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

[Prodigal_40s]

You either accept the faith in its entirety or not at all. Hope this helps

 

[Prodigal_40s]

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. Where is there even a hint towards “Orthodoxy”???
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

 

[Memaw]

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.

AMEN, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

That’s an increasing problem that’s global. If the Holy Father is critical of CERTAIN (not all) leading church figures for anything, it should be to stop agreeing the enemies of the Church and defending the Church as though their souls depended on it

Very wise, as usual, God Bless, memaw

 

[Ender]

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.

Fine, then define the terms in a way that would allow someone to receive communion who has divorced from a valid marriage and remarried. I’ll say it again: the only ally of those supporting this concept is vagueness.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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’ll start by saying that (despite looking for it) I have not seen Cardinal Dolan’s comments. Going just by what you posted here, however, I have a problem with it. Let’s be quite clear about this: the Bible does not tell us not to judge people, and least not in the sense Dolan suggests. We are in fact required to make judgments, otherwise how could we satisfy the obligations of justice?
1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor…"You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness* shall you judge your neighbor.**" *

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.

It would be helpful if Catholics understood what their church teaches, and to that end we have a right to expect our bishops to aid in that understanding, which does not appear to have been the case in this instance. This concept is not so complex that it should have come across so inaccurately.Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. Or else He forbids judgment about Divine things, which we ought not to judge, but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary declares in his commentary on Mt. 5. Or again according to Chrysostom, He forbids the judgment which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart. (Aquinas ST II-II 60, 2 ad 1)
Basically, we are not to judge what we cannot know, but since we can know what another person does we are justified in judging the propriety of his action, even as we may not judge his culpability for having committed it. If Cardinal Dolan was suggesting that we cannot judge the morality of supporting homosexual behavior he was not simply wrong but appallingly so.

Ender

 

[irenaeus1]

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."

Are you claiming that Dolan is merciful, but Burke is not? And what is your definition of mercy? And are we confusing making a judgment regarding sin as being contrary to exercising mercy? The correct understanding of ‘do not judge’ is to ensure that we don’t misjudge, or prejudge, or hypocritically judge. It does NOT mean that we are not to make judgments at all regarding sinful behavior, or that we are not to condemn certain acts. Certainly, we are to ensure that the plank is removed from our own eye first, so that we can then judge rightly. We are not to judge that a person is eternally condemned, especially with such certainty as we cannot always discern all the mitigating factors involved, but we are commanded to admonish the sinner (one of the spiritual acts of MERCY, by the way), which would be difficult to do if we are never to ‘judge’ objectively sinful behavior.

 

[pnewton]

Are you claiming that Dolan is merciful, but Burke is not?

No, but that you asked this gives me insight.

 

[irenaeus1]

No, but that you asked this gives me insight.

Insight into what? That I have a command of the English language? You stated after mentioning that I apparently favor Cardinal Burke that you “think Cardinal Dolan is one of the best, understanding both orthodoxy and mercy.” So I was simply asking you the question because it was your statement that was giving me insight. But rather than assume, I asked.

 

[McCall1981]

Confraternities of Catholic Clergy just issued this statement from their conference:

ccc2015.com/statement-in-support-of-marriage/

Statement in support of marriage

by webadmin | Jan 9, 2015

The International gathering of Confraternities of Catholic Clergy meeting in Rome (January 5th to 9th 2015), have discussed issues pertinent to the forthcoming Synod on the Family in response to the Holy Father’s call for reflection. The fathers pledge their unwavering fidelity to the traditional doctrines regarding marriage and the true meaning of human sexuality as proclaimed in the Word of God and set out clearly in the Church’s Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Confraternity priests from Australia, Great Britain, Ireland and the United States commit themselves to the work of presenting anew the Good News about marriage and family life in all its fullness and helping, with the Lord’s compassion, those who struggle to follow the Gospel in a secular society. The Confraternities, furthermore, affirm the importance of upholding the Church’s traditional discipline regarding the reception of the sacraments and that doctrine and practice must remain firmly and inseparably in harmony.

 

[Tomdstone]

Confraternities of Catholic Clergy just issued this statement from their conference:

ccc2015.com/statement-in-support-of-marriage/

Statement in support of marriage

by webadmin | Jan 9, 2015

The International gathering of Confraternities of Catholic Clergy meeting in Rome (January 5th to 9th 2015), have discussed issues pertinent to the forthcoming Synod on the Family in response to the Holy Father’s call for reflection. The fathers pledge their unwavering fidelity to the traditional doctrines regarding marriage and the true meaning of human sexuality as proclaimed in the Word of God and set out clearly in the Church’s Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Confraternity priests from Australia, Great Britain, Ireland and the United States commit themselves to the work of presenting anew the Good News about marriage and family life in all its fullness and helping, with the Lord’s compassion, those who struggle to follow the Gospel in a secular society. The Confraternities, furthermore, affirm the importance of upholding the Church’s traditional discipline regarding the reception of the sacraments and that doctrine and practice must remain firmly and inseparably in harmony.

What is their answer to polygamy practiced in Africa?

 

[irenaeus1]

What is their answer to polygamy practiced in Africa?

I would assume if they are upholding the official teachings of the Catholic Church, then they would say the same thing as was promulgated in the canons of the Council of Trent. I will provide the specific canon when I get a chance to look it up.

 

[LongingSoul]

Fine, then define the terms in a way that would allow someone to receive communion who has divorced from a valid marriage and remarried. I’ll say it again: the only ally of those supporting this concept is vagueness.

Ender

Anyone trying to quantify acts of mercy will always fall short on exact details. Mercy is a mystery. Until we know through the examination of the issue by the Church, whether a pastoral concession is theologically sound… we can only refer back to other instances where what seemed like closed doctrines have been reformulated to encompass a more full picture of Gods will. For example…

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

**848 **"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Also another helpful example is that of Catholic teaching on the fate of unbaptised infants who die. The International Theological Commission took pains to explain how we could leave the fate of these infants to the mercy of God without weakening of contradicting the doctrine of Baptism.

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

Finally, an observation on the methodology of the text is necessary. The treatment of this theme must be placed within the historical development of the faith. According to Dei Verbum 8, the factors that contribute to this development are the reflection and the study of the faithful, the experience of spiritual things, and the teaching of the Magisterium. When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine. Only in this way - and observing the principle of the hierarchy of truths mentioned in the Decree of the Second Vatican Council Unitatis redintegratio (#11) – the topic can be reconsidered explicitly under the global horizon of the faith of the Church. This Document, from the point of view of speculative theology as well as from the practical and pastoral perspective, constitutes for a useful and timely mean for deepening our understanding this problem, which is not only a matter of doctrine, but also of pastoral priority in the modern era.

“THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED” 2007

So there are two examples of reformulated expressions of the doctrine of Baptism that simply rely on the fact of Gods mercy for their authority.

 

[Tomdstone]

I would assume if they are upholding the official teachings of the Catholic Church, then they would say the same thing as was promulgated in the canons of the Council of Trent. I will provide the specific canon when I get a chance to look it up.

My understanding is that when an African polygamous family converts to Roman Catholicism, and the man has two or three wives who have children, and he is over 65 years old, that he is allowed to keep his wives and families.

 

[irenaeus1]

Anyone trying to quantify acts of mercy will always fall short on exact details. Mercy is a mystery. Until we know through the examination of the issue by the Church, whether a pastoral concession is theologically sound… we can only refer back to other instances where what seemed like closed doctrines have been reformulated to encompass a more full picture of Gods will. For example…

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

I don’t believe anyone is attempting to “quantify acts of mercy”… the issue being brought up regarding vagueness or ambiguity has to do with lack of clarity in proposals being put forward that appear to contradict official teachings.

And nothing has changed with regard to “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. There have always been some in the Church who have interpreted this more rigorously, but the Church usually directed the statement toward dissenting Christians within the Church (or those leaving the Church), not toward those who may, through invincible ignorance, know nothing of Christ or His Church. So any reformulation or re-presentation of teaching is for clarity, re-iteration and/or precision, not for changing the teaching and especially not to mean the opposite of what was once believed.

Also another helpful example is that of Catholic teaching on the fate of unbaptised infants who die. The International Theological Commission took pains to explain how we could leave the fate of these infants to the mercy of God without weakening of contradicting the doctrine of Baptism.

The fate of unbaptized infants has never been officially defined teaching, so theological speculation is acceptable here.

 

[Ender]

Anyone trying to quantify acts of mercy will always fall short on exact details. Mercy is a mystery.

Is mercy such a mystery that we cannot say what it is or when it is or is not appropriate to apply? Why is every answer to a specific question only more vagueness? Are you saying here that it is merciful to ignore sins and that we should treat sinners and non sinners alike? This is a misunderstanding of the nature of mercy.*In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil… *(JPII)

Until we know through the examination of the issue by the Church…

The church has already examined this issue, and has done so several times. How many times must it be revisited before it becomes settled?

…whether a pastoral concession is theologically sound

“Pastoral concession” here being a euphemism for ignoring or rescinding inconvenient doctrines.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Is mercy such a mystery that we cannot say what it is or when it is or is not appropriate to apply? Why is every answer to a specific question only more vagueness? Are you saying here that it is merciful to ignore sins and that we should treat sinners and non sinners alike? This is a misunderstanding of the nature of mercy.

The merciful father in fact treated his prodigal son even *better *than his ‘good’ son. The ‘good’ son might have foot stampingly agreed with your assessment of inappropriate mercy and the ignoring of sins and justice but Jesus saw it differently.

The church has already examined this issue, and has done so several times. How many times must it be revisited before it becomes settled?

The Catholic Church is a pilgrim on this earth. Jesus, the Word made flesh, gave us Himself, once and for all time. The Apostles and disciples were inspired by the Holy Spirit to commit the Word to print which cannot be added to or changed one jot. But the Church by her very nature is obliged to represent the Word to the faithful in the light of each age. Nothing written by any Father of the Church is sealed in the way the Scriptures are. Doctrine means something different to Scripture since it pertains to the ‘living’ nature of the Catholic Church. From Fr Hardon…

The Church, we believe, is the living Body of Christ. We therefore believe she grows, not only in numbers or in influence, but also in her own being.

We might say this stands to reason. Born on the Cross when her Founder died, the Church has always remained His Mystical Body. She will be the Kingdom of God on earth and the universal sacrament of salvation until the end of time. The truths which He entrusted to His Spouse will not change in number or meaning. The deposit of faith which the Savior entrusted to His followers will remain constant even into the dawn of eternity.

Objectivity, therefore, what God revealed to the human race is an unchangeable constant. The mystery of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the seven sacraments He instituted, the Real Presence of Christ on earth in the Holy Eucharist, the moral obligations of the Sermon on the Mount ― all of these are irreversible truths.

Saying this, however, does not mean that the Church’s understanding of Christian revelation does not grow. Nor does it mean that her grasp of the deposit of faith does not become more clear, more precise, more certain and more intelligible with the passage of time.

There are few aspects of Catholic education that are more important than what we have come to call “development of doctrine,” I would go so far as to affirm that failure to take account of this fact is near the root cause of the widespread confusion in catechetics and evangelization in our day.

therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_039.htm

“Pastoral concession” here being a euphemism for ignoring or rescinding inconvenient doctrines.

Ender

So says you. There are already concessions made to the indissolubility of marriage in the recognition that for marriage to be ‘indissoluble’ it has to qualify with certain markers. Scripture hasn’t given us this law that allows for annulment. It was devised by the Church that recognised human limitations in conferring the Sacrament bindingly. The Church can’t read peoples minds or know the state of anyone’s soul.

 

[Ender]

The merciful father in fact treated his prodigal son even *better *than his ‘good’ son.

That’s very true, but the central aspect of the son’s action seems lost on you. When he came back he didn’t ask to be treated as before, with no expectation of having to amend his life. What he did was to acknowledge his sin with deep contrition.Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
Surely you recognize the difference between being contrite and not expecting forgiveness and expecting forgiveness without being contrite?

The ‘good’ son might have foot stampingly agreed with your assessment of inappropriate mercy and the ignoring of sins and justice but Jesus saw it differently.

Mercy is available to those who acknowledge their sins; it is not available to those who refuse to.

The Catholic Church is a pilgrim on this earth. Jesus, the Word made flesh, gave us Himself, once and for all time. The Apostles and disciples were inspired by the Holy Spirit to commit the Word to print which cannot be added to or changed one jot. But the Church by her very nature is obliged to represent the Word to the faithful in the light of each age. Nothing written by any Father of the Church is sealed in the way the Scriptures are.

Scripture cannot stand without sacred Tradition as well as the doctrinal teachings of the Magisterium. Scripture does not stand on its own.

Doctrine means something different to Scripture since it pertains to the ‘living’ nature of the Catholic Church. From Fr Hardon…

It appears you believe doctrine can change in any way at all and be considered development, but development is actually constrained.*“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” *(Cardinal Dulles)
Repudiating the past hardly seems like being in solidarity with it.

Scripture hasn’t given us this law that allows for annulment. It was devised by the Church that recognised human limitations in conferring the Sacrament bindingly.

You say “devised by the church” as if that meant only those things explicitly stated in Scripture had real, lasting significance. The laws addressing who may or may not receive communion are not mere disciplines, like not eating meat on Friday, they are doctrines of the church that developed because of what the church has always believed and taught from the beginning. To change them now is to repudiate more than just the few beliefs involved here, it is to challenge and undermine them all.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s very true, but the central aspect of the son’s action seems lost on you. When he came back he didn’t ask to be treated as before, with no expectation of having to amend his life. What he did was to acknowledge his sin with deep contrition.Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
Surely you recognize the difference between being contrite and not expecting forgiveness and expecting forgiveness without being contrite?

Bear in mind I have no personal investment in communion for the divorced/remarried. I speak only in defense of Pope Francis orthodoxy in inviting the issue into theological examination in the light of some peoples suffering… and in defense of the ‘God of surprises’.

The types of couples this question applies to are those who have subsequently grown in their faith and understanding and are endeavouring in their lives to live the Catholic faith. They are not the people who are ‘expecting forgiveness without being contrite’ looking to change the Churchs teaching.

It’s impossible to ‘fix’ what they have broken like it was impossible for the prodigal son to regain all the inheritance he wasted. They are contrite and that is evidenced by their faithful practice and obedience to Church teaching to the extent of refraining from Communion for the rest of their married lives. Perhaps they wish they could go back with their mature faith and redo the past. Like someone who by accident caused a fatal accident might recognise a carelessness that caused the accident feels remorse for that carelessness that the rest of us might not even acknowledge in our driving if we’d never caused an accident by it. You want to pay for it by doing penance in lieu of the impossible redress of restoring the persons life.

This issue of communion for the divorced/remarried is not being raised by the sinners themselves… it is being raised by the clergy who minister to them in their parishes. That makes all the difference I suspect.

Mercy is available to those who acknowledge their sins; it is not available to those who refuse to.

It is available to everyone whether they refuse it or accept it. Your wording distorts the relationship between man and God.

It appears you believe doctrine can change in any way at all and be considered development, but development is actually constrained.*“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” *(Cardinal Dulles)
Repudiating the past hardly seems like being in solidarity with it.

Reread the essay I posted by Fr Hardon. That’s what I believe.

You say “devised by the church” as if that meant only those things explicitly stated in Scripture had real, lasting significance. The laws addressing who may or may not receive communion are not mere disciplines, like not eating meat on Friday, they are doctrines of the church that developed because of what the church has always believed and taught from the beginning. To change them now is to repudiate more than just the few beliefs involved here, it is to challenge and undermine them all.

Ender

That’s your opinion. Many of us, content in the promises of Christ to the Church, view this re examination of the issue with optimism that our understanding of marriage as a Sacrament will be deepened by it. I am really not invested in the official result of the examination but anytime in the Churchs history that a weeping wound has been acknowledged and addressed… we have a fruitful crop to harvest for years to come.

 

[irenaeus1]

Bear in mind I have no personal investment in communion for the divorced/remarried. I speak only in defense of Pope Francis orthodoxy in inviting the issue into theological examination in the light of some peoples suffering… and in defense of the ‘God of surprises’.

Does this work for someone who is involved in an extramarital affair or one who supports abortion or any other issue that we thought was already settled? Surprise!.. God now says, through His Church, that some of these may now be morally licit.

The types of couples this question applies to are those who have subsequently grown in their faith and understanding and are endeavouring in their lives to live the Catholic faith. They are not the people who are ‘expecting forgiveness without being contrite’ looking to change the Churchs teaching.

It’s impossible to ‘fix’ what they have broken like it was impossible for the prodigal son to regain all the inheritance he wasted. They are contrite and that is evidenced by their faithful practice and obedience to Church teaching to the extent of refraining from Communion for the rest of their married lives. Perhaps they wish they could go back with their mature faith and redo the past.

This is the first I’ve heard any conditions such as this being provided. I don’t think any of this was provided in the German Bishops policy proposal last summer.

That’s your opinion. Many of us, content in the promises of Christ to the Church, view this re examination of the issue with optimism that our understanding of marriage as a Sacrament will be deepened by it.

I’m content in the promises of Christ to the Church.

I am really not invested in the official result of the examination but anytime in the Churchs history that a weeping wound has been acknowledged and addressed… we have a fruitful crop to harvest for years to come.

Not sure what you mean here… and example would be nice.