Archbishop Forte lists 5 key synod issues

[Brendan]

So well put. And I happen to believe that divorce is a sin - who among us does not sin?

In that, the Church teaches differently. Divorce itself is not a sin, but attempts at remarriage while a valid spouse still lives is a sin. As is any sexual act done outside of a valid marriage.

Your point is certainly valid, we all sin. What the Church asks, and must ask, is that we confess our sins, and do so with a desire to avoid sin in the future.

The Church asks nothing from those who have divorced and remarried than it asks all of us. To reject the occasions of sin in our lives, to confess it, and only then, to present ourselves for Holy Communion.

 

[Usige]

What is the theological solution here?

That is really my point. I have seen nothing from the “allow those in second marriages into the sacraments and public ministry” camp that says how it can be accomplished without rupturing the following understanding:

1. Marriage is for life and only ends in death
2. It is not possible to have a new spouse through remarriage without an annulment or death of the first spouse
3. Sexual relations with one who is not your lawful spouse is adultery
4. Adultery is a grave sin
5. One who is in manifest sin is not to present themselves for the sacraments until reconciled
6. Reconciliation requires intent to amend ones life and turn away from sin

So to admit someone who has a living spouse requires a change of understanding to atleast one of the above statements. I have as yet to see a theological argument that accounts for all of the above. Everything I have heard is about pastoral mercy, but does not talk about how it can be accomplished in the present doctrinal framework.

 

[GUYMAN]

In that, the Church teaches differently. Divorce itself is not a sin, but attempts at remarriage while a valid spouse still lives is a sin. As is any sexual act done outside of a valid marriage.

Really? I’m not being sarcastic, it was always my understanding that the “act” of divorce was considered a sin by the Church.

 

[OraLabora]

Divorce itself is not a sin,

Yes it is, but the degree of culpability may vary. The key difference is that it is not an ongoing sin, it is a single act which is forgivable through the sacrament of reconciliation.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.178

Of course some maintain the view and I have some sympathy with them, that the ongoing objective grave sin of adultery for the divorced and remarried, may also have a reduced degree of culpability in specific circumstances, just like any other habitual grave sin.

But I’ll defer that analysis to the Holy Father and Magisterium.

 

[Ender]

Everything I have heard is about pastoral mercy, but does not talk about how it can be accomplished in the present doctrinal framework.

Yes, so long as the conversation is kept general and the focus is not on the details of the problem it all sounds fine, but as soon as the specifics of the actual situation and the actual doctrines are raised the approach simply goes off the rails. That’s the distinction that has to be kept clear. It is all well and good to discuss mercy, forgiveness, and the care of lost souls, but generic objectives require the application of specific doctrines, and as you point out, so far no one has come up with a specific solution that comports with the relevant doctrines.

Ender

 

[Ender]

2384…the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery

Your citation rather starkly identifies the situation: public and permanent adultery. What has not been identified is any way to square this circle and permit someone in that situation to receive communion. Declaring them admissible because of “reduced culpability” does not seem in any way an acceptable approach.

Ender

 

[outremer]

Remember that there was a major controversy at the Synod regarding three paragraphs on becoming more supportive of homosexuality? Archbishop Bruno Forte was responsible for them.

Vatican mystery: Where did gay welcome originate?

[Hungarian Cardinal] Erdo has already “outed” the official who wrote the section on gays, Monsignor Bruno Forte [my emphasis], appointed by Pope Francis as the special secretary to the synod. Forte is an Italian theologian known for pushing the pastoral envelope on dealing with people in “irregular” unions while staying true to Catholic doctrine.

Keep a watchful eye on that man.

 

[LongingSoul]

That is really my point. I have seen nothing from the “allow those in second marriages into the sacraments and public ministry” camp that says how it can be accomplished without rupturing the following understanding:

1. Marriage is for life and only ends in death
2. It is not possible to have a new spouse through remarriage without an annulment or death of the first spouse
3. Sexual relations with one who is not your lawful spouse is adultery
4. Adultery is a grave sin
5. One who is in manifest sin is not to present themselves for the sacraments until reconciled
6. Reconciliation requires intent to amend ones life and turn away from sin

So to admit someone who has a living spouse requires a change of understanding to atleast one of the above statements. I have as yet to see a theological argument that accounts for all of the above. Everything I have heard is about pastoral mercy, but does not talk about how it can be accomplished in the present doctrinal framework.

I’m certainly not from any “allow those in second marriages into the sacraments and public ministry” camp because Pope Francis has said that there will be no change to the general rule.

I’m from a “respecting the wisdom and direction of Pope Francis” camp if anything. Pope Francis opened the door to examination of this issue in the light of the new urgency of the Church to reflect the mercy of God even where there seems no practical solution. It’s not that out of left field that the Church sees mercy as most evident where the impossibility of reconciliation seems demonstrated. I suspect that the majority of those on this thread who oppose the examination… also oppose the Church teaching on Capital Punishment that suggests a merciful approach of abolition? Cardinal Kasper, being an author of a book on mercy that deeply moved Pope Francis, was invited to present a starting idea for examining this issue which has been a bugbear in the pastoral ministry of Priests around the world as not fully reflective of truth.

Cardinal Kasper has always promoted and affirmed the teachings of the Church as you’ve listed above but also promotes and affirms the mystery and power of Gods mercy to sinners. Mercy properly understood, opens the door to truth because mercy and truth can never be separated. It has to be understood as a conduit to faith, hope and charity not as an alternative to those virtues.

Pope Benedict as the then head of the CDF acknowledges that the Churchs approach to sacramental marriage has been a long process of examining the various aspects over the various eras. In this 1994 document he indicates problems concerning the judicial forum in judging marriage validity that requires more examination.

Since marriage has a fundamental public ecclesial character and the axiom applies that nemo iudex in propria causa (no one is judge in his own case), marital cases must be resolved in the external forum. If divorced and remarried members of the faithful believe that their prior marriage was invalid, they are thereby obligated to appeal to the competent marriage tribunal so that the question will be examined objectively and under all available juridical possibilities.

c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.

He also suggests that the ‘absence of faith’ in a couple at the time of the sacrament needs further examination.

Further study is required, however, concerning the question of whether non-believing Christians – baptized persons who never or who no longer believe in God – can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two baptized persons is ipso facto a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a “valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055, § 2). Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the “absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being.[3]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

To think that there is no room for this examination or no room for the ‘God of suprises’ goes against the nature of the Church on earth.

 

[OraLabora]

Your citation rather starkly identifies the situation: public and permanent adultery. What has not been identified is any way to square this circle and permit someone in that situation to receive communion. Declaring them admissible because of “reduced culpability” does not seem in any way an acceptable approach.

Ender

Yet for other grave ongoing sins, it would appear it is. Two examples, addiction (drugs, alcohol) and masturbation (as indicated in the CCC.

Why is this grave sin different? I ask in all sincerity.

 

[Corki]

Yet for other grave ongoing sins, it would appear it is. Two examples, addiction (drugs, alcohol) and masturbation (as indicated in the CCC.

Why is this grave sin different? I ask in all sincerity.

Because it is possible for someone to confess those sins and have a firm purpose of amendment. Not so with someone who is living with a second “spouse” and who has every intention of leaving the Confessional and going right back to cohabitating with that person.

Addiction isn’t a sin anyway. Abuse of alcohol or drugs is a sin, but the culpability of the sin is lessened when the person is under the influence of an addiction which is a psychological issue.

 

[Brendan]

Yet for other grave ongoing sins, it would appear it is. Two examples, addiction (drugs, alcohol) and masturbation (as indicated in the CCC.

Why is this grave sin different? I ask in all sincerity.

That answer is in Familaris Consortio

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.** They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church **which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Marriage itself is a manifestation of the relationship between Christ and His Church. As such, the public representation of a false state as somehow being true is, as Pope John Paul II noted, an inherent contradiction. Especially so since the desire to publically be known to be in that state, even in Church.

Contrast that to those who masturbate, I know of none who desire that their state be publically known, and even self identify as such over coffee and donuts after Mass.

 

[TEPO]

Marriage is such a hot topic these days. From every angle.

 

[Usige]

I suspect that the majority of those on this thread who oppose the examination… also oppose the Church teaching on Capital Punishment that suggests a merciful approach of abolition?

While this is slightly off topic, I fully stand by JPII in believing that in most instances the need to resort to capital punishment is unwarranted. Only in instances where a violently dangerous criminal cannot be incarcerated would I accept that as a last resort. For instance if you have a convicted murderer that has escaped on many occasions and has killed each time they escaped. In those cases the ever present danger might warrant that as the only option. The only other choice would be to find an island to use as a penal colony and simply transport them. I’m sure Australia would be okay returning to it’s colonial roots for the sake of mercy.

Cardinal Kasper has always promoted and affirmed the teachings of the Church as you’ve listed above but also promotes and affirms the mystery and power of Gods mercy to sinners. Mercy properly understood, opens the door to truth because mercy and truth can never be separated. It has to be understood as a conduit to faith, hope and charity not as an alternative to those virtues.

I have no problem examining it and am all for mercy, but I am simply saying that I have seen nothing that explains how it can be accomplished.

The impression I get is that through penitential acts those who would in normal cases be considered to be living in adultery would, through a miraculous act of mercy (?), would somehow be freed from their on going sin. That is where I don’t see a road forward. This miraculous act of mercy would somehow have to involve God himself removing the prior bond as an act of mercy. Christ himself made it clear that no man could unbind those who God had joined together. That is the only way I could see those that are remarried and unable to be annulled could not persist in sin. This starts walking on very shaky theological ground where a bishop would have to certify a miracle with evidence presented by those who would draw a direct benefit.

Again, if the can find a way that does not require twisting the framework into unreconizability then I am all for it. I just fear that in trying to provide mercy for a small number that it will undermine the foundations of marriage, reconciliation and reception of the eucharist while in a state of grace. If we can make exceptions for cases of mercy then why not make the exception as broad as possible? At that point why have any limitations and simply let any person, Catholic or not, receive and teach as an act of mercy?

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis opened the door to examination of this issue in the light of the new urgency of the Church to reflect the mercy of God even where there seems no practical solution.

This is a misunderstanding of the nature of mercy. In order for us to receive mercy there are conditions that must be met, and if those conditions are not satisfied then mercy is not received.On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy…

• In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals… *(JPII, Dives in Misericordia) Again we see that mercy comes with forgiveness. The problem here is that forgiveness is not possible until the sins that require it are abandoned. Until sins are repudiated they cannot be forgiven, and if they cannot be forgiven then mercy is not an option. Indulgence towards evil is precisely what is being proposed.

It’s not that out of left field that the Church sees mercy as most evident where the impossibility of reconciliation seems demonstrated.

On the contrary, the church does not offer mercy to the unrepentant.“God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.” To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults*. *(CCC 1847)

I suspect that the majority of those on this thread who oppose the examination…

You misstate the situation. No one has opposed the examination of the issue. What has been rejected are certain proposals for its solution.

Pope Benedict … indicates problems concerning the judicial forum in judging marriage validity that requires more examination.

Determining the validity of a marriage is not the issue. The reception of communion by those in invalid second marriages is the concern.

To think that there is no room for this examination or no room for the ‘God of suprises’ goes against the nature of the Church on earth.

Again you misstate the issue. No one has objected to an examination of the problem. The objections are to one specific proposal for its solution.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

While this is slightly off topic, I fully stand by JPII in believing that in most instances the need to resort to capital punishment is unwarranted. Only in instances where a violently dangerous criminal cannot be incarcerated would I accept that as a last resort. For instance if you have a convicted murderer that has escaped on many occasions and has killed each time they escaped. In those cases the ever present danger might warrant that as the only option. The only other choice would be to find an island to use as a penal colony and simply transport them. I’m sure Australia would be okay returning to it’s colonial roots for the sake of mercy.

Ha ha. Yes. Send them down here and we’ll show you how scurvy criminals can create a lovely paradise.

I have no problem examining it and am all for mercy, but I am simply saying that I have seen nothing that explains how it can be accomplished.

The impression I get is that through penitential acts those who would in normal cases be considered to be living in adultery would, through a miraculous act of mercy (?), would somehow be freed from their on going sin. That is where I don’t see a road forward. This miraculous act of mercy would somehow have to involve God himself removing the prior bond as an act of mercy. Christ himself made it clear that no man could unbind those who God had joined together. That is the only way I could see those that are remarried and unable to be annulled could not persist in sin. This starts walking on very shaky theological ground where a bishop would have to certify a miracle with evidence presented by those who would draw a direct benefit.

Again, if the can find a way that does not require twisting the framework into unreconizability then I am all for it. I just fear that in trying to provide mercy for a small number that it will undermine the foundations of marriage, reconciliation and reception of the eucharist while in a state of grace. If we can make exceptions for cases of mercy then why not make the exception as broad as possible? At that point why have any limitations and simply let any person, Catholic or not, receive and teach as an act of mercy?

This is what came across very much to me out of the first synod. Pope Francis obviously wants this issue examined for new spiritual and theological insights. He reminds us that God is a ‘God of surprises’ and we know that by the way the Church through her history has been a continually unfolding bloom of Revelation. We know that Pope Francis sees a need to look at sinners through merciful glasses and address them with a new language of less judgement. “Who am I to judge”. We know that judgement has a place in a judicial forum, but we also know that mercy has a powerful transforming effect on peoples lives and their faith. We also know that we are only scrapping the beginnings of an era of a more merciful Church, as per the elevation of St Faustinas charism to global prominence and the dedication of St JPII towards greater mercy. That naturally means that there is a lot we don’t know yet about the power of mercy and the merciful nature of God.

Pope Francis also reminds us of Jesus promise that the Pope cannot teach error.

We also know that Cardinal Kasper has written a book on mercy which has captured and influenced Pope Francis spiritually in his new role, and it makes sense that he be invited to present his ideas on this issue as the catalyst for further examination.

These are all piecemeal facts, but together they mean something for all Catholics and I believe that we must all be open to the synods process with the hope of something healing for families and for the individual issues being discussed. Nothing wrong with rebutting one or another persons ideas with theology… but it should be with the underlying attitude and expectation that there is wisdom to be gained by the process, rather than just trying to close the door on the conversation altogether.

 

[Brendan]

He also suggests that the ‘absence of faith’ in a couple at the time of the sacrament needs further examination.

Further study is required, however, concerning the question of whether non-believing Christians – baptized persons who never or who no longer believe in God – can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two baptized persons is ipso facto a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a “valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055, § 2). Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the “absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being.[3]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

To think that there is no room for this examination or no room for the ‘God of suprises’ goes against the nature of the Church on earth.

One thing to keep in mind, is that statement by Pope Emeritus Benedict refers only to an examination of the Sacramental nature of a particular marriage. That is actually a distinct issue from the permanence or the validity of the marriage.

The Church recognizes Natural Marriages ( marriages without the Sacramental character) as being valid and indissoluble.

If two atheists marry for example, and then divorce, they too are still bound in marriage, and attempts at remarriage are generally as invalid as if it was two faithful Catholics.

There are certain exceptions where the bond can be broken ( Pauline and Petrine Privlidge), but even a Faithless marriage is a valid one, and sexual relations outside of that bond are still adultery.

 

[Ender]

… even a Faithless marriage is a valid one, and sexual relations outside of that bond are still adultery.

I think this is really the heart of the problem: it seems that people advocating for communion for those in irregular marriages don’t really accept this. After all, if the couple’s behavior was understood to be actually sinful (as opposed to, perhaps, technically sinful?) I think fewer people would be willing to overlook their behavior. I think it is our tolerance for the sin that has generated the outcry. I seriously doubt that many people would suggest a modern Lothario who bragged about his conquests on Saturday should receive communion on Sunday.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

One thing to keep in mind, is that statement by Pope Emeritus Benedict refers only to an examination of the Sacramental nature of a particular marriage. That is actually a distinct issue from the permanence or the validity of the marriage.

The Church recognizes Natural Marriages ( marriages without the Sacramental character) as being valid and indissoluble.

If two atheists marry for example, and then divorce, they too are still bound in marriage, and attempts at remarriage are generally as invalid as if it was two faithful Catholics.

There are certain exceptions where the bond can be broken ( Pauline and Petrine Privlidge), but even a Faithless marriage is a valid one, and sexual relations outside of that bond are still adultery.

What that particular examination might affect is the potential for the sacrament of reconciliation. The trouble is that ‘absence of faith’ is not an aspect that can be confidently ascertained by others and even the person themselves in many cases. It’s one of those things that is more clearly defined as an absent aspect, when contrasted with the subsequent growth of faith. So dealing with it by remote canon lawyers in the annulment process would be difficult. It would be better ascertained in the parish between the couple, the parish Priest, their Bishop and canon lawyers.

Anyway regardless, where there was never a sacrament, one of the main obstacles to possible reconciliation is not present.

 

[Ender]

Anyway regardless, where there was never a sacrament, one of the main obstacles to possible reconciliation is not present.

***The ***obstacle to reconciliation is an unwillingness to renounce the sin of adultery. So long as the adultery continues there can be no reconciliation.*But the **essential **act of penance, on the part of the penitent, is contrition, a clear and decisive rejection of the sin committed, together with a resolution not to commit it again *(JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)
Ender

 

[Brendan]

.

Anyway regardless, where there was never a sacrament, one of the main obstacles to possible reconciliation is not present.

How so?, if the marriage was not sacramental, is does not mean that it was invalid. The couple are still joined in permanent marriage, but lack the accompanying Grace of a Sacramental union.

Sexual acts outside of even a natural marriage are still adulterous, and, like Sacramental marriages, divorce does not end the marital bond.