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

[ProVobis]

…truly bishops and truly desire to bring people back to the Faith.

Is this possible without glorifying civil marriage?

 

[McCall1981]

Speaking of German Bishops, here’s a good article on Pope Emeritus Benedict, Card Kasper and this communion issue:

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/12/benedicts-quiet-counsel-to-the-synod

Don’t forget Germany also gave us Pope Emeritus Benedict, Card Muller, Card Brandmuller, Card Meisner, Archbp Ganswein, etc, etc…

 

[irenaeus1]

The Church has already made the decision in the past about what they think about divorce and remarriage

Can. 7. If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another,[13] let him be anathema.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT24.HTM

Saying it’s okay for divorce and remarriage couples to receive communion is going against doctrine and is a sacrilege.

Interesting… I would like to see how the German bishops’ proposal can be put forward without violating the Church’s teaching. Or Cardinal Kaspar or any other bishop at the Synod that put forward this apparent heterodox proposal.

 

[SWolf]

In order to avoid the tax one must state that one is no longer a Catholic. That would seem to forbid them the Sacraments.

I think there is an old adage about following the money trail.

From what I can see the German bishops are heavily dependent on the tax for their income. Many, who are refused the sacraments because of divorce and remarriage, are so stating. By admitting them to the sacraments they bishops hope to retain them and their tax. This sounds like selling the sacraments.

I think there is an old adage about following the money trail.

Putting “No religion” on a civil document does not constitute apostacy. There was a whole thread on this. A Vatican statement said as much.

As to follow the money. Yup.

 

[otjm]

The Church has already made the decision in the past about what they think about divorce and remarriage

Can. 7. If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another,[13] let him be anathema.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT24.HTM

Saying it’s okay for divorce and remarriage couples to receive communion is going against doctrine and is a sacrilege.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but the matter seems to still be on the table for the ongoing synod. It is easy to pull things out of context and quote them. The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in matters of faith and morals; so if the Church decides, in limited circumstances, that there may be a reason that people in irregular marriages could be admitted to Communion, it will be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You may well be correct, that the Church will decide in the negative. Or you may not. The Churchy has made decisions in the past which have been surprises; and the future is unknown - unless one has an inside track with the Holy Spirit.

 

[otjm]

Is this possible without glorifying civil marriage?

Can people who are in irregular marriages take part in Mass, and other parish activities? I am not trying to defend the German bishops; but there seem to be bits and pieces here and there which indicate the discussion is in no way limited to Germany. That does not mean they are right; the process of Humanae Vitae being promulgated should disabuse anyone paying attention of that presumption. But there has been a good bit of chatter that the bishops are doing this based on money (other than specious and uncharitable guessing, I see nothing being offered in evidence).

Can a bunch of bishops be off the rails? History answers that question. But charity would presume they are concerned about the welfare of all their Catholics, and not just the minimal remnant which still attends Mass weekly, or the diocesan checkbooks. There is a lack of charity in parts of the thread.

 

[Sirach2]

Speaking of German Bishops, here’s a good article on Pope Emeritus Benedict, Card Kasper and this communion issue.

Since you chose to post this in separate threads, I will respond again in separate threads.

I think there is a slanderous campaign being waged in this link. If one reads the linked article without noting the actual revised text … published, by the way, well beyond the February, 2014 speech by Card. Kasper to the Consistory, and which continues to retain Benedict’s statement of 2005.
Sandro Magister quote:

2.b. Today there is another question that imposes itself with great seriousness. Currently there are more and more baptized pagans, meaning persons who have become Christian by means of baptism but do not believe and have never known the faith. This is a paradoxical situation: baptism makes the person Christian, but without faith he remains nonetheless just a baptized pagan.

**Can. 1055 § 2 **says that “between baptized persons there cannot exist a valid marriage contract that is not for that very reason a sacrament.” But what happens if a baptized unbeliever knows nothing at all about the sacraments? He might even have the intention of indissolubility, but he does not see the uniqueness of the Christian faith. The tragic aspect of this situation appears evident above all when baptized pagans convert to the faith and begin a completely new life. This brings up questions for which we still do not have answers. And therefore it is even more urgent to explore them.

Footnote: The new retraction of the 1972 article, with the concluding part entirely rewritten, appeared in the fall of 2014 in the following volume of the German edition of the Opera Omnia.

This is was Pope Benedict’s 2005 statement.
**3. **During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “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”.
See more at L’osservatore Romano.

 

[ProVobis]

Can people who are in irregular marriages take part in Mass, and other parish activities? I am not trying to defend the German bishops; but there seem to be bits and pieces here and there which indicate the discussion is in no way limited to Germany. That does not mean they are right; the process of Humanae Vitae being promulgated should disabuse anyone paying attention of that presumption. But there has been a good bit of chatter that the bishops are doing this based on money (other than specious and uncharitable guessing, I see nothing being offered in evidence).

Can a bunch of bishops be off the rails? History answers that question. But charity would presume they are concerned about the welfare of all their Catholics, and not just the minimal remnant which still attends Mass weekly, or the diocesan checkbooks. There is a lack of charity in parts of the thread.

I see your point, but why the obsession only with the remarried? What makes them that much different than those who cohabit if not the glorification of marriage outside the Church?

 

[Memaw]

The Church has already made the decision in the past about what they think about divorce and remarriage

Can. 7. If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another,[13] let him be anathema.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT24.HTM

Saying it’s okay for divorce and remarriage couples to receive communion is going against doctrine and is a sacrilege.

And pray tell me, what would one gain by adding a sacrilege to their already sinful life. We can’t fool GOD! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Can people who are in irregular marriages take part in Mass, and other parish activities? I am not trying to defend the German bishops; but there seem to be bits and pieces here and there which indicate the discussion is in no way limited to Germany. That does not mean they are right; the process of Humanae Vitae being promulgated should disabuse anyone paying attention of that presumption. But there has been a good bit of chatter that the bishops are doing this based on money (other than specious and uncharitable guessing, I see nothing being offered in evidence).

Can a bunch of bishops be off the rails? History answers that question. But charity would presume they are concerned about the welfare of all their Catholics, and not just the minimal remnant which still attends Mass weekly, or the diocesan checkbooks. There is a lack of charity in parts of the thread.

The lack of charity would be in encouraging one to sin even further than they already are by taking part in a sacrilege!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[ProVobis]

The lack of charity would be in encouraging one to sin even further than they already are by taking part in a sacrilege!! God Bless, Memaw

Agreed.

If these people had any faith, they’d know eventually they will probably be going to confession, and the fewer sins one has to confess, the lighter the burden they will have to carry till then.

 

[manualman]

Since you chose to post this in separate threads, I will respond again in separate threads.

I think there is a slanderous campaign being waged in this link. If one reads the linked article without noting the actual revised text … published, by the way, well beyond the February, 2014 speech by Card. Kasper to the Consistory, and which continues to retain Benedict’s statement of 2005.
Sandro Magister quote:

This is was Pope Benedict’s 2005 statement.
**3. **During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “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”.
See more at L’osservatore Romano.

This is VERY different from what is actually being discussed today. About as different as the Vatican II documents on the sacred liturgy and the brutally banal changes that were actually made in the name of those documents!

What B16 is talking about here is the possibility of another sort of defective consent that prevents the marriage from ever being valid at all (or at least renders it to a sort of unbeliever pagan status eligible for something quite like the Petrine privilege, which has a long pedigree). That is VERY different from legitimizing divorce and remarriage

 

[Sirach2]

What B16 is talking about here is the possibility of another sort of defective consent that prevents the marriage from ever being valid at all (or at least renders it to a sort of unbeliever pagan status eligible for something quite like the Petrine privilege, which has a long pedigree). That is VERY different from legitimizing divorce and remarriage

I’m fully aware of the difference. My purpose in citing the article was to counter the slander being perpetrated within the bloggers’ link posted by McCall. Details are posted here. Also, to prove that Benedict was* not absolutely against all possible solutions* for divorced and remarried spouses, as some allege. His citation indicated, “The tragic aspect of this situation appears evident above all when baptized pagans convert to the faith and begin a completely new life. This brings up questions for which we still do not have answers. And therefore it is even more urgent to explore them.”

One can logic a conclusion therefrom, that if these particular spouses later convert, and know full well in their conscience that the first marriage is invalid due to this impediment, it may potentially open the door to reception of communion in the interim as they await the long decision of the Tribunal for annulment. He doesn’t say that, but it is certainly a pastoral possibility in these situations, for which we must trust the Church to “explore them.”

After all, isn’t that one of the purposes of the Synod?

 

[manualman]

One can logic a conclusion therefrom, that if these particular spouses later convert, and know full well in their conscience that the first marriage is invalid due to this impediment, it may potentially open the door to reception of communion in the interim as they await the long decision of the Tribunal for annulment. He doesn’t say that, but it is certainly a pastoral possibility in these situations, for which we must trust the Church to “explore them.”

After all, isn’t that one of the purposes of the Synod?

No, I don’t follow you even remotely. The precedent is extremely clear. One must presume the marriage is valid until and unless a tribunal determines nullity. Nobody has ever been able to presume a tribunal outcome ahead of time and go ahead with what is possibly adultery. What’s different about “baptized pagans” converting later that would change that? Nothing. It’s wishful thinking leading to rationalization. Sorry if that’s close to home, but sometimes clarity requires bluntness.

The tribunal was established in the first place because the church wisely recognized that individual conscience is FAR to vulnerable to emotional rationalizing and an impartial assistance was needed for the faithful. Why abandon that wise course now, of all times?

 

[CHCL]

I’m fully aware of the difference. My purpose in citing the article was to counter the slander being perpetrated within the bloggers’ link posted by McCall. Details are posted here. Also, to prove that Benedict was* not absolutely against all possible solutions* for divorced and remarried spouses, as some allege. His citation indicated, “The tragic aspect of this situation appears evident above all when baptized pagans convert to the faith and begin a completely new life. This brings up questions for which we still do not have answers. And therefore it is even more urgent to explore them.”

One can logic a conclusion therefrom, that if these particular spouses later convert, and know full well in their conscience that the first marriage is invalid due to this impediment, it may potentially open the door to reception of communion in the interim as they await the long decision of the Tribunal for annulment. He doesn’t say that, but it is certainly a pastoral possibility in these situations, for which we must trust the Church to “explore them.”

After all, isn’t that one of the purposes of the Synod?

How do you know that they will declare nullity? They should wait UNTIL they declare null to act as a married couple, or restrain from Communion.

 

[Sirach2]

No, I don’t follow you even remotely. The precedent is extremely clear. One must presume the marriage is valid until and unless a tribunal determines nullity. Nobody has ever been able to presume a tribunal outcome ahead of time and go ahead with what is possibly adultery. What’s different about “baptized pagans” converting later that would change that? Nothing. It’s wishful thinking leading to rationalization. Sorry if that’s close to home, but sometimes clarity requires bluntness.

Firstly, are pagans baptized? I think not.

Second, there have definitely been such rulings by Tribunals that did not grant an annulment in just such a scenario. For those situations, where the couple knows with absolute certainty in their conscience from extensive prayer to the Holy Spirit, that their first marriage is invalid, this might be a pastoral remedy. Certainly, this will affect a very small minority, and only after obtaining counsel from their pastor/bishop. It indeed needs to be explored further, as Benedict believes. Our position should be ‘wait and see’ and then submit to the decision of the Synod.

Consider the Church’s teaching re mortal sin – one must KNOW they are committing mortal sin, and fully consent anyway. If these spouses do not believe they have committed mortal sin in this instance - due to their extraordinary circumstance - then they have not done so. The full weight of their decision is made with a clear conscience, and I trust they have considered the implications of following it.
Beyond this, I do not wish to argue about uncertainties.

 

[Memaw]

Agreed.

If these people had any faith, they’d know eventually they will probably be going to confession, and the fewer sins one has to confess, the lighter the burden they will have to carry till then.

And one never knows when we will be called from this life. I know more people that have died suddenly than those that had time to prepare to face Our Lord. God forgives sin, HE never overlooks it! God Bless, Memaw

 

[McCall1981]

Since you chose to post this in separate threads, I will respond again in separate threads.

I think there is a slanderous campaign being waged in this link. If one reads the linked article without noting the actual revised text … published, by the way, well beyond the February, 2014 speech by Card. Kasper to the Consistory, and which continues to retain Benedict’s statement of 2005.
Sandro Magister quote:

This is was Pope Benedict’s 2005 statement.
**3. **During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “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”.
See more at L’osservatore Romano.

I’m fully aware of the difference. My purpose in citing the article was to counter the slander being perpetrated within the bloggers’ link posted by McCall. Details are posted here. Also, to prove that Benedict was* not absolutely against all possible solutions* for divorced and remarried spouses, as some allege. His citation indicated, “The tragic aspect of this situation appears evident above all when baptized pagans convert to the faith and begin a completely new life. This brings up questions for which we still do not have answers. And therefore it is even more urgent to explore them.”

One can logic a conclusion therefrom, that if these particular spouses later convert, and know full well in their conscience that the first marriage is invalid due to this impediment, it may potentially open the door to reception of communion in the interim as they await the long decision of the Tribunal for annulment. He doesn’t say that, but it is certainly a pastoral possibility in these situations, for which we must trust the Church to “explore them.”

After all, isn’t that one of the purposes of the Synod?

Um, you’re missing the key distinction of this entire debate.

Everything Benedict talks about here (the internal forum, baptized pagans, validity dependent on the faith of the couple, etc) is about the process of determining validity. All of those issues are perfectly valid theological questions, all of them can be discussed, and I would thank God if the Synod ends up going in this direction.

The proposal by Card Kasper is about giving communion to (some) remarried people despite them having a valid first marriage (in other words, the validity of the first marriage has already been determined).

If they just change the process of determining validity, say by formalizing the internal forum, or making the faith of the couple at the time of their first marriage a factor, that would not be a problem.

And yes, Benedict is absolutely against giving communion to the remarried, and that is not debatable.

 

[ProVobis]

And one never knows when we will be called from this life. I know more people that have died suddenly than those that had time to prepare to face Our Lord. God forgives sin, HE never overlooks it! God Bless, Memaw

Right but let me add this.

I have yet to hear a moral theologian state otherwise, but death dissolves a marriage or remarriage, so one can’t die in that state. However, unless he dies unrepented of sacrilege, he certainly has that to deal with before God.

 

[Sirach2]

Everything Benedict talks about here (the internal forum, baptized pagans, validity dependent on the faith of the couple, etc) is about the process of determining validity. All of those issues are perfectly valid theological questions, all of them can be discussed, and I would thank God if the Synod ends up going in this direction.

The proposal by Card Kasper is about giving communion to (some) remarried people despite them having a valid first marriage (in other words, the validity of the first marriage has already been determined).

No. I repeat myself. He has merely offered points for the Synod’s reflection, (labeled by him as an ‘opening’) as he was commissioned to do by Pope Francis, and has not etched in stone any of these points as his own personal opinion, barring the one statement I shared previously, that he was leaning with Ratzinger’s earlier writing on one point (which, as you should have noted, was not elaborated upon in Kasper’s speech, per se.)

Furthermore, he has not adopted for his own basis, the thought of Joseph Ratzinger, as I have proved beyond a doubt, despite what your bloggers had to say to the contrary. The outcome is still to be determined next year.

Can we let this rest and stop trying to nail Kasper to the proverbial cross?