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

[Ender]

Of course discerning a defect of faith is different to detecting defects of form or matter. It couldn’t be a strictly administrative process because matters of faith belong in the faith community and the internal forum.

I advance these thoughts as a response to Pope Benedicts question mark regarding the issue of sacraments celebrated without faith.

If you’re going to cite Cardinal Ratzinger it really is necessary to accept the issues he resolved.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.
That statement leaves nothing open to question.

Ender

 

[Ender]

He was here posing a question, far from certain, about a potential new ground for invalidity.

Yes, and this is what distinguishes Benedict’s comments from the suggestion that those divorced from a valid marriage should somehow have a path back to communion. A path, that is, that is different from the ones available now (which require an end to adulterous relations).

Another easy path to grace being suggested is to allow the petitioner to plead his case privately without the bother of someone actually having to determine the facts of the case. Then the first marriage can be simply declared invalid, and, voila - problem solved.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

If you’re going to cite Cardinal Ratzinger it really is necessary to accept the issues he resolved.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.
That statement leaves nothing open to question.

Ender

Your deliberate misrepresentation of my post is predictably appalling. I didn’t of course cite Cardinal Ratzinger as regards the internal forum. I cited it with regards to the potential issue of defect of faith. I’ll post my original comment again.

The commandments obligate all men. The sacraments obligate Catholics. Now the issue that Pope Benedict raised when he was head of the CDF, that could be further studied, was that of sacraments celebrated without faith. The sacraments are sacraments of ‘faith’ afterall.

If a well recognised theologian could suggest such a possibility should warrant further study, isn’t it possible that faithlessness might be recognised as affecting sacramentality?

People that convert in faith, after having created a marriage and family in the prior state, are possibly no different to atheists in the same situation.

Of course discerning a defect of faith is different to detecting defects of form or matter. It couldn’t be a strictly administrative process because matters of faith belong in the faith community and the internal forum.

I advance these thoughts as a response to Pope Benedicts question mark regarding the issue of sacraments celebrated without faith.

What’s more, in the letter you believe you’ve trumped me with, Pope Benedict again reiterates that the issue needs further study. Just as I was claiming he said.

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.

 

[sarah_j]

Pope Benedict’s teachings on the subject of the divorced/ remarried receiving Communion were summed up in Sacramentum caritatis, the concluding document of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist.
Benedict is clear on the subject (and underscores JPII’s teachings) :

… pastoral care must not be understood as if it were somehow in conflict with the law. Rather, one should begin by assuming that the fundamental point of encounter between the law and pastoral care is love for the truth: truth is never something purely abstract, but “a real part of the human and Christian journey of every member of the faithful” (96). Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage (97).

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16sacramcarit.HTM#The_Eucharist_and_the_Sacraments

 

[Brendan]

‘such clergy are liars’? What is he trying to achieve?
.

Let us look at the premise that +Burke made

continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality

Is this statement true or not?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Your deliberate misrepresentation of my post is predictably appalling. I didn’t of course cite Cardinal Ratzinger as regards the internal forum. I cited it with regards to the potential issue of defect of faith. I’ll post my original comment again.

What’s more, in the letter you believe you’ve trumped me with, Pope Benedict again reiterates that the issue needs further study. Just as I was claiming he said.

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.

This article is from the editors of Communio: International Catholic Review. The quote you quoted is stated here and it continues (bold text my emphases) (there view, the text I made bold is of particular interest):

Proponents of the “minimum fidei” requirement com- monly cite this statement by Ratzinger as confirmation of sup- port from the center, and it is not hard to see why. It has to be recognized, however, that Ratzinger’s own position on this par- ticular question continued to evolve. Seven years after making the statement cited just now, Ratzinger returned, now as Pope Benedict XVI, to the question of faith and the sacrament of mar- riage in an address to the diocesan clergy of Aosta:

I would say that those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the CDF, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further.16

As Joseph Ratzinger had noted already in his 1998 ad- dress, the question of the relation between faith and marriage is “highly complex” and fraught with implications. It is no wonder, then, that he called for “further study” in his 2005 talk in Aosta. Some such further study may also explain why Benedict himself eventually reversed his earlier tentative support for the proposal to introduce faith as a distinct requirement for the validity of a sacra- mental marriage. A few weeks before he announced his resigna- tion in 2013, in fact, he returned to the question of the relationship between faith and marriage in an address to the Roman Rota:

The indissoluble pact between a man and a woman does not, for the purposes of the sacrament, require of those engaged to be married, their personal faith; what it does require, as a necessary minimal condition, is the intention to do what the Church does. However, if it is important not to confuse the problem of the intention with that of the personal faith of those contracting marriage, it is nonetheless impossible to separate them completely. As the International Theological Commission observed in a document of 1977: “Where there is no trace of faith (in the sense of the term ‘belief’—being disposed to believe), and no desire for grace or salvation is found, then a real doubt arises as to whether there is the above-mentioned and truly sacramental intention and whether in fact the contracted marriage is validly contracted or not.” However, Blessed John Paul II, addressing this tribunal ten years ago, pointed out that “an attitude on the part of those getting married that does not take into account the supernatural dimension of marriage can render it null and void only if it undermines its validity on the natural level on which the sacramental sign itself takes place.”17

With these words, pronounced near the end of his pon- tificate, Pope Benedict XVI clearly reaffirmed the position ar- ticulated by Pope John Paul II, who consistently taught that it would be a grave mistake, and “deeply contrary to the true meaning of God’s plan,” to “introduce requirements of intention or faith for the sacrament that go beyond that of marrying ac- cording to God’s plan from the beginning.”18
It should be noted that the key issue at stake in this dis- cussion is not whether or not faith is essential to the sacrament of marriage. There is general agreement that faith is necessary for each of the sacraments, including the sacrament of matrimony. The crucial issue, then, is whether “personal faith” should be introduced as a separate or distinct criterion for the validity of the marital sacrament beyond the requirements currently in place (i.e., baptism, acceptance of the goods of marriage, observance of canonical form, and the like). The current teaching and practice of the Church, confirmed by John Paul II, is that the sacrament of baptism, together with “the decision of a man and a woman to marry in accordance with [the] divine plan,”19 contain an im- plicit faith that suffices for the validity of the marital sacrament.

communio-icr.com/files/editor-statement-42-2.pdf

 

[Ender]

Your deliberate misrepresentation of my post is predictably appalling. I didn’t of course cite Cardinal Ratzinger as regards the internal forum. I cited it with regards to the potential issue of defect of faith. I’ll post my original comment again.

It is difficult to understand how you can make such an accusation when your post contained this: It couldn’t be a strictly administrative process because matters of faith belong in the faith community and the internal forum…
and continued with this:*…I advance these thoughts as a response to Pope Benedicts question mark regarding the issue of sacraments celebrated without faith.
*It really isn’t clear what you think has been misrepresented given that the internal forum was one of the thoughts you advanced specifically in response to what Benedict had said. An approach which, as I pointed out, he explicitly rejected.

What’s more, in the letter you believe you’ve trumped me with, Pope Benedict again reiterates that the issue needs further study. Just as I was claiming he said.

As JimG observed several posts ago, “the issue” he was referring to here dealt not with the internal forum but with the question of determining the grounds for declaring a marriage invalid. Since my response to you was explicitly about the validity of using the internal forum to make such a declaration, your objection really has nothing whatever to do with my comment. According to BXVI the internal forum is off the table. I have never commented on what the grounds for nullification should be.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

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

Has the further study and clarification on the issue been done since this was written (I think in 1998)? If so can someone please give a link or source or something? At least I would appreciate it.

 

[Ender]

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

Has the further study and clarification on the issue been done since this was written (I think in 1998)? If so can someone please give a link or source or something? At least I would appreciate it.

Good post. This information is from 2005.*This Instruction confirms the need to submit the question of the validity or nullity of a marriage of the faithful to a truly judicial trial.

Sometimes, this traditional praxis of the Church is the subject of criticism or reservations, as though an excessive formalism were entailed. Simpler ways to a solution are suggested that would even solve the problem solely in the internal forum, through the so-called “nullity of conscience”, in which the Church would do no more than to register the conviction of the spouses themselves as to whether or not their marriage was valid.

Sometimes, it is also hoped that the Church would give up any sort of trial and leave this kind of juridical problem in the hands of courts of civil law.

On the contrary, the Church reaffirms her competence to deal with these causes, for in them is at stake the existence of the marriage of at least one of her faithful, especially if we remember that marriage is one of the seven sacraments instituted by Christ himself and entrusted to the Church. To forgo involvement in this problem would be equivalent, in practice, to obscuring the sacramental holiness of marriage.

**Press Conference for the presentation of the instruction Dignitatis Connubii
*Regarding the internal forum - if by that is meant one party to the marriage deciding its validity - they were pretty explicit:
*Marriage, therefore, in conformity with a conviction rooted in the civilizations of all the ages, is a public union. Hence, those who contract it cannot declare its nullity themselves.
*
*This commitment to seeking the truth must satisfy two fundamental conditions: it must permit the defence and discussion of the arguments both for and against nullity, as well as the gathering of evidence that proves the one or the other. It must also assign the task of judgment to an impartial third party. *

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Proponents of the “minimum fidei” requirement …

The indissoluble pact between a man and a woman does not, for the purposes of the sacrament, require of those engaged to be married, their personal faith; what it does require, as a necessary minimal condition, is the intention to do what the Church does. However, if it is important not to confuse the problem of the intention with that of the personal faith of those contracting marriage, it is nonetheless impossible to separate them completely. As the International Theological Commission observed in a document of 1977: “Where there is no trace of faith (in the sense of the term ‘belief’—being disposed to believe), and no desire for grace or salvation is found, then a real doubt arises as to whether there is the above-mentioned and truly sacramental intention and whether in fact the contracted marriage is validly contracted or not.”** However, Blessed John Paul II, addressing this tribunal ten years ago, pointed out that “an attitude on the part of those getting married that does not take into account the supernatural dimension of marriage can render it null and void only if it undermines its validity on the natural level on which the sacramental sign itself takes place.”17**

I’m not sure who 'the proponents of the ‘minimum fidei’requirement’ are which makes it hard to know who’s ideas the editors are addressing. It seems like they’ve created a strawman argument.

I’m not a proponent of the “minimum fidei” requirement and I can easily see and agree that unlike an aspect like ‘consent’ or ‘intention’, their faith couldn’t even be quantified or defined by some people marrying let alone an independent judge ie. Priest.

What’s significant though is that Pope Benedict throws in the aspect of Pope StJPII’s address that acknowledges "an attitude on the part of those getting married that does not take into account the supernatural dimension of marriage can render it null and void only if it undermines its validity on the natural level on which the sacramental sign itself takes place."

StJP developed the understanding that by desiring marriage and the goods of marriage an organic faith is implicit in natural marriage. For the sacrament to be valid only requires the couple to have faith in the Church basically.

If the desire and expectation of someone marrying proves itself in some way to be limited by utility or something that precludes a true capacity for indissolubility, it reveals invalidity.

The way I see personal faith coming into play in the context of a remarriage is when that relationship produces a flourishing of faith. All of us have experienced growth in faith due to some sort of relationship. So its easy to understand how new faith illuminates the track we’ve come along. It’s why as Christians we can suffer remorse for past actions that before faith, were easily justified, even esteemed.

So the article doesn’t close the door on Pope Benedicts 2005 question. By citing StJP’s earlier conditions for how lack of faith would be grounds for annulment, it refines the enquiry. That I think is obvious in the fact of Pope Francis seeming very keen to keep the study alive.

 

[LongingSoul]

Let us look at the premise that +Burke made

continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality

Is this statement true or not?

If you could post the whole sentence. It doesn’t make sense as it is.

 

[Brendan]

If you could post the whole sentence. It doesn’t make sense as it is.

How about this: * In regards to persons who have divorced and remarried, continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality*

Is that statement true?

 

[phil19034]

This was what transpired in a meeting with the Clergy of the Diocese of Aosta in 2005.

Another priest raised the topic of Communion for the faithful who are divorced and remarried. The Holy Father answered him as follows:

We all know that this is a particularly painful problem for people who live in situations in which they are excluded from Eucharistic Communion, and naturally for the priests who desire to help these people love the Church and love Christ. This is a problem.

None of us has a ready-made formula, also because situations always differ. I would say that those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly-complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050725_diocesi-aosta.html

It gives insight into the demeanour of the Pope towards the question. It doesn’t portray a man angrily standing for the absolute truth of the current limits. It portrays a man who feels compassion for people in this situation and open as can be to ways to heal it.

RIGHT – this is potentially a cause for Annulment (which I personally support). If a person is married in the Church but does not believe the vows they are taking, then are they able to initiate the Sacrament? I personally believe they cannot. What the Pope was proposing is that this may be grounds for an Annulment.

But NOT for allowing a person who is divorced and remarried without annulment to receive communion.

Cardinal Burke isn’t saying that people who receive annulments can’t get remarried and receive communion. Cardinal Burke is saying that people who divorce and do NOT receive annulments cannot get remarried and receive communion.

 

[LongingSoul]

How about this: * In regards to persons who have divorced and remarried, continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality*

Is that statement true?

Ok you threw me by referencing Card. Burke. I was trying to find it in the original post. The statement was *“They give to such faithful the message that their divorce and the continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality. In other words, such clergy are liars.” *

No, it’s not true. The clergy who have been in favour of further study, ultimately trust the couples experience that the second marriage is valid marriage. How it can be explained and how it can be dealt with by the Church are what’s at issue. None are disputing that marriage is indissoluble. What is being held up for examination is a phenomenon that seems to be calling for illumination. That is these situations of remarriage and conversion that have all the aspects of validity… but are technically untreatable without non-existing the couples love and family life.

The Bishops opinion is narrow and hostile unfortunately.

 

[phil19034]

Ok you threw me by referencing Card. Burke. I was trying to find it in the original post. The statement was *“They give to such faithful the message that their divorce and the continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality. In other words, such clergy are liars.” *

No, it’s not true. The clergy who have been in favour of further study, ultimately trust the couples experience that the second marriage is valid marriage. How it can be explained and how it can be dealt with by the Church are what’s at issue. None are disputing that marriage is indissoluble. What is being held up for examination is a phenomenon that seems to be calling for illumination. That is these situations of remarriage and conversion that have all the aspects of validity… but are technically untreatable without non-existing the couples love and family life.

The Bishops opinion is narrow and hostile unfortunately.

This doesn’t work. You cannot let the couple determine on their own.

What needs to happen is an annulment first. Perhaps you could let them have an interview with the Bishop to determine what happened in the first marriage to determine that the Sacrament never happened, where the Bishop then grants them an annulment. But an annulment must happen.

Allowing them to receive without annulment is a bad idea, which will have negative consequences.

It’s like changing the communion fast from 3 hours to 1 hour. In my opinion, that had negative consequences and has caused this debate. If the fast stayed at 3 hours, people who are not in a state of Grace can “hide” because there would be people not receiving communion because they ate before mass. But today, unless you walk to mass, it’s hard to break the 1 hour fast.

God Bless

 

[LongingSoul]

RIGHT – this is potentially a cause for Annulment (which I personally support). If a person is married in the Church but does not believe the vows they are taking, then are they able to initiate the Sacrament? I personally believe they cannot. What the Pope was proposing is that this may be grounds for an Annulment.

But NOT for allowing a person who is divorced and remarried without annulment to receive communion.

Cardinal Burke isn’t saying that people who receive annulments can’t get remarried and receive communion. Cardinal Burke is saying that people who divorce and do NOT receive annulments cannot get remarried and receive communion.

Yes some people contribute the constant reiteration of current disciplines and reject anything that can’t be fit within current disciplines.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

This doesn’t work. You cannot let the couple determine on their own.

**What needs to happen is an annulment first. **Perhaps you could let them have an interview with the Bishop to determine what happened in the first marriage to determine that the Sacrament never happened, where the Bishop then grants them an annulment. But an annulment must happen.

Allowing them to receive without annulment is a bad idea, which will have negative consequences.

It’s like changing the communion fast from 3 hours to 1 hour. In my opinion, that had negative consequences and has caused this debate. If the fast stayed at 3 hours, people who are not in a state of Grace can “hide” because there would be people not receiving communion because they ate before mass. But today, unless you walk to mass, it’s hard to break the 1 hour fast.

God Bless

That’s it. It gets to me that these long labouring posts are required. Either there’s been an annulment which is granted; and the Holy Father has made this process easier; or it’s not a valid marriage. The Pope said this himself

catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-reforms-annulment-process-9-things-to-know-and-share

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/pope-issues-major-marriage-annulment-reforms/

 

[phil19034]

That’s it. It gets to me that these long labouring posts are required. Either there’s been an annulment which is granted; and the Holy Father has made this process easier; or it’s not a valid marriage. The Pope said this himself

catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-reforms-annulment-process-9-things-to-know-and-share

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/pope-issues-major-marriage-annulment-reforms/

I think you might have a typo… ?

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s it. It gets to me that these long labouring posts are required. Either there’s been an annulment which is granted; and the Holy Father has made this process easier; or it’s not a valid marriage. The Pope said this himself

He has also acknowledged that mistakes can be made by the tribunal. It isn’t infallible.

 

[Ender]

He has also acknowledged that mistakes can be made by the tribunal.

No one questions whether or not tribunals can make mistakes; that has never been an issue - at least not one being debated here. There are two basic questions being discussed: whether a decree of nullity can be issued solely via an internal forum (whatever that means), and whether it is possible under any circumstances for a married couple who have not had a previous marriage annulled to receive communion. Both of these questions have been asked and answered by the church. The debate continues only because there are some who don’t like the answers.

Yes some people contribute the constant reiteration of current disciplines and reject anything that can’t be fit within current disciplines.

A better question would be at what point something already decided unequivocally several times in the past can actually be considered…decided.

Ender