Cardinal Dolan: don't expect "dramatic change" on Communion for divorced and remarried

[Mackus]

As a recent convert to the Catholic Church, I didn’t know by my getting remarried and having relations I was committing mortal sin until I learned of it in RCIA. If I would have known this before hand five years ago, I wouldn’t have been remarried until my previous marriage was annulled if at all. I was horrified when this was explained to me and we agreed upon and immediately began living as brother and sister until our annulment process is complete with the understanding living this way may be permanent. If I didn’t know I was committing mortal sin and stopped upon learning of it, am I forgiven or even culpable? I’ve been curious about that.

 

[J_Peterson]

As a recent convert to the Catholic Church, I didn’t know by my getting remarried and having relations I was committing mortal sin until I learned of it in RCIA. If I would have known this before hand five years ago, I wouldn’t have been remarried until my previous marriage was annulled if at all. I was horrified when this was explained to me and we agreed upon and immediately began living as brother and sister until our annulment process is complete with the understanding living this way may be permanent. If I didn’t know I was committing mortal sin and stopped upon learning of it, am I forgiven or even culpable? I’ve been curious about that.

You need to have full knowledge for it to be a sin but I recommend talking to a priest, in confession if possible.

I have to hand it to you, you are much stronger than me. I lived with my fiance during the annulment process and engagement and we weren’t celebate (for the most part I abstained from communion). I admit I’m weak and a bit of a coward. It was my experience that makes me compassioniate towards people in your situation. Let’s pray they can find a workable solution.

 

[pnewton]

While Catholic teaching about marriage is incredibly clear, I think it’s painfully obvious that the propagation and acceptance of such teaching is less so, and I’d expect the upcoming synod to address these issues.

The limitation remains that teaching is limited to those that already accept teaching authority. Most Protestants view divorce and remarriage a a point of sin, and even then not always a sin. I know of none that consider remarriage an on-going state of sin. Therefore, converts will not be culpable of sin until they accept and understand this teaching, and by then there may not be any solution that does not cause more problems than it solves.

This is not an extreme hypothetical, but something that is more common every year. While living as brother and sister is a solution that is hard, and we are sometimes called to do hard things, it is not always possible, as it requires the consent of both parties. Without an understanding and acceptance of the reason, it is not realistic to expect a man or woman to live celibate for the sake of the conscience of the another. The Catholic Church might prove instrumental in the dissolution of families.

 

[gilliam]

a round-up of opinion on the divorced/remarried issue: cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/10/three-divorced-catholics-three-viewpoints/ …

 

[J_Peterson]

a round-up of opinion on the divorced/remarried issue: cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/10/three-divorced-catholics-three-viewpoints/ …

I like the idea of each diocese having someone to help Catholics going through divorce and to let them know what it entails (if they don’t pursue or aren’t eligible for an annulment). Of course that would require people make use of the resource. I think I identify with the 2nd guy though. It’s a bitter pill to swallow when the hard teachings apply to you. I feel very lucky to have been given a second chance by God and the Church.

I will say that my marriage prep was very good. Even my wife, who is agnostic, came away with a deeper respect for marriage. They were very clear that this is permanent and not to be entered into without a lot of thought.

 

[ProVobis]

I was horrified when this was explained to me and we agreed upon and immediately began living as brother and sister until our annulment process is complete with the understanding living this way may be permanent. If I didn’t know I was committing mortal sin and stopped upon learning of it, am I forgiven or even culpable? I’ve been curious about that.

The catechism states what is grave in sexual matters. It also offers what makes one less culpable. I will let the moral theologians argue about all these mitigating circumstances but I find it best to confess all my transgressions before receiving anyway. Catholic life shouldn’t be spent wondering about whether one’s sins are mortal or venial IMO. Christ died for all sins.

 

[Mark121359]

The Pope seems to favor Kaspar’s approach to this issue. Pope Francis stated that Kaspar’s analysis is “theology done on one’s knees.” Kaspers pastoral approach to the divorced and remarried had been rejected by john Paul 2. Why he’s being given another go at it is beyond understanding!

Reading the above post, I couldn’t help recall this recent quote from the Pope; *“The Gospel is something new, Jesus asks us “to put aside decadent structures – they are useless.” *This is why we must not be afraid of change, not even in the Church." Now with the synod just around the corner, and the media buzzword for this synod being the word “change,” I have to be perfectly honest with you, reading the bolded part above just makes me go…uh-oh!

Peace, Mark

 

[Tigg]

a round-up of opinion on the divorced/remarried issue: cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/10/three-divorced-catholics-three-viewpoints/ …

Sorry, but I think these types of articles only stir the pot and cause more confusion. I don’t want opinions, I want truthful answers given by someone in authority.

 

[sw85]

Problematically, there doesn’t have to be “dramatic change” officially approved by the Synod. All that has to happen is that the Synod has to say a few things in an intensely ambiguous fashion – to supply a few unscrupulous prelates with some one-liners which, when divorced from their context, appear to encourage this or that evil – and the damage will be done. Then conservative Catholics will be able to say with gladness “but the Church didn’t officially approve that change!” and do nothing even as the change is implemented around them.

 

[Joe_5859]

Reading the above post, I couldn’t help recall this recent quote from the Pope; *“The Gospel is something new, Jesus asks us “to put aside decadent structures – they are useless.” *This is why we must not be afraid of change, not even in the Church." Now with the synod just around the corner, and the media buzzword for this synod being the word “change,” I have to be perfectly honest with you, reading the bolded part above just makes me go…uh-oh!

Peace, Mark

Honestly, I don’t see the cause for concern. Do we really believe Pope Francis is some closet heterodox Catholic who is going to change doctrine? It ain’t gonna happen.

 

[Tigg]

Problematically, there doesn’t have to be “dramatic change” officially approved by the Synod. All that has to happen is that the Synod has to say a few things in an intensely ambiguous fashion – to supply a few unscrupulous prelates with some one-liners which, when divorced from their context, appear to encourage this or that evil – and the damage will be done. Then conservative Catholics will be able to say with gladness “but the Church didn’t officially approve that change!” and do nothing even as the change is implemented around them.

Yes and history will repeat itself!

 

[InFlux]

Any change would be a dramatic change.

Amen, Hoosier Daddy, and to your signature as well

 

[McCall1981]

Problematically, there doesn’t have to be “dramatic change” officially approved by the Synod. All that has to happen is that the Synod has to say a few things in an intensely ambiguous fashion – to supply a few unscrupulous prelates with some one-liners which, when divorced from their context, appear to encourage this or that evil – and the damage will be done. Then conservative Catholics will be able to say with gladness “but the Church didn’t officially approve that change!” and do nothing even as the change is implemented around them.

Very well said.

Honestly, I don’t see the cause for concern. Do we really believe Pope Francis is some closet heterodox Catholic who is going to change doctrine? It ain’t gonna happen.

Then why did the Pope bring up this discussion at all? Why did the Pope allow a theologian to present the idea of a doctrinal change at the start of the Synod? Why has the Pope not ever stated his support of the traditional teaching?

I’m not saying it’s for sure going to happen, but I think concern is definitely called for.

The one positive indication we have is that Card Muller keeps saying it can’t change, and you would hope that as Prefect of the CDF he would hopefully have some level of approval from the Pope.

 

[ProVobis]

Honestly, I don’t see the cause for concern. Do we really believe Pope Francis is some closet heterodox Catholic who is going to change doctrine? It ain’t gonna happen.

Some of us are always worried about the wording or spin some translator will put on this, however.

Just sayin…

 

[sw85]

Some of us are always worried about the wording or spin some translator will put on this, however.

Just sayin…

Right. There is a very strange tendency among modern conservative Catholics to think “doctrine won’t change” = “everything is fine, always.” It seems to me to be a pretty radically impoverished notion of faith that reduces it to nothing more than a laundry list of doctrines outside of which everything is just negotiable minutiae.

In fact the faith is a good deal more than a series of propositions, and living the faith means a lot more than affirming those propositions as a kind of mental exercise; it is a whole way of life, a lived reality. And it does very little good to affirm the doctrinal question in a technically minimal way while then proceeding to articulate a pastoral exception so broad that it devours the doctrinal rule.

 

[Colorad007]

Very well said.

Then why did the Pope bring up this discussion at all? Why did the Pope allow a theologian to present the idea of a doctrinal change at the start of the Synod? Why has the Pope not ever stated his support of the traditional teaching?

I’m not saying it’s for sure going to happen, but I think concern is definitely called for.

The one positive indication we have is that Card Muller keeps saying it can’t change, and you would hope that as Prefect of the CDF he would hopefully have some level of approval from the Pope.

One hypothesis I heard from a priest I know in Rome was that the Holy Father wanted to burn up a lot of the energy behind the issue before the synod actually started, so that once the synod began it would free up the oxygen in the room for talk about other issues relating to the family. And, you have to admit, a very significant part of the Church hierarchy has already very clearly established its opposition to the Kasper proposal to the point that it is basically Kasper against everyone else. Talk about collegiality.

I just don’t see how any serious change is even possible at this point—not only theologically, although there is that, too, but also just practically. How do you make a change when the prefect of the CDF has been leading the opposition to serious change for the last year? If the CDF can get something so big so wrong, then what does that say about the CDF? What does it say about all of these bishops who would have to go back to their dioceses saying, hey, you know, forget everything I just said about divorce and remarriage and Communion because I was totally wrong about that? For the teaching to change, it would have to throw A LOT of people under the bus.

But, frankly, we’re getting way too ahead of ourselves. Because the teaching won’t change. I don’t think that Pope Francis is a heretic. But even if he were, so what? Heretical popes can’t change the Church’s essential teachings any more than you or I can. The Holy Father will ultimately run up against a magisterial wall if he tries to change the teaching, and of course he knows that. Popes are much, much less powerful than even most Catholics suppose. They can harm the Church in many ways, yes, but they cannot destroy her magisterial authority.

 

[Colorad007]

Problematically, there doesn’t have to be “dramatic change” officially approved by the Synod. All that has to happen is that the Synod has to say a few things in an intensely ambiguous fashion – to supply a few unscrupulous prelates with some one-liners which, when divorced from their context, appear to encourage this or that evil – and the damage will be done. Then conservative Catholics will be able to say with gladness “but the Church didn’t officially approve that change!” and do nothing even as the change is implemented around them.

I’m pretty sure that’s why the synod was convened in the first place. It actually gives the Church a chance to talk about things that are already not being talked about enough. The whole Humanae Vitae comparison isn’t appropriate because a lot of people are already utterly disregarding the Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage. Before Humanae Vitae, what the Church taught on contraception actually influenced how people thought about the issue, which is why contracepting Catholics felt so betrayed by the Church.

When the Church reaffirms its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, a lot of people will shrug their shoulders and go on living in concubinage. That’s how things are these days. That is probably why you don’t hear the Holy Father slamming his fist against the table on these things. Who other than serious, faithful Catholics will actually change their lives based on what Pope Francis preaches and teaches? He obviously has little interest in preaching to the choir, so he is trying to aim at ways to bring those on the margins of the Church much closer to the heart of Christ. He can’t change the teaching on marriage to do that, but he certainly can change the way that priests relate to these folks. And if he and his brother bishops have an intelligent, faithful way of doing that, then they deserve our gratitude.

 

[Joe_5859]

Then why did the Pope bring up this discussion at all? Why did the Pope allow a theologian to present the idea of a doctrinal change at the start of the Synod? Why has the Pope not ever stated his support of the traditional teaching?

I’m not saying it’s for sure going to happen, but I think concern is definitely called for.

The one positive indication we have is that Card Muller keeps saying it can’t change, and you would hope that as Prefect of the CDF he would hopefully have some level of approval from the Pope.

The Pope didn’t bring it up at all. Cardinal Kasper mentioned it in a talk he gave to the College of Cardinals when they met around the last consistory back in February. The Synod hasn’t started yet. For the Synod’s preparatory document, the question on divorce, remarriage, and Communion was but one of over three dozen questions. And for the working document that resulted from feedback for those questions, it is only mentioned in 5 of the 158 paragraphs. And nothing in either document implies even a little that the Church is considering changing things to allow Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. It’s really a small, small part of what this Synod is about.

And Muller and Burke will be at the Synod, too. Even if Kasper talks about the issue again, his won’t be the only voice that is heard.

So, no, I’m not worried even a little bit. All the hulabaloo is just a bunch of sound and fury.

 

[McCall1981]

The Pope didn’t bring it up at all. Cardinal Kasper mentioned it in a talk he gave to the College of Cardinals when they met around the last consistory back in February. The Synod hasn’t started yet. For the Synod’s preparatory document, the question on divorce, remarriage, and Communion was but one of over three dozen questions. And for the working document that resulted from feedback for those questions, it is only mentioned in 5 of the 158 paragraphs. And nothing in either document implies even a little that the Church is considering changing things to allow Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. It’s really a small, small part of what this Synod is about.

And Muller and Burke will be at the Synod, too. Even if Kasper talks about the issue again, his won’t be the only voice that is heard.

So, no, I’m not worried even a little bit. All the hulabaloo is just a bunch of sound and fury.

But Francis originally brought it up before that during his return flight from World Youth Day last year. At the time, the issue was (supposedly) settled and over, but he brough it back by specifically mentioning communion for the divorced and remarried, saying this is a time for “mercy”, and mentioned the Orthodox practice of Oikonomia. He then personally appointed Card Kasper to address the other Cardinals, knowing full well that this has been Kasper’s pet issue for decades.

I’m not trying to say that we’re doomed or anything, just that Francis DID bring up this issue out of nowhere, has allowed the teaching to be officially questioned to the Cardinals, and has refrained from affirming his support of the teaching while this debate has gone on, all of which makes me think concern is pretty valid here.

I’m starting to think you are probably right and nothing will really come of this, but it’s a very dangerous situation that is being played out right now.

 

[ProVobis]

And if he and his brother bishops have an intelligent, faithful way of doing that, then they deserve our gratitude.

And the key to that IMO is to look at communion and spirituality another way. Emphasize spiritual communion and don’t make it look like everyone HAS to receive at every Mass. Above all, emphasize that God loves the pew-sitter who says a spiritual communion as much as He does the EMHCs and the sacramental recipient.