I
irenaeus1
Guest
Perhaps, but what would Dolan say to Burke. Burke has only reiterated the official teachings of the Church.
Cardinal: German bishops support allowing some remarried Catholics to receive communion
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The annulment laws are not one of the Ten Commandments though. Though shalt not commit adultery surely is but it does not address marriage per se.
The indissolubility of marriage is the essence of doctrine, but it is the Church who has devised the definitions of annulment and the complete prohibition on divorce in order to express that doctrine. The bible actually makes more of an allowance than that when in Matthew 5 The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells the disciples …
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
The Church devised a different discipline in order to express the doctrine than Jesus did but we trust in the Church as Catholics because we know the authority given her. We should also trust in her when she examines the quality of her disciplines in conveying the fullness of the doctrine.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
Ahhh, but what does ‘except for porneia’ mean? And note that Mark, Luke and Paul do not note this exception. And so, how do you know that the Church’s implementation of this doctrine into practice is different than what Jesus envisaged?
P
pnewton
Guest
hey both are orthodox and they both have their own ideas that go beyond the Church teaching, yet are within the bounds of Church teaching. The idea that one can teach the other more than they learn is projection of the views held by the poster onto these Cardinals, picking the one most in concert with his opinion. I will write this off as human nature, but we must recognize when we are projecting our opinions. The whole “What would Jesus do (WWJD)” is more often a projections as opposed to legitimate examination of conscience. Same principle here.
P
pnewton
Guest
No I am not kidding. Yes, they have. I do not know the specific positions of each and every bishop, but yes, I have seen this reasoning used. If you note in the article, the modifier “under certain conditions”.
Would that it was so simple. This process can take years, during which the Holy Sacrament is denied, despite the fact that a tribunal only gives a ruling of what they deem to be the situation and does nothing to change reality. The same couple that was in “adultery” in one situation is not in an adultery with no change in substance.
I recognize that I am not the Holy father, I do not operate as the shepherd to the Bride of Christ, and would never presume to speak for him. He has given his answer. All gainsayers should approach this question with humility.
M
McCall1981
Guest
If the bolded above is what this whole situation ends up being about, I will be overjoyed.
But unfortunately Irenseus is right, as of right now, what is being proposed is to give communion to those living in a state of adultery, plain and simple.
The Card Kasper side has floated this idea, if it gets accepted they will go ahead with it, if it gets rejected, they will claim they only meant the non-adultery situations (like what you’re saying) all along. That will be their fall back position, and that is why “the proposal” has been so vague, so it can expand or contract depending on how successful they end up being.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have often wondered why this is the criteria that is used to determine reception of communion. What separates us from God? Sin. But is it objective sin, or actual sin? Killing one’s son is an objective grave sin, yet for Abraham it was an act of faith. In the case of marriage, are those who commit no actual sin in their second civil marriage to be denied entry into the Church and reconciliation because they were ignorant of the Church’s position on re-marriage? I do see some area for examination in these issues. Cardinal Burke may not, but he is not the Holy Father. The Holy Spirit led the cardinals to a different man and we should heed that decision.
P
pnewton
Guest
In that case, let’s not borrow trouble. I do not see any situation where people will be allowed to receive communion after a second,* active* marriage with a previous valid marriage.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
‘except’ means that some divorces were allowed. In Catholic teaching, divorce is not recognised for any situation… only annulment which means something different. The Catholic rules came about once the sacraments had been discerned. Annulment had not even been floated by Jesus during His life. Annulment specifically addresses the Church performed sacramental marriage (as well as Pauline and Petrine privilege) and it specifically recognised that some marriages were undertaken without the necessary form or matter. That’s all been the result of the workings of the Church… not specifically Jesus or OT Commandments detailed instructions.
Now it is further recognised that when the general culture breaks down and no longer supports the true meaning of Christian marriage… many highly secularised Catholics are celebrating the sacrament of marriage without the requisite faith. This has been addressed by Diocesan Priests and Card. Ratzinger himself in the past.
How do you quantify an individuals faith? It isn’t something that can be defined by form or matter and is mostly discerned only by a certain type of evidence.
This is the crux of the examination thats happening at the moment. What matters though is that as a body, the Magisterium have the resources and authority to isolate discipline from the core doctrine regarding the indissolubility of marriage and this has informed all the different rules and requirements the Church has expressed for us over the last 2000 years.
E
Ender
Guest
Identify any condition that would allow someone in an irregular second marriage to receive communion. This debate can continue only so long as the conditions remain vague and unspecified, which is precisely why no one has even attempted to identify a single qualifying condition. If you think it is possible that such a condition exists then tell us what it is, what are the “certain conditions” that could permit communion to be received?
Ender
P
Prodigal_40s
Guest
Really? So endorsing a Gay Pride parades and saying “Good on You” to young men who come out" is what? How does that validate Church teaching? To suggest it does is inaccurate and sinful because it goes against Church teaching
P
Prodigal_40s
Guest
I’d rather you didn’t answer questions for other posters. I know you have this issue over people’s intellects being inadequate as does Cardinal Kasper but I respectfully allow them to answer questions directed at them.
However I also know that within sacred scripture there’s a quote:
What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19). When the sacrament of matrimony has been received by a man and a woman and ratified by their cohabitation as husband and wife, their union cannot be dissolved except by death.
The Church, for grave reasons, can dissolve the contract of marriage when the sacrament has not been received, as explained in the article on the Pauline Privilege, but when the sacrament has been received and has been ratified by marital cohabitation, marriage cannot be and never has been dissolved.
P
Prodigal_40s
Guest
Do you have an issue with belonging to the Catholic Church? It’s just that you sound quite detached from the “rules”.
I didn’t realise that “highly secularised Catholics” existed. What’s your definition of one and the criteria and rules involved for belonging to this very unique “niche” religion?
P
pnewton
Guest
Let me refer to Catholic teaching.
Half truths and out of context snipets should never be used to slander others. Your complaint of “inaccurate” can be applied to you as easily in light of your post. I will not say the same as to sinful, because that is not for me to say. I simply will give the teaching that we are to hold.
P
pnewton
Guest
The phrase was a second “civil” marriage. I think what is eluding us is definition of terms. In the Catholic sense, there is no such thing as a second marriage. Whenever we see the phrase “second marriage” of course it is the second marriage as defined by civil law.
P
Prodigal_40s
Guest
truthrevolt.org/news/cardinal-dolan-says-bravo-gay-nfl-star-coming-out
You’re right. My apologies. He said “Bravo”
However I am correct about the parade
Have you actually seen what happens during Gay pride parades? If so, do you think ordained Cardinals should encourage them?religionnews.com/2014/09/03/gay-parade-catholic-cardinal-dolan/
The rest of your post quoting Canon law appears to be irrelevant unless it applies to people who get a quotation wrong?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I agree with Cardinal Kasper. “…take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.” I think that in some cases divorce is more honest than the annulment process.
P
Prodigal_40s
Guest
Wow. You point out what somebody has said in a televised interview and a published interview and that’s “slander”? Actually it would be “libel” but seeing as how it’s true, it’s not accurate either way.
Are some people allergic to direct answers?
I anticipate that Cardinal Dolan will do a follow up interview the way that Cardinal Kasper did. I suppose it all depends on what suits the media profile because that’s sooooooo important
Are some people allergic to direct answers?
I anticipate that Cardinal Dolan will do a follow up interview the way that Cardinal Kasper did. I suppose it all depends on what suits the media profile because that’s sooooooo important
P
pnewton
Guest
You were inaccurate and out of context. He did not endorse a gay rights parade and he said “Bravo” to a journalist. The sentence right in front of that, you know, context was, " I don’t think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people." I get it. You like Cardinal Burke. You believe he is the better Cardinal. I think Cardinal Dolan is one of the best, understanding both orthodoxy and mercy. However, no one but God can impute sin.
Catholics need to embrace** all** the Church teaches on doctrine and morals. The Church teaching on judgment and truth are as important as application of canon law in marriage. Belittling and slandering cardinals is worse than speculating on possible changes in canon law at the request of the Holy Father. I think this is a point we need to all remember. We are not seeing a bunch of dissenting clergy. They are doing precisely what they were told to do. I am sorry if any feels bad because they cannot be pope, or their favorite clergy is not pope, but this is the way the Catholic Church works. Nothing drastic is going to happen and in the end, those that are on both sides of this debate will accept whatever changes come, as well as those changes which do not come.
P
Prodigal_40s
Guest
Let’s take what he said in context and provide a comparative example. An employed hardcore porn star says they’re comfortable with what they do and tell a journalist this who asks the Cardinal to comment…
“I don’t think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people.”
Follow up comment…
“Bravo”
It’s the same because he didn’t qualify his earlier comment about “non judgementalism” by saying that he’d like practicing sinners to receive the sacrament of reconciliation. He wants media attention and he’ll write books about his struggles with other people in the Church instead of admitting that he doesn’t accept church teaching in its entirety which he clearly hasn’t.
By allowing practicing gays to march in a Saint Patricks day parade with a rainbow flag, he has endorsed gay rights.
For the record libel is false representation. The Cardinal has said these things in interviews. It’s not libel pal
- Status