Cardinal Kasper: 'Growing Majority' in Synod Support Divorce-Remarriage Proposal

[Megan7]

Card Dolan on the African Bishops:

"We in the Church in Europe, the Church in North America, we suffer sometimes from a lethargy, don’t we? Not Africa! … The bishops of Africa are prophetic in reminding us that the role of the Church is to transform the culture, not to be transformed by the culture. …

I’m afraid sometimes we in the West might say, “Oh, I guess we ought to dilute things, I guess we ought to capitulate, it’s obvious this teaching’s being rejected, oh my Lord, we’re not popular.” And the Africans say, “Well, you know what? We’re not supposed to be. What we’re supposed to do is propose the truth and invite people by the love and the joy of our lives to embrace the truth. And take it from us, brothers, it works.”

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3437/cardinals_kasper_and_dolan_and_the_african_bishops.aspx

Thanks for the post & link. God bless.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

St. Paul was an Apostle, whose writings were part of the Deposit of Faith, teaching in the very early days of the Church while a great many truths of the faith were as-yet unclear.

You’re looking at that from the perspective of 2000 years later. At the time St. Paul was preaching there were many who questioned his authority and he had his own disputes with the other Apostles. Things weren’t a perfect harmony.
At the time St. Paul wrote the “Pauline Privilege” it could easily have been challenged by today’s standards of a clear violation of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. But just because St. Paul and the others didn’t immediately have the theological language to iron out sacramental v. natural marriage, doesn’t mean God wasn’t guiding him.
Pope Francis is the successor of St. Peter. All the bishops present at the synod are successors to the Apostles. Let’s let them hash it out.

Meanwhile, we live 2000 years later, long after the Deposit of Faith was completed, and we have 2000 years of clear Church teachings to be faithful to. St. Paul made it clear that non-sacramental marriages involving the the unbaptized could be dissolved, while both he and Chirst made it abundantly clear that sacramental marriages of the New Covenant cannot be dissolved.

Christ made no such distinction in the words recorded in the Gospels. Christ only mentioned marriage.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe there is some brilliant theological explanation that perfectly reconciles the Kasper proposal with the clear teachings of Christ. But if there is, I would think we would have heard someone propose it, or at least hint at it, by now. But I have heard nothing remotely convincing in that regard. I’ll try to be humble and eat crow if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.

Once again, just because the theological language/explanation is not readily apparent now does not mean it will not be at some point. Let’s let the Holy Spirit guide the Church.

The media is not the main problem. The media will just exacerbate the problem a bit. The main problem is that the criteria for inviting some to Communion and not others are extremely vague, most parishes will just admit anyone who wants to receive, and the very few priests or bishops who tries to stand against the tide will be demonized by everyone (not just or even mainly the media). A tacit endorsement of remarriage is almost inevitable, media or no media.

Anyone who wants to find confusion will find it. People complain now about the rules for communion being confusing or hypocritical. As for priests/bishops being demonized, it already happens. That’d be nothing new.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

How? The same way that someone can marry another in front of all their friends and family and be married for years and have five children…then get it annulled, and marry someone else in that same church, in front of those same friends and family.

The church calls it a different word than “divorce” and has it’s own “criteria” on what makes it valid or not…but it looks very much to me and many others like a Catholic version of divorce, just a different process and harder to obtain.

.

I agree that it’s a scandal that the annulment process looks like divorce. However, without an annulment there can be no assurance that the first marriage was invalid and therefore than can be no assurance that the second marriage is valid. In the example you give, the two people didn’t get their marriage “annulled” they went through the annulment process in order to verify that, in fact, they were never married in the first place. Therefore, they’re free to marry whomever they chose.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Yes.
But some unknown group of men sitting in a room somewhere at some point in the last 20 centuries must have talked and debated and drank espresso…and finally come up with how they should define the word “valid” and “invalid.”

Perhaps, Pope Francis is merely saying…this definition should not be so narrow.

.

But, the two words are mutually exclusive…if they widen the definition of ‘valid’ aren’t they automatically narrowing the definition of ‘invalid’ and vise-versa?

 

[McCall1981]

How? The same way that someone can marry another in front of all their friends and family and be married for years and have five children…then get it annulled, and marry someone else in that same church, in front of those same friends and family.

**The church calls it a different word than “divorce” and has it’s own “criteria” on what makes it valid or not…but it looks very much to me and many others like a Catholic version of divorce, just a different process and harder to obtain.
**
.

This is like saying about a consecrated host:

“The Church calls it a different word than “bread”, has it’s own “criteria” on what makes it consecrated or not… But it looks to a lot of people like a Catholic version of bread, just a different process and harder to obtain.”

A host looks like regular bread, but it isn’t. The Sacrament that occurs when it is consecrated is real, and forever. Same with a valid marriage.

 

[Seraphim73]

The church calls it a different word than “divorce” and has it’s own “criteria” on what makes it valid or not…but it looks very much to me and many others like a Catholic version of divorce, just a different process and harder to obtain.

Yeah as a friend of mine said: divorce/annulment = samie same. Just because you use a different word doesn’t mean the de facto result isn’t absolutely identical. That’s particularly the case because practically any failed marriage can be annulled using grounds no one would have thought of just a few decades ago.

 

[LongingSoul]

Let’s let the Holy Spirit guide the Church.

Here, here! The hoi polloi are campaigning their agendas as though this is a political stoush. What our goal is, is to hear the voice of the Spirit by weighing the perspectives of different Church leaders and some lay representatives. It’s not a him verses him situation here.

 

[Hans_W]

I agree that it’s a scandal that the annulment process looks like divorce. However, without an annulment there can be no assurance that the first marriage was invalid and therefore than can be no assurance that the second marriage is valid. In the example you give, the two people didn’t get their marriage “annulled” they went through the annulment process in order to verify that, in fact, they were never married in the first place. Therefore, they’re free to marry whomever they chose.

I can’t follow that logic. Are you saying that the whole process of the first marriage, with priest, vows, blessings etc. was false?
‘False’ sounds perhaps too strong, but as you say “they were never married in the first place”, the whole thing must have been a sham.

 

[DlandFan06]

Very simple answer: because we are human. We make mistakes.
I am very much against divorce, but in some cases it will be better than being trapped for life in a hellish relationship.

Then you get your marriage annuled.

 

[pnewton]

Its actually pretty simple. There is no way to objectively know who is and isn’t in a valid marriage. We presume all marriages are valid, but investigations by marriage tribunals sometimes declare no valid marriage existed. Is our current tribunal system the only method of making this determination?

I have often thought the same thing. Since the parish priest has the closest contact with the individual, then why is he not part of the process? There are many cases where invalidity can be easily assumed. In this matter the parish priest could serve as a quick way of resolving some of the clearest cases, leaving the tribunal only the head-scratcher.

Another thing which has long since bothered me is a case where evangelism can lead to mortal sin. Such a thing should never happen. Yet, for someone in another faith tradition, they can be living in a second marriage, with the full blessing of their church, ministers, faith and conscience, in other words, zero act of will to sin. Now if one of these is comes to an understanding of the Catholic faith, does this flip a switch from no sin to mortal sin? The Catholic Church has not changed in regards to permanence of marriage, or the use of artificial birth control. The same is not true of other denominations. I simply cannot accept that a better understanding of God can damn a soul. So what should happen to this man or woman who, through no moral fault of their own, finds himself in this predicament?

 

[One_point]

Here, here! The hoi polloi are campaigning their agendas as though this is a political stoush. What our goal is, is to hear the voice of the Spirit by weighing the perspectives of different Church leaders and some lay representatives. It’s not a him verses him situation here.

The hoipolloi are getting the “him verse him” vibe from the synod fathers themselves who HAVE complained of a political push/agenda/partisanship. cant blame people for simply being aware of what is in glaring daylight in front of the wghole world.

 

[pnewton]

At the time St. Paul wrote the “Pauline Privilege” it could easily have been challenged by today’s standards of a clear violation of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. But just because St. Paul and the others didn’t immediately have the theological language to iron out sacramental v. natural marriage, doesn’t mean God wasn’t guiding him.
Pope Francis is the successor of St. Peter. All the bishops present at the synod are successors to the Apostles. Let’s let them hash it out…

The hoipolloi are getting the “him verse him” vibe from the synod fathers themselves who HAVE complained of a political push/agenda/partisanship.

From another thread, NewEnglandPriest also said:
*

I think we’re getting a glimpse into the messy way Church documents and discipline are created. Its from trying to reconcile these “extremes” that genius theology can be born…

The way this synod is being portrayed here reminds my of the Council of Jerusalem. We only have a few verses in Acts. Yet then we read in Galatians that Paul had to “oppose Cephas to his face for what he did was wrong.” So while we fret over bishop against bishop, they had apostle vs. apostle. Listen to what New England Priest is saying. We live in a little slice of church history. Our only uniqueness is the transparent society in which we live. The Church is a bunch a humans, a weird conglomeration of various personalities opinions, factions and tradition. No way could she have survived without divine intervention. Our Holy Father has chosen to let this process work this way during this synod. We should not be getting our nose out of joint at every twist an turn. Remember these men are all our family, the most loving, if somewhat dysfunctional, family. Trust that God will continue to keep the ship afloat.

 

[One_point]

From another thread, NewEnglandPriest also said:
**
The way this synod is being portrayed here reminds my of the Council of Jerusalem. We only have a few verses in Acts. Yet then we read in Galatians that Paul had to “oppose Cephas to his face for what he did was wrong.” So while we fret over bishop against bishop, they had apostle vs. apostle. Listen to what New England Priest is saying. We live in a little slice of church history. Our only uniqueness is the transparent society in which we live. The Church is a bunch a humans, a weird conglomeration of various personalities opinions, factions and tradition. No way could she have survived without divine intervention. Our Holy Father has chosen to let this process work this way during this synod. We should not be getting our nose out of joint at every twist an turn. Remember these men are all our family, the most loving, if somewhat dysfunctional, family. Trust that God will continue to keep the ship afloat.

This highly scandalous for lay people to watch. they should shut themselves away like in the conclave and just gve us their final report instead of giving us ulcers and small strokes. imagine if we watched the deliberations over choosing the pope, we might get scandalized worrying bout how things are going. I think they should keep their business and fights private until they agree on a final document which they present to us with a yunited front. we don’t need the soap opera. unity even visible unity is very important for normal everyday men on the street faithful.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I have often thought the same thing. Since the parish priest has the closest contact with the individual, then why is he not part of the process? There are many cases where invalidity can be easily assumed. In this matter the parish priest could serve as a quick way of resolving some of the clearest cases, leaving the tribunal only the head-scratcher.

I think the parish priest should have a voice in the process but I’m not so sure the parish priest can be the judge of the bond (or lack thereof). He’s a little too close to be objective. But there are cases that, to me, are clearly invalid marriages but due to the couple not being in touch for decades and missing paperwork the typical tribunal system simply isn’t possible. I wish I could “vouch” for the veracity of the story and the character of the petitioner.

Another thing which has long since bothered me is a case where evangelism can lead to mortal sin. Such a thing should never happen. Yet, for someone in another faith tradition, they can be living in a second marriage, with the full blessing of their church, ministers, faith and conscience, in other words, zero act of will to sin. Now if one of these is comes to an understanding of the Catholic faith, does this flip a switch from no sin to mortal sin? The Catholic Church has not changed in regards to permanence of marriage, or the use of artificial birth control. The same is not true of other denominations. I simply cannot accept that a better understanding of God can damn a soul. So what should happen to this man or woman who, through no moral fault of their own, finds himself in this predicament?

Agreed, its very difficult. Another awkward situation is a Catholic who wants to marry a divorced Protestant. Explaining to a Protestant that they need to undergo the Catholic annulment system is always an awkward conversation.

Our current annulment system was great when people tended to live in the same general region for most of their lives and there wasn’t nearly as many mixed marriages.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Remember these men are all our family, the most loving, if somewhat dysfunctional, family.

LOL, thanks for that morning laugh!

 

[One_point]

Maybe they can have special priests to give spiritual direction to married couples who can help them in the discernment and in the process help them to be holy. it doesn’t have to be a tribunal. as long as the person is assumed to be honest with their priest and the doctrine is taught properly to their priest, there is no need for all sorts of “proof” and evidence like in a formal court because this is a spiritual matter. the priest knows all the right questions to ask and the person is opening their heart to a spiritual father and laying all bear just like in confession. that wai if it turn out the second marriage is invalid, the priest can offer special help how to live in that particular situation, celibate, with children, maybe needing to stay in civil marriage for many reasons and how to do that. a special ministry to these people that is more personal and spiritual and less formal. they can obtain decree of nullity from bishop on request of the priest just like the bishop confirms us on the word of the priest that we know our faith during confirmation.

 

[pnewton]

Agreed, its very difficult. Another awkward situation is a Catholic who wants to marry a divorced Protestant. Explaining to a Protestant that they need to undergo the Catholic annulment system is always an awkward conversation.

Our current annulment system was great when people tended to live in the same general region for most of their lives and there wasn’t nearly as many mixed marriages.

I know it is just speculation, but in light of changing demographics, do you think another privilege might be in order, similar to the Pauline?

 

[Transformer]

You’re looking at that from the perspective of 2000 years later. At the time St. Paul was preaching there were many who questioned his authority and he had his own disputes with the other Apostles. Things weren’t a perfect harmony.
At the time St. Paul wrote the “Pauline Privilege” it could easily have been challenged by today’s standards of a clear violation of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. But just because St. Paul and the others didn’t immediately have the theological language to iron out sacramental v. natural marriage, doesn’t mean God wasn’t guiding him.
Pope Francis is the successor of St. Peter. All the bishops present at the synod are successors to the Apostles. Let’s let them hash it out.

Christ made no such distinction in the words recorded in the Gospels. Christ only mentioned marriage.

The distinction is implicit in Christ’s teaching and necessarily implied by it. He notes that Moses allowed divorce, and does not condemn Moses’ allowance, but goes on to say that he is restoring marriage to the way it was in the beginning. But the whole order of the New Covenant - all of the Sacraments and everything Christ restored to its original holiness - is predicated on baptism. That’s why Moses’ allowance still applies to some degree to the unbaptized.

Look, obviously the theology of marriage has developed; after all, no one called marriage a sacrament until the middle ages. And yes, in this instance an allowance that could (on a shallow reading) be seen as contradicting Christ was found to be acceptable.

But thousands of other teachings and practices proposed by bishops throughout Church history have seemed contrary to the clear teachings of Christ, and then have been found to be contrary to the teachings of Christ and anathemized. Many of those heresies and spurious practices had much stronger theological grounding than the Kasper proposal.

Once again, just because the theological language/explanation is not readily apparent now does not mean it will not be at some point. Let’s let the Holy Spirit guide the Church.

Is this really how the Church should work? Adopting practices that seem obviously contrary to the teachings of Christ on vague pretexts, then wait for the real theological backing to come along later? Heck, many faithful couples struggle enormously with the immorality of contraception. Let’s just tell them to go ahead and use contraception; I’m sure the Holy Spirit will come along with a brilliant post hoc justification whenever he gets around to it.

The synod fathers need to realize just how scandalous such an approach would be. A clear explanation of the theology should come first, then a change in practice.

Anyway, I realize that the Church has decided nothing, and will decide nothing until late 2015. I am trying hard to put my trust in our Holy Father and in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. But it just isn’t easy in the face of a total lack of any explanation for how Kasper’s proposal can be squared with the unambiguous teachings of Christ and the Church.

 

[Joe_5859]

Why are so many on this forum are against this idea?
Jesus did not specify the details as to who would get communion and who would not, did he?
All he said was, “do this in remembrance of me.”

The problem is that changing this discipline would seem to undermine one or both of two key doctrines.

First, that marriage is indissoluble and that anyone who divorces one and marries another commits adultery.

Second, is that (as St. Paul said) anyone who eats or drinks the Eucharist unworthily (i.e. in a state of mortal sin) brings condemnation upon themselves.

If we believe what we believe about marriage, and if we believe what we believe about the Eucharist, it seems impossible to reconcile those teachings with giving Communion to the divorced and remarried who have no intention of living as “brother and sister”.

Do those situations get complicated and messy? Yes. Can it be heartbreaking. Certainly. There are plenty of examples in my own extended family where – if the person experienced a conversion – they would be in a very difficult situation in this regard.

I am not at all unsympathetic to that. You have people who simply don’t understand Catholic teaching who are abandoned, and then get remarried and start a second family. When they come to encounter Christ, what do they do? Abandon their children and attempt to reconcile with the first spouse (who might also be remarried with more children)? Very seldom would that be feasible or even desirable. But then what? Do we just say, “Oh well, I guess Jesus wasn’t that serious about the whole indissolubility of marriage thing. As long as you really want your previous marriage to be null, then it probably is”? That undermines the very nature of what marriage is.

So, yes, it is very difficult to handle all this well in a pastoral manner. But I don’t see how allowing Communion (even in certain specific circumstances as suggested by some) can be reconciled with Catholic teaching on marriage and the Eucharist. I’m certainly open to hearing theological arguments that attempt to reconcile it all. But I haven’t heard a good one yet. Arguments that it is difficult or burdensome – while emotionally compelling – are not enough to justify changing the practice. It needs to jive with Catholic teaching on marriage and the Eucharist.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

I can’t follow that logic. Are you saying that the whole process of the first marriage, with priest, vows, blessings etc. was false?
‘False’ sounds perhaps too strong, but as you say “they were never married in the first place”, the whole thing must have been a sham.

Yes. There was no first marriage, there were good intentions, any blessings given were real, the priest was real and there was a beautiful ceremony but the two people were never married before God, they never had the supernatural graces that the sacrament of marriage confers. I wouldn’t use the term ‘sham’ because I find that word insensitive towards people who are in this situation. Two people very close to me have gone through the annulment process and it’s certainly a time of trial for them. However, when the did eventually enter into a true sacramental marriage, they knew it was worth it!