Cardinal Burke: synod did not, and cannot, approve 'internal forum' approach for divorced/remarried Communion

[phil19034]

Ok. Thanks.
Let me please understand what we can within the given.
Two Catholics in a second union who with a contrite heart approach Confession determined to live as requested can do so and afterwards receive Communion .
Is that correct ,Ora ?

If you are asking what I think you are asking, then yes.

Example:

My great-grandfather was divorced (no annulment). My great-grandmother was a widow by 19, with a daughter. My great-grandmother married him anyway and they have 3 sons (the oldest being my grandfather).

In order to receive communion, they slept in separate beds and refrained from sex (granted, I don’t know if this was before or after the youngest son was born). My great-grandmother never received the Sacrament of Matrimony, and was a very devout Catholic, living into her 90s (my great-grandfather died approx 30 years before she did).

NOTE: I doubt she was a devout when she married my great-grandfather, because she started dating & married a divorced man (unless no one in the town wanted to date her and she got desperate – I have no idea honestly regarding what happened ??). But eventually, she became extremely devout, with a healthy fear of The Lord.

God Bless

 

[graciew]

If you are asking what I think you are asking, then yes.

Example:

My great-grandfather was divorced (no annulment). My great-grandmother was a widow by 19, with a daughter. My great-grandmother married him anyway and they have 3 sons (the oldest being my grandfather).

In order to receive communion, they slept in separate beds and refrained from sex (granted, I don’t know if this was before or after the youngest son was born). My great-grandmother never received the Sacrament of Matrimony, and was a very devout Catholic, living into her 90s (my great-grandfather died approx 30 years before she did).

NOTE: I doubt she was a devout when she married my great-grandfather, because she started dating & married a divorced man (unless no one in the town wanted to date her and she got desperate – I have no idea honestly regarding what happened ??). But eventually, she became extremely devout, with a healthy fear of The Lord.

God Bless

Yes ,this case for example.
Bear in mind I am not very familiar with interfaith marriages.
I have no second intentions ,just understand.
Thank you .

 

[phil19034]

Yes ,this case for example.
Bear in mind I am not very familiar with interfaith marriages.
I have no second intentions ,just understand.

 Thank you .

NOTE: the above example of my great-grandparents was not an interfaith marriage. They were both Catholic.

However, interfaith would basically be the same thing, unless there is an annulment.

God Bless

 

[graciew]

NOTE: the above example of my great-grandparents was not an interfaith marriage. They were both Catholic.

However, interfaith would basically be the same thing, unless there is an annulment.

God Bless

Yes , I got they were Catholic and thanks for the answer.!

 

[Thomas_White]

Two observations: In its paragraphs 84-86, the final synod document in fact recommends the internal forum as a possible solution for the divorced and civilly remarried; the final synod document does not speak of permitting Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried who have not reconcilled with the Church. The question is thus irrelevant.

 

[Ender]

In its paragraphs 84-86, the final synod document in fact recommends the internal forum as a possible solution for the divorced and civilly remarried…

I disagree. The wording of those paragraphs is too vague to be considered to have recommended much of anything. It is true that there is mention of the internal forum, but not as a recommendation to be used in place of the existing external forum.* (86) A conversation with a priest, in the internal forum, leads to the formation of a correct judgement on what poses an obstacle for a fuller sharing in the life of the Church…
*This could be interpreted in several different ways, but in its current form it is nothing more than a recommendation that people in this difficult position consult with their priest. There is nothing new or noteworthy about that.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I disagree. The wording of those paragraphs is too vague to be considered to have recommended much of anything. It is true that there is mention of the internal forum, but not as a recommendation to be used in place of the existing external forum.* (86) A conversation with a priest, in the internal forum, leads to the formation of a correct judgement on what poses an obstacle for a fuller sharing in the life of the Church…
*This could be interpreted in several different ways, but in its current form it is nothing more than a recommendation that people in this difficult position consult with their priest. There is nothing new or noteworthy about that.

Ender

I think it means just what it says.

 

[Ender]

I think it means just what it says.

Since it doesn’t say anything specific it cannot be interpreted to have recommended anything specific.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I disagree. The wording of those paragraphs is too vague to be considered to have recommended much of anything. It is true that there is mention of the internal forum, but not as a recommendation to be used in place of the existing external forum.* (86) A conversation with a priest, in the internal forum, leads to the formation of a correct judgement on what poses an obstacle for a fuller sharing in the life of the Church…
*This could be interpreted in several different ways, but in its current form it is nothing more than a recommendation that people in this difficult position consult with their priest. There is nothing new or noteworthy about that.

Ender

“86. A conversation with a priest, in the internal forum, leads to the formation of a correct judgment on what poses an obstacle for a fuller sharing in the life of the church…”

In the instance of a divorced and remarried person who has not obtained an annullment, the obstacle preventing a fuller sharing in the life of the church is the first marriage. A correct judgment in the internal forum would of course be the certain judgment of conscience and made in conjunction with “a conversation with a priest” (a conversation by definition in the external forum).

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

I think this is clear. Others may not agree. But if one recognizes the meaning of the key words “internal forum” and “correct judgment” (made in the internal forum, which is the forum of conscience) the meaning is not at all vague, not when what “poses an obstacle to a fuller sharing in the life of the church” is a first marriage.

 

[Ender]

“86. A conversation with a priest, in the internal forum, leads to the formation of a correct judgment on what poses an obstacle for a fuller sharing in the life of the church…”

In the instance of a divorced and remarried person who has not obtained an annullment, the obstacle preventing a fuller sharing in the life of the church is the first marriage. A correct judgment in the internal forum would of course be the certain judgment of conscience and made in conjunction with “a conversation with a priest” (a conversation by definition in the external forum).

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

I think this is clear. Others may not agree. But if one recognizes the meaning of the key words “internal forum” and “correct judgment” (made in the internal forum, which is the forum of conscience) the meaning is not at all vague, not when what “poses an obstacle to a fuller sharing in the life of the church” is a first marriage.

I don’t agree, and apparently neither does Cardinal Wuerl, who actually participated in the synod.*The teaching on conscience and the role of the Church in the formation of consciences is not changed. Neither was it suggested that the internal forum, or other subjective discernment, be a substitute for the objective tribunal process. The synod was clear that in these conversations with a pastor, the person’s discernment could not properly be contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel as taught by the Church.
*Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t agree, and apparently neither does Cardinal Wuerl, who actually participated in the synod.The teaching on conscience and the role of the Church in the formation of consciences is not changed. Neither was it suggested that the internal forum, or other subjective discernment, be a substitute for the objective tribunal process. The synod was clear that in these conversations with a pastor, the person’s discernment could not properly be contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel as taught by the Church.
Ender

“The synod was clear that in these conversations with a pastor, the person’s discernment could not properly be contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel as taught by the Church.”

What if the discernment is not contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel? At the root of so much disagreement is the subject/object duality and the concept of Objective Truth, where objective truth is equated with absolute truth that can be known only “objectively”. I do not believe that the role of conscience can be reduced to the circular logic that its proper formation is limited to, and must be in conformity with, existing church teaching. This is a misunderstanding of CCC 1800.

There is undeniably the concern that the certain judgment of conscience is merely subjective. However, CCC 1776 states otherwise: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey…” It is God’s law, and God’s law is necessarily the absolute truth. The failure to recognize this teaching is at the root of much disagreement, and it becomes problematic when it is thought the absolute truth is a static truth found only in man’s understanding of existing church doctrine. This is legalism.

 

[Ender]

“The synod was clear that in these conversations with a pastor, the person’s discernment could not properly be contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel as taught by the Church.”

You appear to interpret this to mean that a person’s discernment on the matter of the validity of his first marriage cannot be in error. You have earlier recognized that even a person’s “certain conscience” can in fact me mistaken, so this interpretation is not justified, and is surely not what Cardinal Wuerl meant. You have ignored the word “properly.” A person’s discernment may be contrary to the truth of the matter, but the discernment would not be proper.

What if the discernment is not contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel? At the root of so much disagreement is the subject/object duality and the concept of Objective Truth, where objective truth is equated with absolute truth that can be known only “objectively”. I do not believe that the role of conscience can be reduced to the circular logic that its proper formation is limited to, and must be in conformity with, existing church teaching. This is a misunderstanding of CCC 1800.

It is a misunderstanding to believe simply because one must always follow his conscience that the conscience is thereby guaranteed to always be right. One may act as one chooses, but that person who disregards church doctrines and acts contrary to them will be held accountable for the sins he commits.

There is undeniably the concern that the certain judgment of conscience is merely subjective. However, CCC 1776 states otherwise: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey…” It is God’s law, and God’s law is necessarily the absolute truth.

You cannot say both that the conscience can err and that the conscience can unerringly know God’s law. Blaming errors of the certain conscience on errors made earlier in life doesn’t change the fact that certainty is not a guarantor that the act is not a sin.

The failure to recognize this teaching is at the root of much disagreement, and it becomes problematic when it is thought the absolute truth is a static truth found only in man’s understanding of existing church doctrine. This is legalism.

Apparently we have the choice of following church doctrine, which you define as legalism, or of picking and choosing which doctrines to follow, which is correctly defined as cafeteria Catholicism. I think your definition is inadequate.

Ender

 

[graciew]

You appear to interpret this to mean that a person’s discernment on the matter of the validity of his first marriage cannot be in error. You have earlier recognized that even a person’s “certain conscience” can in fact me mistaken, so this interpretation is not justified, and is surely not what Cardinal Wuerl meant. You have ignored the word “properly.” A person’s discernment may be contrary to the truth of the matter, but the discernment would not be proper.
It is a misunderstanding to believe simply because one must always follow his conscience that the conscience is thereby guaranteed to always be right. One may act as one chooses, but that person who disregards church doctrines and acts contrary to them will be held accountable for the sins he commits.
You cannot say both that the conscience can err and that the conscience can unerringly know God’s law. Blaming errors of the certain conscience on errors made earlier in life doesn’t change the fact that certainty is not a guarantor that the act is not a sin.
Apparently we have the choice of following church doctrine, which you define as legalism, or of picking and choosing which doctrines to follow, which is correctly defined as cafeteria Catholicism. I think your definition is inadequate.

Ender

What if Thomas means that the marriage was valid in somebody 's conscience and it is annulled ? And he/she sticks to his/her conscience and does not remarry,cause that is what it would be for him/her , a remarriage. For example.
What would that be ?
I do not know , sounds like Thomas said something like this too.

 

[Thomas_White]

You appear to interpret this to mean that a person’s discernment on the matter of the validity of his first marriage cannot be in error. You have earlier recognized that even a person’s “certain conscience” can in fact me mistaken, so this interpretation is not justified, and is surely not what Cardinal Wuerl meant. You have ignored the word “properly.” A person’s discernment may be contrary to the truth of the matter, but the discernment would not be proper.

What interpretation? I asked: “What if the discernment is not contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel?” The remainder of your comments are based on your complete misinterpretation (a strawman argument) of the question I asked.

 

[Ender]

What interpretation? I asked: “What if the discernment is not contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel?” The remainder of your comments are based on your complete misinterpretation (a strawman argument) of the question I asked.

Since there is no objective way to determine whether the opinion of the partner in the first marriage is valid, that opinion has no weight in determining the status of that marriage. Even if it is accurate, and not contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel, it still doesn’t eliminate the requirement that the determination be made by an external forum. The point being, whether the personal discernment of the individual is accurate or not it has no bearing on determining the actual state of the first marriage.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

I think it means just what it says.

conversation with a priest, in the internal forum, leads to the formation of a correct judgement on what poses an obstacle for a fuller sharing in the life of the Church

Where does it state that this formum is used to back a determination on validity of the marriage.

The only role is had is as a formative tool. The correct judgement in the cases that we are discussing would be that the obstacle is be a lack of an decree of nullity.

Any other judgement would not be a correct one.

 

[Thomas_White]

Where does it state that this formum is used to back a determination on validity of the marriage.

The only role is had is as a formative tool. The correct judgement in the cases that we are discussing would be that the obstacle is be a lack of an decree of nullity.

Any other judgement would not be a correct one.

There are differences of opinion about what the synod recommended, and of course it is a question for Pope Francis to decide. But I would think the lack of a decree of Nullity is so obviously an obstacle to fuller participation in the life of the church that it wouldn’t require a recommendation by the synod, calling for discernment with the assistance of a priest and leading to the formation of a “correct judgment”, for a person to realize it.

It is interesting that you say “any other judgment would not be a correct one”. Is it the case that a person is never correct when concluding that their first marriage was not valid? If a first marriage was invalid, it was never valid.

 

[Thomas_White]

Since there is no objective way to determine whether the opinion of the partner in the first marriage is valid, that opinion has no weight in determining the status of that marriage. Even if it is accurate, and not contrary to the truth and charity of the Gospel, it still doesn’t eliminate the requirement that the determination be made by an external forum. The point being, whether the personal discernment of the individual is accurate or not it has no bearing on determining the actual state of the first marriage.

Ender

We has discussed this at length on several other threads and despite my repeated attempts to charitably explain it, you seem unable to grasp what is involved. The certain judgment of conscience is not a subjective opinion; a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience (CCC 1800). The final determination of the validity of a first marriage would be made by a priest, and it has been noted this would necessarily (and by definition) be a determination made in the external forum.

The problem is the insistence that the validity of a sacrament (marriage) must be (and could only be) objectively determined by other persons. But why would a person approach a marriage tribunal had they not already questioned the validity of their marriage in the internal forum? To simply rule out any involvement of the internal forum, the forum of conscience, is not realistic and not really possible.

The larger question involves the subject/object duality. If the possibility of the inner forum is denied, so is the possibility of spirituality. The result is an exclusive focus on doctrine and the result is legalism, a ‘blinkered’ perspective and a closed heart. This perspective is hardly uncommon in this age of science and analysis, and it could be understood as the cultural and epistomological paradigm described in Laudato Si.

As CCC 1776 provides, God’s law is inscribed on the heart of man. The innernal forum involves faith and belief. But the certain judgment of conscience is not subjective opinion, and true spirituality is not experienced in the external forum (i.e., objectively). It is transcendent of the subject/object duality.

 

[Brendan]

There are differences of opinion about what the synod recommended, and of course it is a question for Pope Francis to decide. But I would think the lack of a decree of Nullity is so obviously an obstacle to fuller participation in the life of the church that it wouldn’t require a recommendation by the synod, calling for discernment with the assistance of a priest and leading to the formation of a “correct judgment”, for a person to realize it.

Or their obstacle could be a lack of desire to live a life of Chastity, as require by Church teaching. THAT would be a matter of helping them come to the correct decision, in light of a lack of an annulment

valid.

Hence the requirement for an decree of nullity. As noted, any other participation in the Sacramental life of the Church by a divorced and remarried person without one would be incorrect.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Brendan]

We has discussed this at length on several other threads and despite my repeated attempts to charitably explain it, you seem unable to grasp what is involved. The certain judgment of conscience is not a subjective opinion; a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience (CCC 1800). The **final determination of the validity of a first marriage would be made by a priest, **.

Where did the Synod state this? It was certainly not in the statement we have been discussing?

Nor was it in the recent changes to the annulment process that Pope Francis issued.

Where can we find where the Synod or the Church made this change?