Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

Ecclesiology - Functions and Benefits of Parish Cells 1. Material Assistance. - Cells function as “local sensors” close to the concrete reality of families. They quickly identify urgent needs: lack of food, financial difficulties, illnesses, housing problems. They enable faster and more targeted responses before cases become serious. They reinforce Christian charity in its most incarnate and personal form. They prevent the parish priest from becoming overwhelmed, as they filter and organize genuine requests for help. They encourage internal initiatives: fundraising, sharing of goods, logistical support. 2. Conflict Resolution. - Small groups create a safe and healthy environment for conflict mediation. They prevent the escalation of tensions before they reach the parish priest. They enable fraternal correction in a context of trust and closeness. They provide ongoing support for families in crisis or deteriorated relationships. They depersonalize conflict, as the community – and not just one person – helps in discernment. They function as a first instance of reconciliation before issues become parish problems. 3. Catechesis. - A more informal and relational environment, encouraging questions and genuine growth of faith. Weekly reinforcement of doctrine received in sacramental catechesis. Post-sacrament follow-up to prevent new members from "disappearing". Ongoing formation of adults who often lack a solid catechetical foundation. Possibility of studying specific themes of faith, adapted to the group's level. They produce future catechists, readers, ministers – they are a breeding ground for leadership. 4. Evangelization. - A gentle gateway for those who have difficulty going directly to church. It's easier to invite someone to a home gathering than to Mass. Small environments reduce anxiety and psychological blocks for those who are distant. They create affective bonds that support conversion processes. Evangelization happens in a personalized way, respecting the rhythm and history of each individual. The cell group becomes a concrete sign of a Church going out, entering the territory and homes. 5. Affective and Social Cohesion. - Small groups create stable and deep relationships impossible in large assemblies. People cease to be "anonymous faithful" and become real members of the Body. They strengthen community identity: "we belong to each other". They prevent loneliness, isolation, and emotional crises (continuous closeness). They produce a sense of shared mission – each member knows they are needed. They contribute to the integration of new parishioners in a quick and warm way. Summary (a) Material assistance: concrete and quick support. (b) Conflict resolution: close and fraternal mediation. (c) Catechesis: ongoing and personalized formation. (d) Evangelization: accessible and relational gateway. (e) Affective/social cohesion: solid bonds that structure the Body.

Toward a Virtue Ethics of Marriage - Augustine and Aquinas on Friendship in Marriage (2012) Lisa Fullam

The Rupture Between Sexuality and Marriage Benedict XVI It logically follows from the consequences of a sexuality which is no longer linked to motherhood and to procreation that every form of sexuality is equivalent and therefore of equal worth. It is certainly not a matter of establishing or recommending a retrograde moralism, but one of lucidly drawing the consequences from the premises: it is, in fact, logical that pleasure, the libido of the individual, become the only possible point of reference of sex. No longer having an objective reason to justify it, sex seeks the subjective reason in the gratification of the desire, in the most "satisfying" answer for the individual, to the instincts no longer subject to rational restraints. Everyone is free to give to his personal libido the content considered suitable for himself. Hence, it naturally follows that all forms of sexual gratification are transformed into the "rights" of the individual. Thus, to cite an especially current example, homosexuality becomes an inalienable right. (Given the aforementioned premises, how can one deny it?) On the contrary, its full recognition appears to be an aspect of human liberation. There are, however, other consequences of this uprooting of the human person in the depth of his nature. Fecundity separated from marriage based on a lifelong fidelity turns from being a blessing (as it was understood in every culture) into its opposite: that is to say a threat to the free development of the "individual's right to happiness." Thus abortion, institutionalized, free and socially guaranteed, becomes another "right," another form of "liberation." The now dominant mentality attacks the very foundations of the morality of the Church, which, as I have already said, if she remains true to herself, risks appearing like an anachronistic construct, a bothersome, alien body. Thus the moral theologians of the Western Hemisphere, in their efforts to still remain "credible" in our society, find themselves facing a difficult alternative: it seems to them that they must choose between opposing modern society and opposing the Magisterium. The number of those who prefer the latter type of opposition is larger or smaller depending on how the question is posed: consequently they set out on a search for theories and systems that allow compromises between Catholicism and current conceptions. But this growing difference between the Magisterium and the "new" moral theologies leads to unforeseeable consequences, also precisely for the reason that the Church with her schools and her hospitals still occupies an important social role (especially in America). Thus we stand before the difficult alternative: either the Church finds an understanding, a compromise with the values propounded by society which she wants to continue to serve, or she decides to remain faithful to her own values (and in the Church's view these are the values that protect man in his deepest needs) as the result of which she finds herself on the margin of society. Thus today the sphere of moral theology has become the main locus of the tensions between Magisterium and theologians, especially because here the consequences are most immediately perceptible. I should like to cite some trends: at times premarital relations, at least under certain conditions, are justified. Masturbation is presented as a normal phenomenon of adolescence. Admission of remarried divorced couples to the sacraments is constantly demanded. Radical feminism — especially in some women's religious orders — also seems to be gaining ground noticeably in the Church (but we will speak about that later). Even as regards the question of homosexuality, attempts at its justification are in the making. source: https://www.piercedhearts.org/benedict_xvi/Cardinal%20Ratzinger/rupture_sexuality_marriage.htm #family

Anscombe, Human Dignity "What people are for is, we believe, like guided missiles, to home in on God, God who is the one truth it is infinitely worth knowing, the possession of which you could never get tired of, like the water which if you have you can never thirst again, because your vital thirst is slaked forever and always. It’s this potentiality; this incredible potentiality, of the knowledge of God of such a kind as even to be sharing in his nature, which Christianity holds out to people; and because of this potentiality every life, right up to the last, must be treated as precious. Its potentialities in all the things the world cares about may be slight; but there is always the possibility of what it’s for. We can’t ever know that the time of possibility of gaining eternal life is over, however old, wretched, ‘useless’ someone has become." Elizabeth Anscombe, "Contraception and Chastity" #ethics #salvation

Una Caro: the sexual act and openness to life Paragraph 145 of the note "Una caro" states that "sexual union, as a way of expressing marital love, must naturally remain open to the transmission of life, even if this does not mean that it must be the explicit purpose of each sexual act." This means that every sexual act must be open to life—but not every sexual act must be consciously intended as leading to the conception of a child. The Dicastery in subparagraphs a), b), and c) of point 145 clearly lists 3 and only 3 situations to which this applies: a) the first is the situation in which a couple, through no fault of their own, cannot have children. If every sexual act had to be consciously intended to generate offspring, such a couple could not engage in intercourse. Meanwhile, according to Church teaching, such a couple may engage in intercourse, even when they know they are infertile. In their case, the marital act is open to life—though there is no conscious intention that it will lead to the conception of life, because it is known in advance that due to infertility this is excluded. Nevertheless, the act itself remains open to life in its structure—infertility does not result from any fault of the spouses. b) the second is the situation in which a couple engages in intercourse not in order to have children, but in order to have intercourse—without reflecting on it. In this way, "Una caro" rejects theological interpretations according to which the marital act, to be morally permissible, must be undertaken for the sake of procreating children. According to "Una caro," the marital act must be open to procreating children, but it may be undertaken for another reason—for example, in the heat of passion, emotions, etc. In other words: spouses do not have to plan to conceive a child when they engage in intercourse. They may not think about it. However, they must perform the act in such a way as to preserve its structural openness to conceiving a child. c) the third is the situation when spouses engage in intercourse during infertile periods. This actually follows from point b). Spouses assume that no child will result from such an act—but they may engage in intercourse if they preserve the act's structural openness to conception. This is what St. Paul VI pointed to in Humanae vitae, which is cited here—and specifically its point 11, emphasizing that every marital act must be open to conception of a child in its structure. Therefore, if you hear liberals saying that the Apostolic See has opened any loophole for contraception or other forms of rendering marital acts infertile—this is untrue. These are someone's hopes, expectations, dreams—but it is not the truth. The truth is as follows: "Una caro" in point 145 clearly states that every marital act must be open to life in its structure, meaning that it must not be deliberately rendered infertile in any way. Quod erat demonstrandum. In summary, no changes are made. The objections raised were answered, the teaching reinstated. #family

Article Why John Calvin did not recognise between mortal and venial sin From Introduction: Catholics and Protestants agree on many points regarding sin, but the Catholic Church makes a distinction generally not found in Protestant theologies: the distinction between mortal and venial sin. John Calvin rejected the distinction between mortal and venial sin, and Protestantism has largely followed Calvin on this point. Calvin rejected it because he did not see it clearly laid out in Scripture, and also because he viewed sin primarily in legal terms. For Calvin, all sin is a rebellion against God’s law, and therefore deserving of eternal punishment. Therefore for Calvin all sin committed by those who have come to faith in Christ is mortal sin in what it deserves, but is venial in the sense that it is covered by the merits of Christ, so that those who have come to faith never lose their justification. https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/11/why-john-calvin-did-not-recognize-the-distinction-between-mortal-and-venial-sin/ #sin

Practical Christian Sociology (1895) Wilbur Crafts #sociology