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

[pnewton]

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.

I have to point out that not all who are coming in asking for communion or prodigal, in that they have not committed the sin of adultery, but the state of sin is “presumed”.

 

[irenaeus1]

I have to point out that not all who are coming in asking for communion or prodigal, in that they have not committed the sin of adultery, but the state of sin is “presumed”.

The state of sin is “presumed” because the first marriage is presumed valid unless proven otherwise by a competent authority. And even if the first marriage is in fact invalid such that the sin of ‘adultery’ did not take place, the fact that they civilly re-married (i.e., re-married outside the Church) places them in a state of fornication.

 

[LongingSoul]

I have to point out that not all who are coming in asking for communion or prodigal, in that they have not committed the sin of adultery, but the state of sin is “presumed”.

Ah ha, true. There are some sins which are intrinsically evil but divorce and remarriage are not since if a couple have sought and received an annulment, they are considered sin free. Also as Catholics we don’t consider other Christians and non Christians adulterers because they are not married in the Catholic Church and only married in a civil ceremony. It is only Catholics considered to be adulterers in civil marriages by virtue of their baptism. There is a question of how culpable people are if their baptism was accompanied by a deficient faith? A persons faith is an important aspect of the quality of a sacrament. I believe this is one of the aspects that is open to examination in this issue.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

Abortion and extramarital affairs have been deemed intrinsically evil. No intention or circumstance alters the morality of them. The morality of divorce and remarriage are determined by whether the first marriage was valid or not. There is a difference in the examples you gave.

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.

From the start it was stressed that this issue was not going to affect the Church teaching regarding divorce and remarriage. It was only ever directed at individual cases of parishioners practicing the faith in every other way as families and participating members of 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.

I’m think of the great middle ages discussion regarding the status of Mary, her Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Thomas Aquinas himself could not accept such an ‘unbiblical’ ‘doctrinally illogical’ idea… but the ordinary people continued to venerate Our Lady as more than the Mother of Jesus. She was the Mother of God and what bouquets of wonderfulness the elevation of her has wrought in the last few hundred years of Catholicism.

 

[pnewton]

The state of sin is “presumed” because the first marriage is presumed valid unless proven otherwise by a competent authority. And even if the first marriage is in fact invalid such that the sin of ‘adultery’ did not take place, the fact that they civilly re-married (i.e., re-married outside the Church) places them in a state of fornication.

No, it does not place them in a state of sin, of any flavor. One cannot accidently incur sin. It takes an act of will. If the couple were not Catholic, they were not bound to follow the Catholic form of marriage. They could even be married within their own faith, with the full blessing of their minister. It is not inevitable that they are in a state of sin.

 

[pnewton]

Abortion and extramarital affairs have been deemed intrinsically evil. No intention or circumstance alters the morality of them. The morality of divorce and remarriage are determined by whether the first marriage was valid or not. There is a difference in the examples you gave.

Another difference is that there is not other sin that the Catholic Church treats as a “state”. One cannot be in a state of abortion, or a state of stealing. Going back to the topic, and remember the request of the Holy Father, I find that most of the arguments made against this synod are straw. Namely, the German bishops support allowing* some* remarried Catholics to receive communion. No one is suggesting we abandon Church teaching and open communion to all. It may well be that some are not in a state of mortal sin. “Presuming” or more to the point, assuming, is not a theological or doctrinal necessity. We already have the annulment process. There might be other procedures in place that would expedite or substitute for this process allowing for communion for some remarried that aren’t in a state of mortal sin.

 

[irenaeus1]

Abortion and extramarital affairs have been deemed intrinsically evil. No intention or circumstance alters the morality of them. The morality of divorce and remarriage are determined by whether the first marriage was valid or not. There is a difference in the examples you gave.

THe difference is only in the discovery of whether an objectively sinful situation exists, not whether it is intrinsically evil. If one divorces from a valid marriage and marries another, they are committing adultery against their first spouse (which is an intrinsic evil) .

From the start it was stressed that this issue was not going to affect the Church teaching regarding divorce and remarriage. It was only ever directed at individual cases of parishioners practicing the faith in every other way as families and participating members of the Church.

Not quite… as I mentioned, the German Bishops conference had already proposed the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried coupled without any such conditions and/or restrictions you mentioned the summer prior to the Extraordinary Synod. Some of the suggestions thrown around were letting the couple decide for themselves whether they are in good conscience and thus go to Communion; letting their pastor decide whether they should be allowed to receive Communion, even if they don’t have an annulment and are continuing in a conjugal relationship; adopting a practice similar to that of some Eastern non-Catholic Christians, where a second and even a third marriage are allowed, though the first marriage was valid; just letting them go to Communion as an act of mercy. How soon we forget what all the fuss was about, which was why the CDF had to come back with a swift response to these proposals.

I’m think of the great middle ages discussion regarding the status of Mary, her Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Thomas Aquinas himself could not accept such an ‘unbiblical’ ‘doctrinally illogical’ idea… but the ordinary people continued to venerate Our Lady as more than the Mother of Jesus. She was the Mother of God and what bouquets of wonderfulness the elevation of her has wrought in the last few hundred years of Catholicism.

While you are correct in that Thomas Aqunias had difficulty with the Immaculate Conception, the concept of the Immaculate Conception was nothing new in the Church (as is the case with the proposal of Communion for the divorced/re-married). And the Church’s veneration of Mary as the Mother of God came about 800 years before Thomas Aquinas, so not sure to what you are referring here.

 

[irenaeus1]

No, it does not place them in a state of sin, of any flavor. One cannot accidently incur sin. It takes an act of will. If the couple were not Catholic, they were not bound to follow the Catholic form of marriage. They could even be married within their own faith, with the full blessing of their minister. It is not inevitable that they are in a state of sin.

We are not talking about non-Catholics.

 

[irenaeus1]

Another difference is that there is not other sin that the Catholic Church treats as a “state”. One cannot be in a state of abortion, or a state of stealing. Going back to the topic, and remember the request of the Holy Father, I find that most of the arguments made against this synod are straw. Namely, the German bishops support allowing* some* remarried Catholics to receive communion.

The Church uses the term ‘state’ because of the perpetual nature of the sin… so yes, the Church uses the term state of sin and state of grace in regards to perpetuity.

With regard to the German Bishops, I already commented above. There are certain German bishops as well as in the name of the bishops conference that are not placing the conditions you suggest.

No one is suggesting we abandon Church teaching and open communion to all. It may well be that some are not in a state of mortal sin. “Presuming” or more to the point, assuming, is not a theological or doctrinal necessity. We already have the annulment process. There might be other procedures in place that would expedite or substitute for this process allowing for communion for some remarried that aren’t in a state of mortal sin.

And that is precisely why we have a process for the declaration of nullity, to determine the fact of whether someone is involved in objective sin. Marriage is a public declaration, so the determination is public. That is NOT what the controversial part of the discussion is about. Whether there might be other procedures in place that would expedite or substitute for this process allowing for communion for some remarried that are NOT in a state of mortal sin is NOT the controversial issue. The problem is what about those who ARE in a state of mortal sin; i.e. those divorced from a valid marriage.

 

[irenaeus1]

The problem is what about those who ARE in a state of mortal sin; i.e. those divorced from a valid marriage.

I should clarify - The problem is what about those who ARE in a state of mortal sin; i.e. those divorced from a valid marriage and civilly remarry.

 

[Ender]

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.

But this is exactly what is being suggested: forgiveness without contrition. Contrition includes the intention not to repeat the sin, but what is being suggested is that communion be given even though the couple has every intention of continuing sexual relations. Without intending to change there can be no forgiveness.
23. The priest must take great pains to decide in which instances absolution should be given, denied, or deferred, lest he absolve such as are indisposed for this benefit–persons, for example, who give no indication of contrition, who refuse to put an end to hatred and enmity, to make restitution when they are able, to give up an approximate occasion of sin,* or in any other way refuse to forsake their sins and amend their life**. *(Sancta Missa - Rituale Romanum, 1964)

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.

You misunderstand the meaning of contrition.*But the essential act of penance, on the part of the penitent, is contrition, a clear and decisive rejection of the sin committed, together with a resolution not to commit it again *(JPII)

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.

It really makes no difference at all since the barriers are the same regardless of who raises the issue.

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

These are not my words, they are the church’s.**1847 **"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults.
Ender

 

[Ender]

I have to point out that not all who are coming in asking for communion or prodigal, in that they have not committed the sin of adultery, but the state of sin is “presumed”.

This suggests that since a person doesn’t know for sure that he has committed a sin by remarrying without obtaining an official annulment that he is free from sin. That’s not the way it works.If man acts against this judgment [his conscience] or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience. (JPII, Veritatis Splendor #60)
Ignorance is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

But this is exactly what is being suggested: forgiveness without contrition. Contrition includes the intention not to repeat the sin, but what is being suggested is that communion be given even though the couple has every intention of continuing sexual relations. Without intending to change there can be no forgiveness.
23. The priest must take great pains to decide in which instances absolution should be given, denied, or deferred, lest he absolve such as are indisposed for this benefit–persons, for example, who give no indication of contrition, who refuse to put an end to hatred and enmity, to make restitution when they are able, to give up an approximate occasion of sin,* or in any other way refuse to forsake their sins and amend their life***. (Sancta Missa - Rituale Romanum, 1964)
You misunderstand the meaning of contrition.But the essential act of penance, on the part of the penitent, is contrition, a clear and decisive rejection of the sin committed, together with a resolution not to commit it again (JPII)
It really makes no difference at all since the barriers are the same regardless of who raises the issue.
These are not my words, they are the church’s.**1847 **"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults.
Ender

One of Pope Francis’ aims is to expose the ‘ideologues’ of the Church who try to poison the faithfuls hearts against God. They have been a big problem since the antics of the Pharisees 2000 years ago.

He has the right idea in not even engaging them. I’m not going to either.

 

[irenaeus1]

One of Pope Francis’ aims is to expose the ‘ideologues’ of the Church who try to poison the faithfuls hearts against God. They have been a big problem since the antics of the Pharisees 2000 years ago.

He has the right idea in not even engaging them. I’m not going to either.

Calling JPII a Pharisee?.. Wow!

Question: Are they only ‘ideologues’ when you disagree with them?

 

[LongingSoul]

Calling JPII a Pharisee?.. Wow!

St JPII is still alive and dissing Pope Francis ??

 

[irenaeus1]

One of Pope Francis’ aims is to expose the ‘ideologues’ of the Church who try to poison the faithfuls hearts against God. They have been a big problem since the antics of the Pharisees 2000 years ago.

I’m actually hoping that Pope Francis is really aiming to expose those who compromise orthodoxy.

 

[irenaeus1]

St JPII is still alive and dissing Pope Francis ??

No, but you appear to be pitting JPII against Francis.

 

[pnewton]

We are not talking about non-Catholics.

I am speaking of Catholics that were non-Catholic at the time. As the issue is the examination of all Catholics, those that wish to enter the Church are as much a pastoral consideration as those that were baptized Catholics. This group is accounting for more and more of the Church. So yes, I am talking about non-Catholics, at least those converts that were not Catholic at the time of previously being married.

 

[LongingSoul]

No, but you appear to be pitting JPII against Francis.

I’m merely pointing out the way Ender is pitting himself against Pope Francis. He also pits himself against St JPII who said that the death penalty is a cruel, unnecessary and unworthy punishment in our day. Ender continues to diss that statement also.

 

[pnewton]

I’m actually hoping that Pope Francis is really aiming to expose those who compromise orthodoxy.

What he is aiming at is:

“…to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.”

We do not have to guess at something he has stated. Speaking of which, I think we should consider addressing those temptations that are nearest to us, not focus on the temptations others face. The two that come to mind are:

“One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.”

and

"The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness, that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

Remembering the lesson of the mote and the beam, we can deal with our own shortcomings easier than we can address that of each other.

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/18/pope_francis_speech_at_the_conclusion_of_the_synod/1108944