What else do we “tolerate though not accept”?

I keep coming back to the position of Card. Kasper about second “marriages”. HERE  That innuendo about a solution for second marriages … that we might fudge just enough to “tolerate though not accept” them…, well… it just bugs me.

How do we “tolerate though not accept”?

What else do we “tolerate though not accept”?


Over at Mundabor I saw this amusing entry:

Concerning Cardinal Kasper’s fifth column work, more or less asking that we “tolerate” what we cannot “accept”, the rather baffled Father Z asks: “what else do we tolerate though not accept?”

I have an answer there.


In Italy, brothels were called case di tolleranza. I was always told, and have always taken for granted, that this is because the Church could not allow or in any way consent to the existence of brothels, but considered not fitting to crack down on them. This is the reason why in the Roma papalina prostitution was rife; be it because of the presence of an army of priest, not all of them very chaste, be it because of the position of Rome as an extremely important destination for pilgrimages, then largely the preserve of men, with the consequences anyone who is not a finishing school girl can easily imagine.

Therefore, in order to avoid the huge pressure to which girls would have been subjected in case of crackdown on brothels, the Papal States chose to tolerate brothels. Not “authorise”, mind; simply renouncing to a massive crackdown on a factual situation out there; a situation to which the Church lent no assistance or support whatever, forbidding the visit of brothels and constantly reminding of the consequences of sin on one’s soul.

This is the only example of “toleration” I know. I notice here that when brothels were outlawed in Italy in 1957, this was out of the initiative of a feminist Socialist female senator, enthusiastically followed by her own party and the Communists. Neither during Fascism nor during the dominance of the Democrazia Cristiana in the De Gasperi era did the governments of the day move to crack down on brothels: tolleranza was considered the best choice, and actually since Fascism also a strict regulation (for medical reasons, mainly) followed.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Linking Back, One Man & One Woman and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. James Joseph says:

    Income taxes. These garnishments on the labors of tradesman’s hands are a sin that cries to Heaven.

  2. Joseph-Mary says:

    I am wishing, more and more, to look the other way and try not to see and hear what is coming from “Rome”. Whether it be Cardinal Kasper or Rodriguez Maridiaga and their “questions” or progressive thoughts or the confusing words from the Holy Father—-nothing of any of this gives me confidence. Rather, it seems like a return to the “shifting sand” that the Church experienced after the Council instead of the “rock” of firm doctrine. Just trying to focus on my local arena as much as I can and to pray and be as faithful as possible.

  3. Elizabeth R says:

    In my case, I tolerate tambourines, but certainly do not accept them. But tambourines don’t quite reach the level of sin (though they can be an occasion of sin).

  4. Cosmos says:

    I think the concept makes sense, even if its a little semantic. For example, we “tolerate” people who have different political views as us, sometimes views that we think may be destructive or harmful (say, welfare programs that disincentivize work), but we don’t “accept” their views (and perhaps work to counter them).

    It’s the constant tension that is created between Jesus’s commandments/God’s Word/Truth and compassion/love/mercy that really bothers me. Pastoral vs. Doctrinal.

  5. Cosmos says:

    When I say it makes sense, I mean it makes logical sense. [It really doesn’t.] I don’t think it can be applied to this situation.

  6. ClavesCoelorum says:

    Cosmos, but political views are not sins in themselves. I think Father is talking about matters related to doctrine, which political views are not generally. There are some exceptions, of course, like abortion, but in that case we don’t really tolerate that either, do we?

    I couldn’t think of anything that we “tolerate but not accept” in matters related to sin. One might say “We tolerate people with same-sex attraction”, but that is not the same as “tolerating” their actions.

  7. mrshopey says:

    We as in the Church?
    If that is what is meant, then insert the pastoral approach to mean;
    Those cohabitating
    Those in s/s unions/”marriages”
    Those who vote for laws that are intrinsically evil (abortion, etc)

    That is smells of “pastoral approach” to me. Meaning, they allow God to do the correcting…or something.

  8. Stu says:

    Further, all of the talk seems to imply that people would only get one “Marriage Mulligan”. Why is that? Why can’t we “tolerate” serial marriages but simply not accept them? Does “pastoralness” run out at some point?

  9. Fr. Andrew says:


    It does NOT make logical sense because toleration is a temporary condition for the sake of a larger or final goal. This use of the word tolerance suggests a permanent situation.

    If we WERE to tolerate it would have to be for some final goal. On the day of my judgment, allowing them receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin would not be an acceptable goal.

  10. Andrew says:

    Tolerantia quae dicitur … non est nisi in malis. (S. Augustinus, Enarratio in Psalmum XXXI, 20)

    (What we call tolerance … is concerned only with things that are bad.)

  11. The Masked Chicken says:

    You tolerate an evil (and, then, only for a time), but you accept a good. You do not accept an evil or tolerate a good. The two words are very badly mangled together in everyday use. When people say they accept an evil (say, a physical malady), they really mean that they tolerate it for the sake of a higher good. That is not acceptance in a true sense, since acceptance takes something into its bosom, even if it is a defective good, but no one can take an evil into one’s heart. The whole notion of Proverbs 6:27, makes this distinction clear:

    “Can a man take fire in his bosom, And his clothes not be burned?”

    There is no such thing as permanent tolerance. To permanently tolerate something is to give aquiesence to an evil, which is both immoral and scandalous. To tolerate the existence of an illicit second marriage for a time in the hopes of repentance is a form of charity. To tolerate it permanently violates the fundamental tenant of moral theology: one may not do evil that good may come from it. Permanent tolerance of an evil is a form of commitment to the evil and, thus, doing evil by the person who tolerates.

    The situation is different for someone who has to tolerate an evil, even to the end of his life, because the tolerance is not intended to be permanent, even though it may last to the end of one’s life. Tolerance of the evil is merely contingent on there being a higher good that is being effected by the tolerance – for instance, the virtue of patience. Since illicit second marriages are intrinsically evil (mark, only illicit ones), then they can never bring about a higher good, so they are not the objects for extended tolerance, but merely temporary.

    That seems to be the point that Card. Kasper’s language obscures.

    The Chicken

  12. Lucas.Br says:

    (Hand waiving in the air) I know! I know, Father Z!

    The Traditional Latin Mass!

  13. kelleyb says:

    What else do we “tolerate though not accept”?
    Many Catholics “tolerate” abortion for others while not accepting it personally.
    This is one of several things that come to mind.

  14. janeway529 says:

    What else do we “tolerate though not accept”?
    Holding hands during the Our Father comes to mind.

  15. Bev says:

    I tolerate what I must. What I am free to not tolerate, I don’t.

  16. Mojoron says:

    Toleration is not a Christian virtue, at least in my book. Too many things are tolerated which is the easy way out of confrontation.

  17. Pingback: The Cardinal, The Tax And The Brothel. | Mundabor's Blog

  18. amenamen says:

    TMC: “You tolerate an evil (and, then, only for a time), but you accept a good. You do not accept an evil or tolerate a good. The two words are very badly mangled together in everyday use.”

    I agree. The word “tolerance” is often misused. Only things which are perceived as evil need to be “tolerated.” Thus we speak of “pain tolerance”. A teacher may say, “Bad spelling will not be tolerated.” And, quite ironically, our hedonistic society now wants “zero tolerance” policies for certain sins and crimes. It is ironic, because they not only “tolerate”other evils, but they love, accept, and indulge in them.

    The most common misuse of “tolerance” is in the area of personhood, as if we should strive to “tolerate” other persons (instead of to love, or to accept them). A person is not to be tolerated, as if he were an odious burden, but loved. His faults may sometimes be tolerated, but only because he himself is the object of our love. His skin color or ethnic background, since these are not faults, should not merely be “tolerated” but rather accepted and loved.

    What, then, is the problem with a policy of “tolerating” an invalid marriage, which is evil? The problem is that the proposal involves not merely “tolerating” the evil, but formally cooperating with it, refusing to recognize it as evil, and literally blessing it, liturgically and publicly, without any obligation to change it.

    The proposal seems to rely upon a certain confusion as to the meaning of “toleration”.

  19. romanrevert says:

    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction.
    -GK Chesterton

  20. Doesn’t tolerance mean you don’t believe in anything?

  21. kpoterack says:

    OK, here is my attempt and please critique this – even harshly criticize this – if I am way off:

    Wasn’t there a “counsel” in some of the old penitential manuals (pre-Vatican II) to deal with a situation in a marriage. Let us say that it is a rocky marriage and, on top of that, the husband wanted to have contraceptive relations with the wife. Of course, in those days the pill wasn’t around so it would have been condom use by the man. This is key (i.e. that the man was the “contraceptor”). If I remember correctly – and I might be wrong – the counsel was TO THE WOMAN that she could passively “tolerate” him using a condom for the greater good of the marriage without incurring responsibility for the sin.

    She was “tolerating” his sin but not “accepting” that it wasn’t a sin.

    Now, even if legit, I think that this doesn’t carry over to divorce/remarriage. Marriage is a public matter as opposed to the case of the individual couple. No one would know about the contracepting male except the wife and the confessor. There wouldn’t be any possibility of scandal.

    Also, there is just a problem even with the old example in that, ultimately “toleration” could become “acceptance” by the wife. Too much of a temptation.

    Finally, to carry through with the analogy, why would the Church want to “tolerate” this sin? Because she is afraid of losing her husband (i.e. people)? (Her husband is Christ.)

  22. Priam1184 says:

    The Church, and its hierarchy especially, has tolerated though not accepted so many evil things during my lifetime from abortion loving politicians to atheist ‘theologians’ teaching out and out heresy at a ridiculous number of so called catholic institutions that I really don’t see how this is any different.

    Eh maybe Putin’s little adventure in Ukraine is the start of a ripple that will become a wave and bring this lunatic world to its knees. Or maybe not, I don’t know. Our overly comfortable and worldly lives (mine included) need to experience a fundamental alteration if we are ever to learn to live the Gospel again.

  23. dominicop says:

    What about endogamy? The Knanaya recently had a big issue with this, but wouldn’t we say that the Church, even canonically, could tolerate endogamy without necessarily accepting it?

    I mean that as a genuine question. If someone can set me straight canonically I’d be grateful.

  24. Ttony says:

    You can’t tolerate something and not accept it: you may be able to use mental reservation appropriately so that your intolerance is not made manifest in non-acceptance; but, Kasperianly, “tolerate but not accept” means not telling people that what they are doing is wrong, when it is, in case they react by ignoring me and going away.

  25. Bosco says:

    We tolerate the suppression of the Traditional Form of the Mass but we don’t accept it.

  26. LeeF says:

    While I don’t think it is worth seriously discussing, because the phrase obviously does not make sense and is obviously only a smarmy sophistry that will sound reasonable to the greater masses who don’t think deeper, the real question is how is any non-acceptance is put into practice *other than* by words. Words without action/cost/impact =de facto acceptance.

  27. LeeF says:

    Supposed or actual examples of toleration without acceptance in other spheres such as civil society or the family are not useful analogs for the Church. The one true Faith is different, and different standards must apply.

  28. Magpie says:

    AIDS. We tolerate it but we don’t accept it. That’s why we look for cures.

  29. Sieber says:

    The Novus Ordo.

  30. TNCath says:

    Apparently President Obama is following Cardinal Kasper’s lead by tolerating but not accepting Russia’s takeover of the Ukraine.

  31. A request (from this relatively recent convert) for clarification on “toleration.” Does not St. Thomas Aquinas write (somewhere in the Summa if I have correctly remembered what I have been told) that not every sin ought to be made a criminal offense? If that is correct, does that not suggest that some sins ought to be tolerated by society, as opposed to being punished under the civil law? And, if that is a correct understanding, does that not require toleration (within society, even if not within the Church)

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  32. Cosmos says:

    What about immodesty in Churches at mass or at other church functions? Immodesty is immoral . We tolerate it, so that we don’t come off as judgmental and, apparently, so we don’t push people away. However, we don’t accept it, and if someone asked us their advice, we’d tell them to dress more modestly. That applies for other vices like gluttony and vanity.

    I am not sure why someone would say that concept doesn’t make sense? Something can make sense without being good, useful, or applicable.

    Here, it seems like Kasper is using an approach that would make sense as a practical matter in much less important matters, and trying to use it as a basis for determining a grave matter of Church discipline/law. That seems to be the problem to me.

  33. Toan says:

    I think The Masked Chicken is on point.

    As I understand it, when we say we tolerate something, we are saying two things:

    1. The thing tolerated is bad
    2. We are allowing it to remain without interference, at least for the time being

    Generally, when we allow a bad thing to remain, we do so for some good reason, i.e. we allow it to remain for the sake of some good. As such, I don’t think it’s right to say that we tolerate people of any sort. People are good and therefore deserve better than toleration.

    People’s religious/political/aesthetic views, however, can be evil. Their propensities to sin can be evil (e.g. alcoholism, porn addiction). Their state in life might be evil (e.g. freemason member). Their breath might be foul. We might tolerate, though not accept, such views, propensities, state in life, and/or breath for a time, or indefinitely, in a coworker for the sake of carrying out our professional responsibilities. Or we might tolerate the evils for the sake of getting to know the somebody, his motivations, and so on, and establish a relationship with him. When there is a relationship there are greater possibilities for moving the mind and will to convert.

    I wonder how much St. Monica might have “tolerated but not accepted” in St. Augustine before his conversion. She maintained a relationship with him when he was living in sin, and kept communicating with him to the extent possible. But surely she didn’t exclusively focus on his errors during their every conversation.

    Of course, if by “tolerate but not accept” Card. Kasper means “allow to receive communion while living in sin”, I think that would mean, simply, accepting the sin.

  34. Cosmos says:

    I essentially agree with Toan and The Masked Chicken. They just said it better!

  35. kpoterack says:

    Toan and Masked Chicken , excellent. You both gave the best possible presentation of the “tolerate, but don’t accept” position. Ultimately, such tolerance can only be strategic and temporary.

  36. J_Cathelineau says:

    Toleration can´t be applied to something that is good.

  37. Kathleen10 says:

    It can only mean one thing.
    “We would prefer you stay in the first marital situation you placed yourself in. However, we are prepared to look the other way a bit if you did not do that.”
    Big changes often come in tiny bits, referred to here I believe as, “incrementalism”.
    One opens the door, just a crack, and sees if he can get the elephant’s tiny tail in first, then the foot, then the leg. By the time you get that much of the elephant in it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it.
    But first you must open the door…just a crack….
    If there are many loud protesting voices and Bishops with significant resistance and unwavering fortitude they may be able to shut that door before the tail gets in. If not, heeere comes that elephant.

  38. McCall1981 says:

    @ Kathleen10,
    Card Muller has been doing a pretty good job at resisting so far (some other Cardinals too). I pray they continue.

  39. Imrahil says:

    There’s only one tiny thing possibly to critizise as far as the phrase “tolerate but not accept” goes.

    It’s a pleonasm. We can only tolerate what we do not accept.

    There are acceptable things, which can either be merely accepted or fully appraised.

    There are unacceptable things, which can either be tolerated or combatted.

    Both between mere acceptance and appraisal, and between tolerance and combat, there can be intermediate degrees. (We combat theft, but we tolerate the thief insofar as we do not subject him to capital punishment even if that could hinder more thefts than prison; we combat murder, but the U.S. will not execute the murderer if the knowledge that he actually is a murderer is a fruit of a forbidden tree.) Between acceptable and unacceptable things there can be no degrees.

    So, we tolerate and do not accept… all things which we, well, tolerate. For we do not accept them.

  40. ies0716 says:

    Imitation bacon. Actually, no, we shouldn’t even tolerate that.

  41. Vecchio di Londra says:

    What is ‘not accepting’? Do we speak out clearly, or go into ‘an inner emigration’? Outwardly inactive non-acceptance is virtual toleration, very close to lip service.
    Could we be said to ‘not accept’ if we witness merely with tacit disapproval the scandal of a divorced and remarried couple receiving communion, unrepentant: possibly in the same parish, the same Mass and at the same altar as the abandoned spouse? (All done with sociable smiles, no doubt. But ‘one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.’)
    It would mean the Church no longer believed in the Sacramental conditions for the reception of Holy Communion, or in the necessary conditions of Confession and absolution.
    Or else, it had re-categorized adultery as a venial sin, which would be preposterous. Or redefined marriage, or adultery, which would be grotesque.
    How could we not speak out against such abuses, patiently, insistently, repeatedly?
    Communion is ‘medicine for the sinner’, in that we are all sinners: but after a mortal sin – such as adultery – we may receive Communion only after truly repenting in the Sacrament of Confession, and firmly undertaking a genuine amendment. Otherwise we are eating and drinking damnation to ourselves.
    This casual desensitisation to serious sin is such a slippery slope of public scandal that we could not possibly accept it.

  42. Kathleen10 says:

    @McCall, thank you. In this case it’s Cardinals who must resist, and I’m happy to hear Card Muller and a few others are doing that. May they persevere. It is at this probable early point that things must be resisted, before traction and momentum are gained.

  43. dans0622 says:

    Counselor Deanna Troi. Wesley Crusher. Well, on second thought, I don’t even tolerate him.

  44. Justalurkingfool says:


    Forgive me for this:


  45. robtbrown says:

    Martial Artist says:
    A request (from this relatively recent convert) for clarification on “toleration.” Does not St. Thomas Aquinas write (somewhere in the Summa if I have correctly remembered what I have been told) that not every sin ought to be made a criminal offense?

    Obviously, every sin cannot be made a criminal offense.

    You might be referring to St Thomas’ comments on prostitution, in which he says that it making it illegal (and enforcing such a law) causes more problems than it solves.

  46. BLB Oregon says:

    It seems that what he literally means is that the Church will not allow a marriage in the Church for someone who is not free to marry because of an existing marriage, but will not actively bar people from Holy Communion when they back up irregular sexual relationships with some endorsement or other found in secular law. I can see the temptation, because of course it is hard to tell someone who goes out and attempts a second marriage and has children when they are already married to someone else that they are doing something wrong, because of course they have put themselves in a position to take on a duty they cannot rightly fulfill, and a duty to children at that.

    The problem is that the secular government does not have this difficulty at all! If you take one legal spouse and then go off and obtain a legal marriage to someone else, they will not only find your second marriage null but will find you guilty of breaking the law–in most places, guilty of a felony offense! You can’t go marrying someone else when you already have a legal spouse still alive. The difference is that civil law currently allows divorce, which the Church does not do.

    Ah, but wait! That does not mean you do not have a constitutional right to be legally married to one person and yet treat a second, third, or forth person as if these persons were your spouses, too, provided you don’t try to get a second marriage license! In December 2013, a federal judge ruled that the state cannot legally bar you from doing that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/utah-polygamy-court-ruling_n_4455706.html

    As the story notes, “Perhaps not surprisingly, groups advocating for legalizing gay marriage were quiet in response, saying that legalizing polygamy is not part of their mandate.”

    If by “tolerate but not accept” he were to mean that of course people in this position are to be welcomed to Mass and treated in a kind and patient way by fellow parishioners, even though they are not admitted to Holy Communion until they establish themselves in a regular situation, that is a reasonable and charitable sort of tolerance to ask for. He does not seem to mean that, but that is a kind of tolerance.

  47. gracie says:

    I know exactly what the difference is. With Tolerance, you’re still allowed to look as though you disapprove of something – you just can’t speak about it anymore (that’s the tolerant part). With Acceptance, the disapproving looks/sighs/shaking of the head are no longer permitted. You are, however, allowed to look blank. For the next stage – Approval – you have to have a pleasant smile and twinkle in your eye and nod your head approvingly at the immoral behavior being discussed/witnessed/promoted.

  48. Imrahil says:

    As an aside – by the way, for good or evil, Cardinal Kasper shows as clearly as possible that he is a German.

    I don’t mean precisely that “tolerate but not accept remarriage after divorce”, even if it were agreed upon (on hypothesis), would mean Communion.

    I mean that if accepted on hypothesis that there should be Communion in spite of the unacceptable (but tolerated) fact of remarriage… then (if that really is the hypothesis) I think everyone in the world would have been quite contented with the possibility to go to a neighbor parish where the couple is not known, and attest oneself a good conscience for it.

    Everyone but a German. This sort of thing is what a German cannot tolerate (pun intended).

    A German can think of making men obey law or of making law obey men, of obeying good laws, obeying evil laws and disobeying an evil law in recourse to higher law; but – for good or evil – he will never allow for a leeway. As St. Klemens Maria Hofbauer put it in terms of praise, “The Reformation came because Germans could not but be pious”. I wonder though whether that is to be praised. There might be another sort of wisdom in our Southern brothers in faith who will rather tolerate a leeway (even if not in themselves) than constantly legislate all things over again.

  49. Lin says:

    Sin should never be tolerated nor accepted. We must PRAY for and love the sinner. I do not know how one can tolerate but not accept. The act of tolerating is acceptance.

  50. Jason Keener says:

    “Tolerating” an evil occurs when one patiently forebears an evil situation that they are unwilling or unable to change for some reason, while at the same time giving internal disapproval of the evil committed. On the other hand, “accepting” an evil often implies that a person is not only unwilling and unable to change a situation—but that they also internally approve of the situation or behavior. That is the key difference, I think. A person “tolerating” an evil never gives internal approval to a bad or evil situation. For example, when we sin, God does not kill us on the spot but tolerates our sins because His Mercy demands that we be given time to reform and repent; however, I would not say that God accepts our sins with any kind of internal approval. Cardinal Kasper might mean that we can patiently forebear or tolerate the evil situation of second marriages even if we do not “accept” second marriages by giving them our internal approval as being something good or morally neutral.

    Another example: Catholics patiently and virtuously tolerate the existence of people who practice non-Catholic religions for the sake of civil peace even though Catholics could never give internal approval to the practice of non-Catholic religions because the Son of God founded only one true religion into which every person on Earth ought to be fully incorporated.

  51. boko fittleworth says:

    If your picture is a hint, looks like one guy got the answer right.

  52. McCall1981 says:

    @ BLB Oregon,
    The second kind of tolerating but not accepting that you mention (“welcomed to Mass and treated in a kind and patient way by fellow parishioners, even though they are not admitted to Holy Communion”) is exactly what, I hope, Francis is thinking. Some of the Cardinals have said they are looking at pastoral options to accompany people, not at admitting them to communion (though of course Kasper and Marx would disagree).

    What I want to know is, what in the world is going on with this weird situation? Muller (CDF) completely slams this notion, while Kasper ignores him and is given a forum to present his ideas, while Francis plays coy about the whole thing, all at the same time?

  53. Justalurkingfool says:

    Why is it that the hierarchy finds it “tolerable” that adulterers should remain together “for the sake of the children of adultery”, when

    1. Those children or the child could be yielded to a good Catholic family for adoption or
    2. Those children or the child could be reared in the original home of the validly marriage couple?

    Why does the hierarchy seem to hold that the former is “good”, at the expense of the marital union in the valid marriage but that it is not “worth” the efforts of the good bishop involved to “roll up his sleeves” to try to accomplish #2, or at least #1, for the sake of the valid marriage?

    This makes no sense to me. It seems to “accept” evil with little or no effort at all to address it adequately.

    This seems like a couple who steals money from another couple, who is poorer then they are and has the same number of children yet, somehow, are “tolerated” for keeping the stolen money with no obligation for the harm they have done with that theft, for the good of “their” children, even at the expense of a poorer family and their children? Oh, yes, and they are given custody of the children of the victimized family because they are now, too poor, to raise their children properly…and they are given their home as well!

    I do not understand either.

    And, what of the children of the valid marriage? Do “they” not deserve an intact family?

    I would like answers that are not conjecture. I would like answers that hold up morally.

    Does marriage actually have any value in these circumstances to the hierarchy? Or is merely periodically abstaining from adulterous sex, all that marriage really boils down to? I mean, after all, these adulterers can have intercourse and go to confession, indefinitely, and all is forgiven, if a priest goes along with it? And his ordinary? While a Pope, who is scheduled to be named a saint(?), ignores pleas from the abandoned spouse. All the while an abandoned spouse may lose their home, there livelihood, their freedom, their wife and their children and be innocent and have no say in their children’s lives civilly or sacramentally. Yet, when they ask the Catholic Church for help they are ignored or told they are selfish, or worse. But, the adulterous couple, completely unrepentant, with no effort to address their actions are welcomed by the Catholic Church. What is at work here? Is this truly how the “Holy Spirit” works?

    It seems that way to me. It seems the positive promises of marriage are waived by the Church, for the “good of the children’ of adultery? Is this a greater good? Even when their are children of the valid marriage? Even when an innocent spouse is destroyed or nearly so?

    Where is repentance and justice in all of this? This is merciful? This is charitable?

    Is this what the good Cardinal is endorsing? I certainly wish they would talk to some of us to find out what reality is. This Catholic is tired of hearing about these “poor adulterers”. What about their poor victims? What about their poor children? What about us Cardinal Kasper? What about us Pope Francis?

    What kind of examples are these to people who learn of these cases, which are many, and are in disbelief that this is actually practiced in the Catholic Church and acceptable to Pope, after Pope after Pope?

    But, what does it say of clergy and rank and file Catholics who read of and hear of such real cases and are not moved to DEMAND answers from their pastors, from their bishops and from their Pope? Or are actually disgusted about hearing it, again and again?

    It says, EXACTLY, what the survey said, to a T!

  54. MWindsor says:

    The Soviet invasion of the Crimean peninsula

  55. Juergensen says:

    Ask the Cardinal if he “tolerates but does not accept” Nazis?

  56. kpoterack says:

    “We should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments . . .”

    Aparecida Document
    Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio

    I think Pope Francis likes open discussion and wants to see all points of view (e.g. Card. Kaspar), which can be confusing and alarming at times. He may even be wondering if there is a possible opening on the matter. However, unless he has changed his mind since 2007, the quotation above is one of the reasons that I don’t see him changing the discipline. I just don’t see how there is anyway around it for a man who has professed the sound principle stated above.

    How can one establish a program of “tolerance” which so flagrantly violates the principle of “eucharistic coherence”?

  57. kpoterack says:

    “In Italy, brothels were called case di tolleranza. ”

    And I bet not a single one of those tolerated prostitutes ever thought that she had a right to receive communion. This was typical back in the day that people in a state of mortal sin voluntarily absented themselves from communion. They knew better. The Church’s teaching was clear and even they internalized it.

  58. Ben Kenobi says:

    If by tolerance, Kasper means to permit access to the sacraments, then this amounts to ‘acceptance’, not tolerance.

    As a catechumen, my presence at the mass was tolerated, in that I was permitted to attend, but my participation was not and would never be the same as one who is permitted the fulness of the mass. Why did the Catholic church exclude me? To teach a lesson. The lesson being that the eucharist is reserved for those who understand the sacrament. What does Kasper’s words say about the sacrament of marriage? One objects to the ‘exclusion’ if one believes that all should have access to the eucharist and that exclusion is motivated by xenophobia. The same way in which one who rejects the chastity within marriage as ‘exclusion’. The two are connected. We cannot go Kaspar’s route and hope to retain the other sacraments.

  59. mrshopey says:

    Seeing that the pastoral approach, or tolerating but not accepting, has been used – well established – we should be able to judge the fruits to see if it is a “good” thing or a “bad” thing.
    Has tolerating (pastoral approach) those who have divorced and remarried, receive communion, helped others become holier? Has it helped them in understanding God’s commandments – grace to live it out – or have they taken receiving Holy Communion – as more of a good feeling/not excluded? Has it helped them become stepped in sin – meaning – if they received a “negative” response, are they more likely now to leave the Church over doing what is necessary, leaving the person they are with?
    I am not seeing ANY good fruits of this tolerate but not accept (pastoral approach).
    If we were judging this as should be, isn’t it time to throw out the bad fruit (pastoral approach)?

  60. Thomas S says:

    Tolerate though not accept?

    Papal resignations.

  61. Imrahil says:

    Dear Juergensen, I bet he does. At least, “tolerate but not accept” is or used to be the traditional attitude of German elite and polticians towards Nazismus. The move to ban the NSoid NPD party has gained ground of late, but was long rejected on exactly that ground. (The man in the street, though, rather wanted them imprisoned.)

    Dear kpoterack, I heard that in the Middle Ages, prostitutes would go to Confession for Easter (with… er… slight repentance) and afterwards officially for Communion, as the last ones.

  62. Bosco says:

    It strikes me that both Communion in the hand and altar girls were once ‘tolerated’ until eventually …

  63. Cathy says:

    We “tolerate” Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the Girl Scouts, but we don’t “accept” it.
    We “tolerate” Catholic political support of abortion, same-sex so-called “marriage”, but we don’t “accept” it.
    We “tolerate” the government leveling tax revenues against the Church as a threat to free speech, but we don’t “accept” it.
    In the case of tolerating grave moral evil, we aid and abet the evil.
    To “tolerate” a divorce and remarriage is to tolerate an open season among the married members of the laity within the Church. I can’t imagine the pain and confusion resulting from such a situation.

  64. Toan says:

    That’s a good point. Perhaps a good response to the question, “what do we tolerate but not accept” is, “absolutely everything we tolerate.”

  65. Toan says:

    Ugh, I should have previewed my 4 March 1:40pm post…it had an HTML error. I meant to say the below:
    Imrahil said:

    “There’s only one tiny thing possibly to critizise as far as the phrase ‘tolerate but not accept’ goes.

    It’s a pleonasm. We can only tolerate what we do not accept.”

    That’s a good point. Perhaps a good response to the question, “what do we tolerate but not accept” is, “absolutely everything we tolerate.”

  66. jarthurcrank says:

    I think the pre-Reformation Bishop of Winchester regulated and even licensed brothels south of the Thames. (Southwark, I believe, was the medieval “red-light” district of the London area.) I would have to look this up.

Comments are closed.