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

[LongingSoul]

Please provide some authority that the sacrament of matrimony comes from the degree of faith or the current state of personal faith. If you mean the degree of faith can vitiate proper intention, I can go along with that. But the result is invalidity and annulment. Not divorce. Because marriage comes from intention and lack of faith can atleast show it possible that true intention was missing. But the point is the missing intention not the missing faith though it informed by faith. Once we are baptized we have capacity for three theological virtues always in the soul. Such a person should not be viewed as being entirely graceless like any other atheist. Those advocating a true divorce as opposed to invalidity are describing a situation where it up to Christians themselves after baptism whether they belong to New Covenant or not, whether New Covenant binds them or not which seems totally contradictory to the seal of baptism. The only way it works is if the baptism itself is annulled.

**CCC 1123 **"The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called ‘sacraments of faith.’"44

*"Sacraments are not magic. A sacrament can be effective only if one understands and accepts it in faith. Sacraments not only presuppose faith, they also strengthen it and give expression to it.” * YOUCAT 177

 

[YoungTradCath]

I guess you could say that’s the question. Normally we would say no, two baptized persons always contract a sacramental marriage. Pope Benedict questioned whether lack of faith equated to lack of a sacrament. Since faith isn’t required in any way shape or form for natural marriage, it would seem that might be possible that a baptized person who lacks faith but intends the goods of marriage could enter a natural marriage rather than a sacramental one. Of course, perhaps it simply completely invalid. Its an open theological question.

Father, I think the most intuitive answer is that if two persons are baptized, male and female, and they attempt to get married, it is only possible that one of the following can result:

1. Sacramental marriage
2. No marriage (ie invalid marriage)

If the lack of faith exists in a particular case as you say it does, then I would say–again in my not-so-theologically-sublime impression–that nothing, in fact, happens at all (invalid marriage).

Now that doesn’t mean that their marriage cannot be “saved” or, I guess more precisely, that it cannot be validated. The Church already recognizes that, I believe: a marriage can theoretically be entered into invalidly for whatever reason but if, over time, the factor(s) that invalidated the marriage in the first place are rectified, then the marriage will sort of “spontaneously” be validated because, at that time, all of the factors/attitudes/dispositions necessary for valid sacramental marriage will have been satisfied, albeit not all beginning at the same time (the putative wedding), but nevertheless all aligning and existing at the same time.

Now if that’s not an opening for a dogmatic definition lol…

 

[YoungTradCath]

**CCC 1123 **"The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called ‘sacraments of faith.’"44

*"Sacraments are not magic. A sacrament can be effective only if one understands and accepts it in faith. Sacraments not only presuppose faith, they also strengthen it and give expression to it.” * YOUCAT 177

This in no way opposes the complementary argument, however. I can square this perfectly with my above post (read it): if the faith is lacking then it is not a merely natural marriage that results between two validly baptized Christians, rather it is an invalid marriage, ie, nothing happens.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Youtube video:

World Over - 2014-10-16 – Marriage & Communion, Fr. Robert Dodaro with Raymond Arroyo

FR ROBERT DODARO, president of the Patristic Institute in Rome and editor of Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage & Communion in the Catholic Church, a book that rebuts Cardinal Walter Kasper’s recent proposals to harmonize “fidelity and mercy” in the Church’s pastoral approach to divorced and remarried Catholics and the Sacrament of Holy Communion

 

[tafan]

I guess you could say that’s the question. Normally we would say no, two baptized persons always contract a sacramental marriage. Pope Benedict questioned whether lack of faith equated to lack of a sacrament. Since faith isn’t required in any way shape or form for natural marriage, it would seem that might be possible that a baptized person who lacks faith but intends the goods of marriage could enter a natural marriage rather than a sacramental one. Of course, perhaps it simply completely invalid. Its an open theological question.

Father, thank you for your participation on this thread, it is very helpful.

 

[LongingSoul]

Father, I think the most intuitive answer is that if two persons are baptized, male and female, and they attempt to get married, it is only possible that one of the following can result:

1. Sacramental marriage
2. No marriage (ie invalid marriage)

If the lack of faith exists in a particular case as you say it does, then I would say–again in my not-so-theologically-sublime impression–that nothing, in fact, happens at all (invalid marriage).

I don’t really understand what you are saying by this. Being baptised doesn’t eliminate the human nature. Our justification through baptism depends on the assent of mans will. Our cooperation with grace.

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41

**1993 **Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42

I’m not a theologian so I welcome correction on this, but in light of the Catholic understanding of baptism and justification, the possibility of a merely natural marriage is not eliminated if mans ‘assent of faith’ is not involved.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t really understand what you are saying by this. Being baptised doesn’t eliminate the human nature. Our justification through baptism depends on the assent of mans will. Our cooperation with grace.

I’m not a theologian so I welcome correction on this, but in light of the Catholic understanding of baptism and justification, the possibility of a merely natural marriage is not eliminated if mans ‘assent of faith’ is not involved.

Ok but if man’s assent of faith–or that of his parents/guardians/whoever–is not involved in his baptism then his baptism is invalid.

What I’m saying is that I think it’s impossible for two baptized people to enter into anything but a sacramental marriage, that is, I think it is impossible for two Christians to enter into a merely natural marriage.

So for example if two baptized Christians-turned-atheists decide to get married, their marriage is invalid, not just not sacramental, but totally invalid because 1. they can’t contract a sacramental marriage because they don’t believe in it and 2. they can’t contract a merely natural marriage because they’re baptized (unless that’s also invalid which is possible but a whole 'nother thing all together so let’s not consider it). My argument is you sort of “give up your rights” (in a manner of speaking, take it loosely) to a natural marriage upon baptism.

 

[opus101]

Back to the OP… this video shows the “growing majority” statement to be false:

facebook.com/video.php?v=10152350328335723&set=vb.7891870722&type=2&theater

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think we’re kind of just going to end up repeating ourselves over and over again on the issue of lack of faith for baptized persons attempting marriage. There’s no definitive answer to point to so we’re just going to end up repeating ourselves to each other.

Back to the original topic, my point was simply that there are numerous ways we can seek to regularize those in irregular marriages. Just because our current model of the tribunal system was unable to reach confidence that a marriage was not valid does not mean that the tribunal is objectively correct. We can use alternate means of determining valid v. invalid marriages.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think we’re kind of just going to end up repeating ourselves over and over again on the issue of lack of faith for baptized persons attempting marriage. There’s no definitive answer to point to so we’re just going to end up repeating ourselves to each other.

If it means that we’ll be repeating ourselves when we are repeating ourselves, you’re right, there is not point in repeating ourselves.

 

[JimG]

I think we’re kind of just going to end up repeating ourselves over and over again on the issue of lack of faith for baptized persons attempting marriage. There’s no definitive answer to point to so we’re just going to end up repeating ourselves to each other.

Back to the original topic, my point was simply that there are numerous ways we can seek to regularize those in irregular marriages. Just because our current model of the tribunal system was unable to reach confidence that a marriage was not valid does not mean that the tribunal is objectively correct. We can use alternate means of determining valid v. invalid marriages.

See, this is what I like about your posts! They at least seem to have more clarity than what comes out of the synod!!

 

[pepipop]

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.

Precisely, and what better way to confirm the Church’s current position on communion for divorcees, than to commence with a viewpoint most furthest removed from it.

By doing so, this will allow for more in depth thinking and theological debate, as to why the current situation is in place, and will further enhance the reasons and understanding behind the Church’s position for doing so - or otherwise, although I fully expect the Church’s position to remain as it is.

 

[opus101]

Precisely, and what better way to confirm the Church’s current position on communion for divorcees, than to commence with a viewpoint most furthest removed from it.

By doing so, this will allow for more in depth thinking and theological debate, as to why the current situation is in place, and will further enhance the reasons and understanding behind the Church’s position for doing so - or otherwise, although I fully expect the Church’s position to remain as it is.

…and what a better way to go about “brotherly correction”. The Pope is setting the example of remaining calm, and allowing others to fully express their erroneous views. This way, no one can be accused of not listening, or of misunderstanding the views presented.

This way, when the true doctrine is re-presented after the synod, it will be clearly seen which opinions deviate from the truth and from best pastoral practices. As far as true doctrine is concerned, there is only one option. As far as pastoral practice is concerned, the false extremes (on both fringes) will be shown up for what they are. On the one hand, a false compassion; on the other hand, a self-righteous Pharisaical attitude that does not even attempt to reach out and “accompany” others in some way toward the truth. Quite frankly, I’m not familiar with any priests who represent the latter, although I’ve been told that they exist, especially in ultra traditionalist camps.

 

[pnewton]

There is no begging the question here. The catechism defines matrimony sacrament as marriage between BAPTIZED persons. You and others are attempting to redefine that to mean marriage between people who are currently in good standing with the church. BAPTISM is what defines whether the marriage is “in the Lord” or in the natural realm.

Try this for logic 101.

The Catechism affirms that for a marriage to be a sacrament (not a natural marriage) it must be between two baptized persons. This statement does not mean that all marriages between two baptized persons are a sacrament (not a natural marriage). If you do not understand that:

A is always B, therefore B is always A

… as false, there is nothing more I can say.

 

[dans0622]

… The Catechism affirms that for a marriage to be a sacrament (not a natural marriage) it must be between two baptized persons. This statement does not mean that all marriages between two baptized persons are a sacrament (not a natural marriage). …

Hello,

If all the Catechism (and previous catechisms/theology/canon law) said was the first sentence, that would be one thing. But, much more is said. In fact, the concluding sentence is also a part of theology, catechisms, canon law: every marriage between two baptized persons is a Sacrament. See:

The Syllabus of Errors, #66: “The sacrament of matrimony is nothing but an appendage to the contract and separable from it”; #73 “A true marriage can exist between Christians by virtue of a purely civil contract; and it is false to assert that the contract of marriage between Christians is always a sacrament.” (To be clear, the Pope is saying that these statements are erroneous.)

Leo XIII Arcanum, n. 23: “For such a distinction or, more truly, a severance (of the contract of marriage between Christians and the Sacrament), cannot be approved, since it has been proved that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament; and so it cannot be a true and legitimate contract without being a sacrament, for this very reason.”

Catechism of Pius X: "Q: Can the contract be separated from the sacrament in Christian marriage?

A: No, in marriage among Christians the contract cannot be separated from the sacrament, because, for Christians, marriage is nothing else than the natural contract itself, raised by Jesus Christ to the dignity of a sacrament."

Pius XI Cast connubii, n. 39: “And since the valid matrimonial consent among the faithful was constituted by Christ as a sign of grace, the sacramental nature is so intimately bound up with Christian wedlock that there can be no true marriage between baptized persons ‘without it being by that very fact a sacrament.’”

Gaudium et spes, n. 48: “Christian spouses have a special sacrament by which they are fortified and receive a kind of consecration in the duties and dignity of their state.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1601: “this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

On the other hand, you will never find anywhere in any magisterial document the idea that it is possible to have a valid marriage among Christians that is not a Sacrament.

Certainly, if a marriage is invalid, there is never a Sacrament.

Dan

 

[pnewton]

On the other hand, you will never find anywhere in any magisterial document the idea that it is possible to have a valid marriage among Christians that is not a Sacrament.

Certainly, if a marriage is invalid, there is never a Sacrament.

Dan

Thank you for your research. This started with whether non-Catholics should have a presumption of validity. If the synod affirms what you wrote, then I still hold based on what I know of the Protestant idea of marriage, most are not valid. It would seem that the annulment statistics support this. If this is the case, then there remains the possibility of reversing the presumption of validity, or at least allowing a quicker decision at a lower level.

 

[Budeux]

…and what a better way to go about “brotherly correction”. The Pope is setting the example of remaining calm, and allowing others to fully express their erroneous views. This way, no one can be accused of not listening, or of misunderstanding the views presented.

This way, when the true doctrine is re-presented after the synod, it will be clearly seen which opinions deviate from the truth and from best pastoral practices. As far as true doctrine is concerned, there is only one option. As far as pastoral practice is concerned, the false extremes (on both fringes) will be shown up for what they are. On the one hand, a false compassion; on the other hand, a self-righteous Pharisaical attitude that does not even attempt to reach out and “accompany” others in some way toward the truth. Quite frankly, I’m not familiar with any priests who represent the latter, although I’ve been told that they exist, especially in ultra traditionalist camps.

Greetings…I agree with your on assessment of the how Pope Francis is stepping back and allowing the Clergy to bring forth discussion on all issues of the family. We have a BIG family, and all of those family members need to be heard! Daily I pray to St John the XXlll for guidance. He was a man that understood the perils of family life not only in the spiritual, but the temporal as well. And Pope Francis is being guided by the Holy Spirit this I know. Sending love and light…

 

[phil19034]

Thank you for your research. This started with whether non-Catholics should have a presumption of validity. If the synod affirms what you wrote, then I still hold based on what I know of the Protestant idea of marriage, most are not valid. It would seem that the annulment statistics support this. If this is the case, then there remains the possibility of reversing the presumption of validity, or at least allowing a quicker decision at a lower level.

I agree in believing that most Protestant marriages MIGHT be invalid. I strongly believe that in the past, they would have been mostly valid. But today, most of them lack any kind of marriage prep and no correction of what society defines as marriage.

Furthermore, let me ask this: if a Protestant community is willing to “marry” two people of the same sex, does that mean that they lose the ability to administer valid sacramental marriages?

 

[Vanny]

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?

Yes this is quite right. While there are still a few fundamentalist/super conservative pastors who will refuse to marry anyone whose former spouse is still living, most conservative protestant and free church denominations will make at least some exception based on biblical passages, for example the one in Corinthians(I think?) where Paul states that if an unbelieving spouse leaves the Christian than the Christian is not bound in that case, or in the adultery or fornication? case cited by Jesus. And some will say that if 2 non believers are divorce and remarried, and then later come to Christ and get saved and baptized, all their former sins are forgiven,(including the divorce and remarriage) and they are starting fresh with a new life in Christ. This would be a difference in understanding of justification and sanctification between Catholics and Protestants.
Also a big difference is that Protestant denominations do not see marriage as a sacrament,as well. So the idea of saying a former marriage is not sacramental makes no sense to them.
I don’t know what the answer is, either. Perhaps a streamlining of the annulment process or putting more people on it, if possible? In my rural area one priest is servicing 4 parishes and annulments are handled in a large city about 100 miles away and I was told there is one person handling it all for our diocese area.

P.S. haven’t read through all the posts yet so hope I’m not repeating anything

 

[Joe_5859]

I think we’re kind of just going to end up repeating ourselves over and over again on the issue of lack of faith for baptized persons attempting marriage. There’s no definitive answer to point to so we’re just going to end up repeating ourselves to each other.

Back to the original topic, my point was simply that there are numerous ways we can seek to regularize those in irregular marriages. Just because our current model of the tribunal system was unable to reach confidence that a marriage was not valid does not mean that the tribunal is objectively correct. We can use alternate means of determining valid v. invalid marriages.

I think that’s a fair point and I think having the right people in the Church spend some time reflecting on options would be time well spent. This is really the only “compromise” that I can see getting anywhere. Of course, it would need to be well thought out and carefully undertaken if any such changes to the process would be made (or if any additional processes were put in place for determining validity).