up the courage to go to confession as the Year of Mercy has run out.

[Enduro]

As if the Pope has the authority to say that. The only one with the power to forgive, and to dictate how you get forgiveness is God. Not some fancy dressed human.

[Zioneer]

As if the Pope has the authority to say that. The only one with the power to forgive, and to dictate how you get forgiveness is God. Not some fancy dressed human.

To be fair, Catholics do recognize him as the leader of their Church, so he kind of does have control over at least the theological doctrines of the church like this.

Same with the LDS Church President for Mormons like me. We have every right not to follow what he says, but he is kind of the guy in charge for theology for the entire church like that.

[RI]

Non-story

I'm pretty sure it's a story if you're a woman who's had an abortion and has still been trying to get up the courage to go to confession as the Year of Mercy has run out.

There was literally zero change in the US. This was already the status quo even before the Year of Mercy. Internationally, it's a very slight administrative story in some places.

[DC Al Fine]

How does this square with:

a) The Roman Church's theology of the sacraments, priesthood, and mortal sin? That is if abortion is a mortal sin, then would not the old rules condemn the repentant abortionist/abortion-seeker to hell? Or at least makes it more likely that they will go to hell?

b) The quasi-universalism I've been hearing from some Catholics?

[Small L]

How does this square with:

a) The Roman Church's theology of the sacraments, priesthood, and mortal sin? That is if abortion is a mortal sin, then would not the old rules condemn the repentant abortionist/abortion-seeker to hell? Or at least makes it more likely that they will go to hell?

b) The quasi-universalism I've been hearing from some Catholics?

Mortal sin is only an absolute condemnation to hell if it is never repented and/or never regretted before death. Catholics don't believe it is possible to commit a sin on earth that ipso facto guarantees damnation even in the case of later repentance.

I don't feel like addressing b, since I don't agree with those Catholics.

[RI]

How does this square with:

a) The Roman Church's theology of the sacraments, priesthood, and mortal sin? That is if abortion is a mortal sin, then would not the old rules condemn the repentant abortionist/abortion-seeker to hell? Or at least makes it more likely that they will go to hell?

b) The quasi-universalism I've been hearing from some Catholics?

Really not that much was changed. Participating in an abortion is one of eight sins which results in an automatic latae sententiae excommunication, something which is an additional penalty on top of being in a state of mortal sin. Excommunications can generally only be lifted by bishops, but bishops have the power to selectively devolve this ability to the priests below them. This devolution for abortion was the standard in the United States, but not in other parts of the world. For the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis devolved this power to all priests; all the pronouncement today did was make this devolution permanent and universal.

Not sure what you mean by part b.

[DC Al Fine]

How does this square with:

a) The Roman Church's theology of the sacraments, priesthood, and mortal sin? That is if abortion is a mortal sin, then would not the old rules condemn the repentant abortionist/abortion-seeker to hell? Or at least makes it more likely that they will go to hell?

b) The quasi-universalism I've been hearing from some Catholics?

Really not that much was changed. Participating in an abortion is one of eight sins which results in an automatic latae sententiae excommunication, something which is an additional penalty on top of being in a state of mortal sin. Excommunications can generally only be lifted by bishops, but bishops have the power to selectively devolve this ability to the priests below them. This devolution for abortion was the standard in the United States, but not in other parts of the world. For the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis devolved this power to all priests; all the pronouncement today did was make this devolution permanent and universal.

Not sure what you mean by part b.

Thanks for the explanation.

B isn't a coherent group, so much as a variety of opinions I've heard expressed by some Catholics that could be construed as universalism.  Mea culpa if that isn't an actual faction among some (very progressive) Catholics.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How does this square with:

a) The Roman Church's theology of the sacraments, priesthood, and mortal sin? That is if abortion is a mortal sin, then would not the old rules condemn the repentant abortionist/abortion-seeker to hell? Or at least makes it more likely that they will go to hell?

b) The quasi-universalism I've been hearing from some Catholics?

Really not that much was changed. Participating in an abortion is one of eight sins which results in an automatic latae sententiae excommunication, something which is an additional penalty on top of being in a state of mortal sin. Excommunications can generally only be lifted by bishops, but bishops have the power to selectively devolve this ability to the priests below them. This devolution for abortion was the standard in the United States, but not in other parts of the world. For the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis devolved this power to all priests; all the pronouncement today did was make this devolution permanent and universal.

Not sure what you mean by part b.

Thanks for the explanation.

B isn't a coherent group, so much as a variety of opinions I've heard expressed by some Catholics that could be construed as universalism.  Mea culpa if that isn't an actual faction among some (very progressive) Catholics.

It's not even necessarily 'very progressive' (I've heard it among Catholics of the John Paul II-style modern-but-conservative stripe), but among more moderate or conservative Catholics it's, yeah, deliberately not conceptually elaborated enough to call a real tendency.

[RI]

The most quasi-universalist talk I've heard is from people like Robert Barron who hold the "reasonable hope that everyone will be saved" position, but I'm not aware of many, if any, who go further than that. Personally, I think univeralism is a plausible outcome, but one I find rather unlikely as it overrides free will (although you can make a purgatorial universalist argument that doesn't necessarily do so, although it has other problems), and it seems to go against a number of teachings from Jesus himself.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The most quasi-universalist talk I've heard is from people like Robert Barron who hold the "reasonable hope that everyone will be saved" position, but I'm not aware of many, if any, who go further than that.

That's what I'm referring to (and approximately the position I hold).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are elements within Eastern Orthodoxy, especially in Russian-language theology, that tend in the purgatorial-universalist direction, if memory serves.

[bore]

The most quasi-universalist talk I've heard is from people like Robert Barron who hold the "reasonable hope that everyone will be saved" position, but I'm not aware of many, if any, who go further than that.

That's what I'm referring to (and approximately the position I hold).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are elements within Eastern Orthodoxy, especially in Russian-language theology, that tend in the purgatorial-universalist direction, if memory serves.

I recently read a paper by the Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart which putt the case against Hell in very strong terms (available here). I personally found it very convincing, but Hart is one of those people who's worth reading even when you disagree with.

[Greatest I am]

Strange that the pope can do so since no man has ever been given the power to forgive in God's name.

One would need to show that there is a God first and no pope or anyone else has ever done so.

That is the problem with faith based imaginary Gods.

Regards
DL

[RI]

Strange that the pope can do so since no man has ever been given the power to forgive in God's name.

John 20:22-23

[Greatest I am]

Strange that the pope can do so since no man has ever been given the power to forgive in God's name.

John 20:22-23

Do you believe in talking serpents and donkeys as well as holy spooks?

Is there a limit to the fantasy you can be made to swallow?

Regards
DL

[Enduro]

Strange that the pope can do so since no man has ever been given the power to forgive in God's name.

John 20:22-23

Do you believe in talking serpents and donkeys as well as holy spooks?

Is there a limit to the fantasy you can be made to swallow?

Regards
DL

Can you please stop insulting people with every post? It makes discussion here depressing when you keep turning it into an insult competition that only you participate in.

Regards
Please stop signing your name, I already know its you posting.

[Greatest I am]

Strange that the pope can do so since no man has ever been given the power to forgive in God's name.

John 20:22-23

Do you believe in talking serpents and donkeys as well as holy spooks?

Is there a limit to the fantasy you can be made to swallow?

Regards
DL

Can you please stop insulting people with every post? It makes discussion here depressing when you keep turning it into an insult competition that only you participate in.

Regards
Please stop signing your name, I already know its you posting.

What you call insult, I call a loving response to unintelligible propositions.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

If you do not question and try to correct unintelligible propositions, then you are not doing the loving thing or following the golden rule.

Jesus was hated for doing exactly what I do and I do not expect anything less from those who have given up logic and reason for blind and rather stupid blind faith.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Brah,

Ridicule and loving correction are definitely not the same thing. Telling someone they believe in fantasies is a different thing than demonstrating to them that they believe in fantasies...

Braaahhhhh

If you do not question and try to correct unintelligible propositions, then you are not doing the loving thing or following the golden rule.

Señor, before you go around pointing out specks of sawdust, you might wanna take a look at the GIANT PLANK protruding straight out of your EYEBALLS.

Regards,
SL

Oh ye of little understanding.

Show me how you would convince a person who believes in a talking serpent and donkey and adores a genocidal son murdering God that he is believing in fantasies and adoring a God who is immoral and not worthy of respect.

Regards
DL