Cardinal: German bishops support allowing some remarried Catholics to receive communion

[Ender]

Then why, if it is so crystal clear that there is nothing further to discuss, is the matter being carried over to the next synod?

Clearly because there are some, like Cardinal Kasper, who would like to see this restriction changed, but the fact that they keep calling for it says nothing about whether the change can in fact happen. As of yet there has been no reasonable explanation proposed that could allow someone in a state of grave sin to receive communion.

Ender

 

[Mark121359]

Nothing surprises me from these German Cardinals anymore. I believe it was Cardinal Marx that said; “The church must also take a differentiated view of homosexuality. One simply cannot say that a faithful homosexual relationship that has held for decades is nothing, as that is too “forceful” a standpoint.”…So what’s new here?

---

Peace, Mark***

 

[boar2roar]

Nothing surprises me from these German Cardinals anymore. I believe it was Cardinal Marx that said; “The church must also take a differentiated view of homosexuality. One simply cannot say that a faithful homosexual relationship that has held for decades is nothing, as that is too “forceful” a standpoint.”…So what’s new here?

---

Peace, Mark***

Agreed especially in this man’s case. I might not agree with Cardinal Kasper but even he wouldn’t say something like this. Cardinal Marx is just on another level when it comes to “progressives” its just surprising that someone with his views can rise so far in church hierarchy unchecked.

 

[ARSpade]

Listening to the opinion of German priests and bishops about how the Church should do things strikes me as listening to a three pack a day fat doctor on how to get in shape. “Ja, ja, eat as many doughnuts as you like, and the smoke strengthens your lungs by making them work harder!”

I doubt that if you asked the 1980 Synod members like JPII, Cardinal Ratzinger, etc, whether they had thoroughly vetted the issue, they would say “no, not really, the Synod should probably take up this exact same issue in about thirty years, and maybe come up with a contradictory conclusion.”

I agree with you on TV and such.

Reminds me of something Father Longenecker said about female “priests” in the Anglican church.

Each time they lost, the people pushing the proposal would just hold another meeting. Until they got the “right” answer.

 

[manualman]

Nothing surprises me from these German Cardinals anymore. I believe it was Cardinal Marx that said; “The church must also take a differentiated view of homosexuality. One simply cannot say that a faithful homosexual relationship that has held for decades is nothing, as that is too “forceful” a standpoint.”…So what’s new here?

---

Peace, Mark***

The most harmful of lies are actually at least partially true. That’s how they can traction and credibility. If two homosexual men have a 15 year relationship marked by mutual self-sacrifice and mutual support, then that is NOT “nothing!” The sexual aspect of their relationship is sinful and self-destructive, but if the overall relationship includes Philia and Agape forms of love, those constructive elements are babies not to be thrown out with the bathwater. But those aspects are NOT the “homosexual” aspects of the relationship, they are the brotherhood aspects of the relationship.

I don’t know Cdnl Marx or for sure if he was really trying to legitimize the practice of homosexuality or merely to point out that gay men have all the human dignity of any other man. But the quote provided alone isn’t enough to prove the former. And historically there have been all too many people ready to condemn both the actions and the dignity of the persons when it comes to homosexuality.

 

[Nic1099]

I am civilly divorced and obtained a Decree of Nullity last May. As a result, I can appreciate the pastoral concerns and desires of bishops and priests in wanting to help parishioners in difficult situations. However, I am not in favour of allowing civilly divorced and remarried couples to receive Holy Communion. I believe that this will undermine the indissolubility of sacramental marriage.

I sincerely hope that this ‘Kasper’ approach is rejected at the Synod in October.While I admire many aspects of Pope Francis, I am at times alarmed at the direction he appears to be bringing the Church. Our Holy Father must uphold Christ’s teaching.

Maybe more resources need to be provided to Church Tribunals in order to facilitate greater efficiency in processing ‘annulment’ cases? In regard to my own experience, many people seem afraid of the ‘annulment’ process due to unsubstantiated beliefs surrounded it. One such misnomer being that the children will be declared ‘illegitimate’. These ideas discourage people, who may be granted a Decree of Nullity, from applying in the first place. I believe the Church needs to help people more in understanding the true nature of a Decree of Nullity, what it is and what it is not.

 

[Tigg]

This from Father Z (and we know he doesn’t mince words):

German bishops pushing hard to overturn the Church’s doctrine

The German bishops are calling the Church’s teaching and practice “incomprehensible”. Clearly the comprehend it. They just don’t believe what the Church teaches and they are revolting against it.

The Germans intend to put huge pressure on Pope Francis to make the changes they want, and they wield a lot of clout. As Damian points out, the German Church receives money from taxes to the tune of £4.6 billion a year!

The African bishops, who are far more faithful to Catholic teaching, are not inclined to go along with the revolting ideas of the Germans, but the Germans have the money. If they can bully the African bishops into at least silence, they can probably have their way with the next Synod, with the full complicity of Card. Baldisseri, who runs the Synod.

wdtprs.com/blog/2014/12/german-bishops-pushing-hard-to-overturn-the-churchs-doctrine/

with this corresponding link:

blogs.spectator.co.uk/damian-thompson/2014/12/communion-for-divorced-catholics-the-german-bishops-twisting-pope-franciss-arm/

 

[ProVobis]

This from Father Z (and we know he doesn’t mince words):

And what do they call that which disagrees with the church’s doctrine? Oh, yeh, HERESY, a violation of the First Commandment.

 

[Seamus_L]

While it still may be a long shot, I think the odds of a schism within the Catholic Church in the near future have increased considerably.

 

[otjm]

While it still may be a long shot, I think the odds of a schism within the Catholic Church in the near future have increased considerably.

And where would they go?

If one were to trace all groups which have decided to leave, one would find that the longer they remain in schism, the farther they edge away from truth.

 

[Tigg]

And where would they go?

If one were to trace all groups which have decided to leave, one would find that the longer they remain in schism, the farther they edge away from truth.

So if two opposing groups, each substantially represented by a number of high profile prelates (essentially the Magisterium) were to split on doctrinal issues, which one would be in schism?

(Hint) This might be a trick question.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The way I get my head around this is remembering that the Church is saints and sinners, all the way to the top. For whatever reason, there are many, some in very important, prominent positions, that do not fully accept or adhere to all of the Church’s teaching. My great struggle with that was the pedophile scandal. If you can get over that and still be a Catholic, you can handle anything. Heterodox bishops are a walk in the park, and, unfortunately, could well be a dime a dozen. I always just come back to minding my own path. Don’t get freaked out and let them knock you off it. (That’s the devil’s handiwork, really, isn’t it?) Resisting it is good practice. If you go sour or concede a true role in the Church to them in your mind, they’ve won.

 

[otjm]

So if two opposing groups, each substantially represented by a number of high profile prelates (essentially the Magisterium) were to split on doctrinal issues, which one would be in schism?

(Hint) This might be a trick question.

Thou art Kephas…

This whole thing is growing to the silly level. Christ promised the Church the protection of the Holy Spirit in matters of Faith and Morals.

And last I heard, the Holy Spirit doesn’t give a fig about votes or money. Doctrine is not going to change; we don’t know the context of the Belgian Cardinal’s comments (see, e.g., the comments by Benedict 16 re: the use of condoms and how that one got spun) and a whole lot of electrons are being discomforted over the matter.

If people want to leave, the door is open and it won’t hit them on the backside; and it will remain open if they wish to come back.

And absolutely none of it will impact my salvation, for which I, alone, am responsible.

 

[Rin]

Thou art Kephas…

---

Honestly, I think that if a schism were to happen, regardless of which “side” took their leave, then the schismatic element wasn’t Catholic, other than on the surface, to begin with. While of course such an event would be undesirable (we’ve had enough unstability for a few centuries in my opinion), it is no more than a symptom of an underlying problem.

I for one am also not certain it is the “liberal” element which will enter into schism, it could just as well be the “conservative” part. Judging from the threads on CAF since the start of the Synod, I wouldn’t place any bets - I find statements from both sides worrisome. Not just in forum posts, but also in the posted news stories and so on.

I will still however pray that a schism doesn’t happen.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Why don’t they form their own church? Oh wait that was already done in Wittenberg a “while” back

 

[FollowChrist34]

On either side of the “schism,” some will go to heaven, others to hell…plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…

 

[Prodigal_40s]

---

Honestly, I think that if a schism were to happen, regardless of which “side” took their leave, then the schismatic element wasn’t Catholic, other than on the surface, to begin with. While of course such an event would be undesirable (we’ve had enough unstability for a few centuries in my opinion), it is no more than a symptom of an underlying problem.

I for one am also not certain it is the “liberal” element which will enter into schism, it could just as well be the “conservative” part. Judging from the threads on CAF since the start of the Synod, I wouldn’t place any bets - I find statements from both sides worrisome. Not just in forum posts, but also in the posted news stories and so on.

I will still however pray that a schism doesn’t happen.

I think the problems come from the mainstream media’s inexorable and relentless quest to present the Catholic church in agreement with the “progressive” society they present. This means that words are misinterpreted although there are actually extremes on both sides but they’re in a minority compared with the media’s distortion of them. I don’t like the idea that Church teaching is being cast as a “hard line traditional” area. The church has timeless commandments from God and that is nothing to do with people who are fallen; “liberals” and “conservatives”. This is a pathetic and trivial hissy tiff that should be ignored along with the instigators of this nonsense

 

[FollowChrist34]

The church has timeless commandments from God and that is nothing to do with people who are fallen; “liberals” and “conservatives”. This is a pathetic and trivial hissy tiff that should be ignored along with the instigators of this nonsense

But I will concede that some, and I emphasize some, on the so called traditional side are really hardening into paranoia and even hate. I don’t think it is warranted at all. Likewise the other side has some, and again, only some, that are hardening into a sort of malicious glee at the coming downfall of their “conservative” opponents. It’s ridiculously exaggerated and should be a source of embarrassment to a serious Catholic, regardless of your politics inside the Church or out…

 

[Crossbones]

This from Father Z (and we know he doesn’t mince words):

Well, that’s an effective way to disrupt the entire process. If they agree with me, great, clearly holy people making the right decision after thoughtful reflection in prayer… If they don’t agree with me, they’re doing it for money - not after thoughtful reflection in prayer.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

But I will concede that some, and I emphasize some, on the so called traditional side are really hardening into paranoia and even hate. I don’t think it is warranted at all. Likewise the other side has some, and again, only some, that are hardening into a sort of malicious glee at the coming downfall of their “conservative” opponents. It’s ridiculously exaggerated and should be a source of embarrassment to a serious Catholic, regardless of your politics inside the Church or out…

Matthew 10:16 contains an easy command to follow and Christ tells us to ignore the real serpents who want to cause confusion and lies. It is always important to answer questions directly and truthfully and unfortunately some people will mock outrage. If the words are heartfelt and based on truth and we have faith in them, truth will always shine through.
Going down to the secular level always results in arguments that lead to hate. The Bible is the guide and I would always quote it when direct questions call for direct answers