Marcin Drewicz: IMPROVING FOR THE SACRAMENT OF matrimony DID THE LIST OF BISKUP “About the Family” FROM LAST SUN 2025, Part Two.
What is the common reality of sin in the “Letter” but besides of “relationships”, but besides of “relationships”, “irregular” (1, 3) which are also... “Various Kind” (2).
What precisely are we talking about? We can only guess and analyse – as if we had nothing else to do – what inactive "different kind" of filth those who turn to us in this substance mean. For authors and signatories of the “Letter” do not call things. We presume that in their psycho-moderns the word "irregular" means as much as the non-sacratic, or – see above – sinful (sic!). But the word "sin" in "Letter" occurs only once, in a side context.
When was the last time you heard a sermon about sin, in general, as such? erstwhile are the sins in this area discussed? In the church, in the school catechetical chamber, on radio, on TV, on the Internet, erstwhile you read about it and where...?
Centuries of theology, philosophy, and philology work to make the language of pastoral speeches with a view to... The Final Things (see: small Catechism) was highly precise, without leaving any readers, but it is no uncertainty about the issues raised. Authors and signatories of the Episcopal List, not for the first time, seemingly miss that sacred pastoral work.
Thus, in their case, we read of the concubinet, by its sinful definition (!), but by its name not called (!), as "relationship" (3), which is "permeated by actual (4) care, deep bond and responsibility." Real! So somewhere there is besides this concern, bond and work to say, another, or “untrue”, and the signatories of the “Letter” are aware of this fundamental distinction. We don't choice on words.
We just want to realize about us Bishops for Christmas (in Octava Christmas) AD 2025 in this "Letter" wrote. But – let us ask – what is “true” in these "different kinds" of people in today's Poland (and elsewhere) so mostly unstable, so variable concubines, in the lives of alleged singles and in various another "irregular situations"? Concubinet – that is simply a precise word from which authors and sygnatariuhttps://www.magnapolonia.org/marcin-drevicz-scandalical-list-biskupow-o-family-analysis-cz-1/sze of the Episcopal List, however, side.
They besides compose about longing (5) for the Sacrament of matrimony (9), besides called a blessing (6), although in their view it turns out not to be the same (sic!). But again – what a maniac – we read in the "Letter" about love "truely" (7) "blessed" (6). Thus – see above – it is clearly possible today, according to the authors and signatories of the "Letter", to bless these "union" also...untruely.
We are lost in these unnecessary and unnecessary meanders, erstwhile we conclude from the next conviction – this is the grammar of this Episcopal Letter – that these "irregular situations" (1) are besides "blessed" (6), but by people (8). Do the civilian state officials know about this yet? Is there a blessing in this office for newlyweds?
We appreciate that the Episcopal List uses the word "renunciation" (10), as many other, formerly common ones, have been absent in regular preaching for many years, at least in Poland. But why is it not defined in the “List”? Why is it not written about the rights and obligations of brides, but besides about the rights and obligations of spouses in the Holy Church? Since it is Catholic bishops who address all Catholic believers.
We learn about the Sacraments as “privilegments” (12) from the bishops' priests with surprise only here and now (it can be said: for old years), from “Letter”. That's weird. After all, missionaries of all time – “go and teach all nations” – dedicate themselves to giving the Sacraments of the Holy Baptism to as many people as possible, to all, including the crowds of simple men (sic!). While the privilege, let it be the noblest – on the contrary – is not about universality but about exclusivity.
Called Blimey. Jerzy Popieluszko He did not call on the convict to join any privileged club or fraternity, but to join the universal multitude of sacramental spouses. Thus, the Sacrament of matrimony – of course we are moving inside Catholicism – this is the "religious duty" (11) – in opposition to what the authors and signatories of the Episcopal List compose to us. And to fulfill this work (!) he urged the Blessed. Fr Jerzy Popieluszko of this prisoner in Huta Warszawa.
The authors and signatories of the "Letter" seemingly do not separate – most likely in the name of destructive ecumenism – between members-believers of the Holy Catholic Church and another people. The baptism - based membership involves fulfilling certain responsibilities that are well - known in the past. And it is only people from outside the Church who are “invited” (13) and encourage to join them, of course – let us repeat – if 1 is distinguished from another.
There is specified a thing as "obstacles" (16), but canonical obstacles – clearly in the "Letter" so not named – for which the couple cannot (17) join the Sacrament of Marriage. At the same time, the authors and signatories of this text compose about the accession to this Sacrament as "a step further and deeper" (15, besides 19). But – we ask – step on what path? The simplest answer was, like thousands of another priests,--let us repeat. Fr Jerzy in the conversation with the individual from Huta Warszawa.
So what are the “obstacles” (16-17) of that and of thousands of another men and women that stand in the way of a common alleged Church Wedding? And these obstacles to behaviour, for which the authors and signatories of the "Letter" may, as they are inelegantly recognise, endanger to "remove" (18). This is what should be clearly stated in specified a "Lists of Episcopals" and is not. According to our knowledge, the private Catholic is above all: besides close kinship (incarnation), the same sex (sodomy), the deficiency of acceptance and adultery.
All others should be addressed, simply put, to the Sacrament of Marriage, preceded by Confession and Holy Communion, which has been done from the earliest times by both the clergy and the congregation of the lay faithful (of course, life on a sinful earthly padole has its surprises here too, and there is besides the Sacrament of Priesthood and the Conventional Vows to which any persons approach).
We are amazed and afraid that the authors and signatories of the Episcopal Letter (21) read what we mentioned here one more time was encouraged to do. Fr Popieluszko of that average man, and "regulating your situation" (1) through the Sacrament of matrimony they call it "another step of faith" (19). Although life in a concubine is usually a sign of weakness in the religion or even disbelief.
As for the said "resciousness" (21), specified a concubine has so far - in fresh decades - weighed on everything: he lived with a woman, he bore children with her, lived with them under the same roof, earned their livelihood, performed with them openly in front of people... They were, therefore, concubines with concubines, not so much brave as... unwise (sic!), reckless, doing all this... without God, without the Sacrament of Marriage; despite that – attention! note! – no canonical or another obstacles stood in their way to join the Sacrament.
In their situation, the conclusion of the Sacramental matrimony will not be an act of the Virtue of Courage—as the authors and signatories of the Episcopal Letter mistakenly state—but alternatively the average and especially the Virtue of Discretion inspired... by going to reason (!).
It is highly sad that authors and signatories of the Episcopal List spread understatements (sic!) alternatively of recalling and explicitly naming the main problem, unless it is the only "unsolveable" problem within these "irregular situations" (1):
This is, doubtless, a family, so 2 truly loving people (i.e., “real care, deep bond and responsibility”), practicing Catholics (or, to the degree of incomplete, of which small more so) who have children raised in Catholic, and who live in a relation only on civilian law (!) that of these two, at least 1 is simply a erstwhile divorcee, even civil, due to the fact that the Holy Church has no reason to consider as an unbeknownst to his/her Sacramental matrimony with a “third” person, with whom this divorcee can besides have children, older ones.
We are thinking, in particular, not of the many spiritual ignorant “produced”, unfortunately, by the crisis of Catholic teaching that has been going on in Poland for decades, but of people as Catholics who are full aware that they have decided to live in sin (sic!) that for this reason they cannot enter Holy Communion, they cannot be godparents, but that this deficiency of it compensates for all the exemplary Catholic upbringing of their common children, and sometimes that besides these children “from erstwhile marriage”.
In this peculiar case we are reasoning about people on whom Catholic regular life many sacramental marriages could imitate (sic!). About people who fundamentally have “only this 1 fever”, namely this canonical obstacle to the Sacrament of Marriage.
How sad that we gotta only guess (!) that it is to them (but for certain to them?) the authors and signatories of the Episcopal List are directing the sentences beginning – see above – with: "Those for whom it is painful (22) subject, due to the fact that they have a large longing (5) behind the Sacraments (9)...".
Let us add that the hasty assurance that these people are not faithful to the "second category" (23) is futile, since these people themselves know well that they are, and in their humility this state of inferiority in the Church without opposition in the quietness of heart they accept-confirm. Thus besides in this subtle case, this – for apology – pushy, simple and especially non-theological “hurrraoptimism” of authors and signatories of the Episcopal List is simply inappropriate.
C.D.N.
We besides recommend: Marcin Drewicz: Scandalical Episcopal Letter about household – Part 1 analysis
