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

[pnewton]

that is dangerous. it mean we can decide baptized persons are not baptized.

That is not what is being said. Baptism is not being discussed. It is possible to say, with the departure from doctrine of the faith and the further degradation of marriage in other denominations, that marriages between baptized people of other faiths are natural marriages. They remain validly baptized. The validity of a marriage, when examined by a tribunal, does not rest on whether the two people were baptized. Therefore, we can know that baptized people need not be assumed to be validly married.

 

[2010NewCatholic]

I left the United Church of “Christ” (which can’t even be considered Christian any more with their hatred of Israel, same-sex marriage, abortion, sex education of anything goes for children, etc.) and spent three years searching for the TRUTH and found it in the Catholic Church. It sickens me to see this happening. Although traditional Catholics know that Church Doctrine cannot and will not change, these statements by the radical Cardinals causes confusion for all, and for those advancing the gay agenda, joy, as well as the constant Catholic haters. I’m praying like never before, as we all should. Those who want the progressive church, just need to find the many protestant denominations who have gone the way of progressive political correctness. We need to listen to Cardinals such as Cardinal Raymond Burke for the truth!

 

[gilliam]

If Cardinal Kasper did not get interviewed for Zenit, then the ‘growing majority’ Communion for the divorced and remarried regarded comments attributed to him, may be wrong.

Maybe, but it does sound like something he would say. I don’t see that ‘majority’ in the group reports though.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Statement on Cardinal Kasper Interview

In response to a statement from His Eminence Cardinal Kasper denying giving the interview that appeared in ZENIT Wednesday 15th October, I issue the following response:

His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to me and two other journalists, one British, the other French, around 7.15pm on Tuesday as he left the Synod hall.

I transcribed the recording of our conversation, and my iPhone on which I recorded the exchange was visible. I introduced myself as a journalist with the [National Catholic] Register, and the others also introduced themselves as journalists. I therefore figured the interview was on the record and His Eminence appeared happy to talk with us. In the end, I posted the full interview in ZENIT rather than the Register. ZENIT removed the article on Thursday in response to Cardinal Kasper’s denial.

His Eminence made no comment about not wanting his remarks published. It depends on the context, but normally in such a situation, comments are considered on the record unless otherwise requested.

The recording can be downloaded below. A couple of the questions came from the other two journalists and I included them as part of the interview. Some of the quality of the English has also been improved for publication.

edwardpentin.co.uk/statement-on-cardinal-kasper-interview/

 

[JimG]

I left the United Church of “Christ” (which can’t even be considered Christian any more with their hatred of Israel, same-sex marriage, abortion, sex education of anything goes for children, etc.) and spent three years searching for the TRUTH and found it in the Catholic Church. It sickens me to see this happening. Although traditional Catholics know that Church Doctrine cannot and will not change, these statements by the radical Cardinals causes confusion for all, and for those advancing the gay agenda, joy, as well as the constant Catholic haters. I’m praying like never before, as we all should. Those who want the progressive church, just need to find the many protestant denominations who have gone the way of progressive political correctness. We need to listen to Cardinals such as Cardinal Raymond Burke for the truth!

I don’t think there is any cause for despair. The Church will endure. If you read Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments about marriage problems from 1998 you will see it is a very thoughtful document. I don’t expect the cardinals to go off half-cocked on such matters without giving them thoughtful consideration.

In the past, such discussions might have been confusing and heated but they were necessarily conducted by clerics exchanging letters with one another or closed up in synods without much communication with the outside world. In a Twitter universe, theological discussions look quite different.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That’s interesting. It seems to me that it would either have to involve recognizing, at least informally, tribunal error, or dissolving the prior marriage. I don’t see how one could recognize the persistence of the original marriage while also recognizing the second.

Based on my reading of his theological article I would say it relies on the understanding that tribunals are imperfect. It essentially waits a period of time to test the fruits of the current civil marriage. If the fruits, over a significant period of time, seem good then on a lower level the bishop or pastor can make a presumption of tribunal error. That’s a great oversimplification but it is my basic impression of what was being proposed by (then) Fr. Ratzinger.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

that is dangerous. it mean we can decide baptized persons are not baptized!!

I don’t think it means that at all. Perhaps you can explain how you think we get there from here.

that is even more dangerous than the other heresies proposed. no. only annulment keeps our faith in integrity. if there is no faith, subjectively, then we can say the person don’t contract a marriage, why? because marriage is mde by intention of the persons and not the church which just a witness. so lack of subjective faith can destroy true intention to contract. that is permissible theoretically. merely saying it possible tjese two people never made a true intent for a Christian commitment of total self in marriage so it null and void like someone getting baptized by someone who has no intention of baptizing someone properly.

but to equate this marriage to natural marriage is equating baptism to empty ritualism. that is WORSE WORSE WORSE. Now we are insulting two irreversible sacraments, baptism (MOST important and is indeliible) and matrimony.

Natural marriage requires zero faith. Two unbaptized atheists who intend the essentials of marriage enter into a valid natural marriage. So I’m not sure why saying someone who is baptized but completely lacks faith might be in a natural marriage somehow destroys the theology of baptism yet you think saying its a completely invalid marriage preserves the theology of baptism.

Admittedly this isn’t an area I’ve spent much time pondering so I am rather curious about your rationale.

we cant keep digging more and more holes into our holy faith just to create a theory to support irregular states of affairs. we have to reach somewhere we have a limit. Annullment is that limit. no throwing away our sacraments of baptism, matrimony, holy communion and comfession just for this. Our sacraments are holy. Annullment is the only valid propositions. the rest are open contradictions of our religion.

I’m not sure how getting to the objective truth about a person’s situation is “digging more holes.” The Church isn’t looking to decree something new, its looking to discover what’s actually happening.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Cardinal Ratzinger’s notes in the text available below seem less speculative?

As head of the CDF I would fully expect him to be less speculative in a public document. But he does seem to leave the door open:

Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. n. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.

The footnote from the paragraph dealing with a baptized person without faith raises even more questions:

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”.

 

[Sirach2]

Based on my reading of his theological article I would say it relies on the understanding that tribunals are imperfect. It essentially waits a period of time to test the fruits of the current civil marriage. If the fruits, over a significant period of time, seem good then on a lower level the bishop or pastor can make a presumption of tribunal error. That’s a great oversimplification but it is my basic impression of what was being proposed by (then) Fr. Ratzinger.

Cardinal Kasper echoes Pope Benedict’s earlier footnote that you posted concerning lack of faith in the sacrament. He develops it more thoroughly in his book. I find much truth and beauty in this.

So the thesis that it is sufficient for the validity of marriage to intend to contract a marriage the way Christians do, falls short of this minimal requirement (of faith). For those who are merely cultural Christians, that kind of intention only involves the intent to contract their marriage according to the usual rite of the Church, which many want – not for the sake of the faith – but rather on account of the greater solemnity and festiveness of the church wedding ceremony, in comparison to the civil marriage service.

[Here he proposes better instruction for engaged couples - a positive solution.]

For the effectiveness of the sacrament, it is indispensable to have faith in the living God as the goal and felicity of humankind and to believe in his providence – that is, faith in the God who wants to lead us on our life’s way to the goal and felicity of life. Proceeding from the initial, but foundational faith conviction, as the minimal condition for an effective reception of the sacrament, catechetical instruction in preparation for the church marriage service should show how God had made concretely manifest in us this goal and Jesus Christ as the way to this goal and to life’s happiness. It should show how his love and fidelity becomes effectively present through the Church in the sacrament of marriage in order to accompany the engaged and married couple, together with the children that God will give them, on their future path in life together and to lead them to life’s felicity --** to life in and with God, and ultimately to eternal life**. In this way, the mystery of Christ and the Church which becomes concrete in marriage can gradually be revealed.

 

[M-Dent]

As head of the CDF I would fully expect him to be less speculative in a public document. :

Certainly a factor. In addition to the time the question was framed (1972 vs.1998).

But he does seem to leave the door open:

The footnote from the paragraph dealing with a baptized person without faith raises even more questions:

If I understand this correctly, the issue of invalidity is vital. As the Cardinal pointed out earlier, if, " the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible."

It does seem within the realm of possibilities that a valid marriage may not exist even after a tribunal states one does. Another mechanism may help to discern this?

 

[McCall1981]

Edward Pentin says Card Kasper’s interview about the African Bishops DID happen and put the audio on his website:

edwardpentin.co.uk/statement-on-cardinal-kasper-interview/

"In response to a statement from His Eminence Cardinal Kasper denying giving the interview that appeared in ZENIT Wednesday 15th October, I issue the following response:

His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to me and two other journalists, one British, the other French, around 7.15pm on Tuesday as he left the Synod hall.

I transcribed the recording of our conversation, and my iPhone on which I recorded the exchange was visible. I introduced myself as a journalist with the [National Catholic] Register, and the others also introduced themselves as journalists. I therefore figured the interview was on the record and His Eminence appeared happy to talk with us. In the end, I posted the full interview in ZENIT rather than the Register. ZENIT removed the article on Thursday in response to Cardinal Kasper’s denial.

His Eminence made no comment about not wanting his remarks published. It depends on the context, but normally in such a situation, comments are considered on the record unless otherwise requested.

The recording can be downloaded below. A couple of the questions came from the other two journalists and I included them as part of the interview. Some of the quality of the English has also been improved for publication."

 

[LongingSoul]

Edward Pentin says Card Kasper’s interview about the African Bishops DID happen and put the audio on his website:

edwardpentin.co.uk/statement-on-cardinal-kasper-interview/

"In response to a statement from His Eminence Cardinal Kasper denying giving the interview that appeared in ZENIT Wednesday 15th October, I issue the following response:

His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to me and two other journalists, one British, the other French, around 7.15pm on Tuesday as he left the Synod hall.

I transcribed the recording of our conversation, and my iPhone on which I recorded the exchange was visible. I introduced myself as a journalist with the [National Catholic] Register, and the others also introduced themselves as journalists. I therefore figured the interview was on the record and His Eminence appeared happy to talk with us. In the end, I posted the full interview in ZENIT rather than the Register. ZENIT removed the article on Thursday in response to Cardinal Kasper’s denial.

His Eminence made no comment about not wanting his remarks published. It depends on the context, but normally in such a situation, comments are considered on the record unless otherwise requested.

The recording can be downloaded below. A couple of the questions came from the other two journalists and I included them as part of the interview. Some of the quality of the English has also been improved for publication."

Why did he introduce himself as representing one organisation and then publish as another?

“They’re not listened to?” Typical gutter journalism.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I have read the reports of five of the ten Synodal discussion groups (I understand French, so that means the 2 French-speaking and 3 English-speaking reports). They give some idea of the drift of the Synod Fathers’ minds. The reports are only summaries of their proposals, containing an overview of their general positions on the *Relatio *along with some particular suggestions, and hence hardly represent a complete response. They are nonetheless interesting.

I then drew up four points, summarising the most contentious issues in the Relatio, and examined how these group reports address them.

‘Rejected’ or ‘Accepted’ means the contentious point was directly addressed and answered.

‘Not rejected’ or ‘Not made’ means the subject matter of the contentious point came up but the point was not itself answered.

‘Not mentioned’ means the contentious point fell outside the subject matter of the report.

‘Partly made’ means rejection of the contentious point was only incompletely formulated.

1. The notion of gradualism that gives people in an irregular position a comfort zone.

French Group A: Not mentioned.
French Group B: Split vote: 9 reject the notion, 5 do not reject, 4 abstentions.
English Group A: Rejected.
English Group B: Not rejected.
English Group C: Partly rejected.

2. Admittance of divorced remarrieds to Communion.

French Group A: Rejected.
French Group B: No accord. Some for, some against.
English Group A: Rejected.
English Group B: Accepted.
English Group C: Not Rejected.

3. Affirmation of intrinsic disorder of homosexuality as opposed to ‘valuing’ it.

French Group A: Partly made. ‘To accompany pastorally a person does not signify either validating a form of sexuality or a form of life.’
French Group B: Partly made. ‘That does not mean that the Church must legitimise homosexual practices and even less recognise, as do certain countries, the so-called homosexual “marriage.”
English Group A: Indirectly rejected: ‘We believe that if we imply that certain life-styles are acceptable, then concerned and worried parents could very easily say “Why are we trying so hard to encourage our sons and daughters to live the Gospel and embrace Church teaching?”’
English Group B: Not made.
English Group C: Not mentioned.

---

1. Distinction between welcoming homosexuals in a way which gives their lifestyle social recognition and in a way which gives no such recognition but accepts them as sinners seeking their way back to God. ***

French Group A: Partly made. See 3.
French Group B: Made. See 3.
English Group A: Not mentioned except indirectly. See 3.
English Group B: Not made.
English Group C: Not mentioned.

 

[McCall1981]

I have read the reports of five of the ten Synodal discussion groups (I understand French, so that means the 2 French-speaking and 3 English-speaking reports). They give some idea of the drift of the Synod Fathers’ minds. The reports are only summaries of their proposals, containing an overview of their general positions on the *Relatio *along with some particular suggestions, and hence hardly represent a complete response. They are nonetheless interesting.

I then drew up four points, summarising the most contentious issues in the Relatio, and examined how these group reports address them.

‘Rejected’ or ‘Accepted’ means the contentious point was directly addressed and answered.

‘Not rejected’ or ‘Not made’ means the subject matter of the contentious point came up but the point was not itself answered.

‘Not mentioned’ means the contentious point fell outside the subject matter of the report.

‘Partly made’ means rejection of the contentious point was only incompletely formulated.

1. The notion of gradualism that gives people in an irregular position a comfort zone.

French Group A: Not mentioned.
French Group B: Split vote: 9 reject the notion, 5 do not reject, 4 abstentions.
English Group A: Rejected.
English Group B: Not rejected.
English Group C: Partly rejected.

2. Admittance of divorced remarrieds to Communion.

French Group A: Rejected.
French Group B: No accord. Some for, some against.
English Group A: Rejected.
English Group B: Accepted.
English Group C: Not Rejected.

3. Affirmation of intrinsic disorder of homosexuality as opposed to ‘valuing’ it.

French Group A: Partly made. ‘To accompany pastorally a person does not signify either validating a form of sexuality or a form of life.’
French Group B: Partly made. ‘That does not mean that the Church must legitimise homosexual practices and even less recognise, as do certain countries, the so-called homosexual “marriage.”
English Group A: Indirectly rejected: ‘We believe that if we imply that certain life-styles are acceptable, then concerned and worried parents could very easily say “Why are we trying so hard to encourage our sons and daughters to live the Gospel and embrace Church teaching?”’
English Group B: Not made.
English Group C: Not mentioned.

---

1. Distinction between welcoming homosexuals in a way which gives their lifestyle social recognition and in a way which gives no such recognition but accepts them as sinners seeking their way back to God. ***

French Group A: Partly made. See 3.
French Group B: Made. See 3.
English Group A: Not mentioned except indirectly. See 3.
English Group B: Not made.
English Group C: Not mentioned.

I did the same. Read the English ones, and got so-so translations of the others.

My (purely subjective) results on what the groups said about Kasper’s communion proposal are this:

English A - No
English B - Neutral
English C - Leans No
Italian A - Leans No
Italian B - I honestly couldn’t tell
Italian C - Yes
Spanish A - Leans No
Spanish B - Leans No
French A - No
French B - Neutral

 

[McCall1981]

Why did he introduce himself as representing one organisation and then publish as another?

“They’re not listened to?” Typical gutter journalism.

Because he writes for both.

Both are major news publications, not tabloids.

 

[One_point]

Kasper: “Never talked to Zenit, Said That About Africans!”

If Cardinal Kasper did not get interviewed for Zenit, then the ‘growing majority’ Communion for the divorced and remarried regarded comments attributed to him, may be wrong.

I don’t think it means that at all. Perhaps you can explain how you think we get there from here.

Natural marriage requires zero faith. Two unbaptized atheists who intend the essentials of marriage enter into a valid natural marriage. So I’m not sure why saying someone who is baptized but completely lacks faith might be in a natural marriage somehow destroys the theology of baptism yet you think saying its a completely invalid marriage preserves the theology of baptism.

Admittedly this isn’t an area I’ve spent much time pondering so I am rather curious about your rationale.

I’m not sure how getting to the objective truth about a person’s situation is “digging more holes.” The Church isn’t looking to decree something new, its looking to discover what’s actually happening.

This is from the Catholic church catechism on marriage. The church looks at marriage in different lense: marriage in creation, under sin, under the law, and finally “in the Lord”.

This is “in the Lord”

Marriage in the Lord

1612 The nuptial covenant between God and his people Israel had prepared the way for the new and everlasting covenant in which the Son of God, by becoming incarnate and giving his life, has united to himself in a certain way all mankind saved by him, thus preparing for "the wedding-feast of the Lamb."104

1613 On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign - at his mother’s request - during a wedding feast.105 The Church attaches great importance to Jesus’ presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ’s presence.

1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 **The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”**107

1615 This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses.108 By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.109 This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.

1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,” adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."110

1617The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath.111 which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant…112

Therefore marriage “in the faith” is not different from marriage “in the Lord” and that means BAPTISM. If you classify marriage between baptized persons as a natural marriage you are denying their baptism by claiming that that marriage is not “in the lord” or a true sacrament.

This is the catechism and therefore binding on us on faith and morals.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I did the same. Read the English ones, and got so-so translations of the others.

My (purely subjective) results on what the groups said about Kasper’s communion proposal are this:

English A - No
English B - Neutral
English C - Leans No
Italian A - Leans No
Italian B - I honestly couldn’t tell
Italian C - Yes
Spanish A - Leans No
Spanish B - Leans No
French A - No
French B - Neutral

One thing which has come out of this: anyone hoping for great things from Cardinal Napier had better not hold their breath.

 

[One_point]

Also from encyclopedia on baptism quoting fathers Impression of a character on the soul

Finally, baptism, once validly conferred, can never be repeated. The Fathers (St. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others) so understand the words of St. Paul (Hebrews 6:4), and this has been the constant teaching of the Church both Eastern and Western from the earliest times. On this account, baptism is said to impress an ineffaceable character on the soul, which the Tridentine Fathers call a spiritual and indelible mark. That baptism (as well as Confirmation and Holy orders) really does imprint such a character, is defined explicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. ix). St. Cyril (Prologue to the Catechetical Lectures 17) calls baptism a “holy and indelible seal”, and Clement of Alexandria (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 42), “the seal of the Lord”. St. Augustine compares this character or mark imprinted upon the Christian soul with the character militaris impressed upon soldiers in the imperial service. St. Thomas treats of the nature of this indelible seal, or character, in the Summa (III:63:2).

And catechism on baptism

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5
…

1265 **Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.**71
…

1267 **Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”**73
…

The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82

An indelible spiritual mark . . .

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. **No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.**83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

1273 Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful have received the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian religious worship.84 The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to serve God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and practical charity.85

1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord (“Dominicus character”) "for the day of redemption."86 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life."87 The faithful Christian who has “kept the seal” until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith,"88 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.

So, baptized persons are Christians. That cannot change no matter what. When two baptized persons are (validly) getting married, a sacrament is the result. No natural marriage, their souls are not any more the same as that of pagans or atheists. They belong to Christ and are in the Lord and belong to the church. To claim a natural marriage is to deny what is the meaning of matrimony (marriage between Christians) or meaning of baptism which is indelible and means the person is of the New covenant.

 

[pnewton]

So, baptized persons are Christians. That cannot change no matter what. When two baptized persons are (validly) getting married, a sacrament is the result.

The part in parenthesis is the very type of logical (begging the question, to be exact) disconnect that can be examined.

 

[McCall1981]

Potentially big news here:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404281.htm

“Cardinal Pell said only three of the synod’s 10 small groups had supported a controversial proposal by German Cardinal Walter Kasper to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion, even without an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages.”