Cardinal Kasper: Sacraments for remarried divorcees only in "special cases"

[CutlerB]

Yea aparently some didnt manke the connection to making someone a saint and papal infalibility…this was discussed on catholic answers where some thought just the imaculate conception and the trinity were the only papal infalable statements. Maybe there is more…but its not many excluding the saint stuff. Its that point that protestants use that well the pope is infalable and can say what he wants like “the door is now green” when in reality its red but the people have to follow this because the pope said it and its infalable. The pope can make mistakes thats a fact…maybe we wont know for many years but hes is infact a man after all a sinner.

Well, the Trinity isn’t an instance of Papal Infallibility in the strict sense. I suppose one could argue that it is in a certain way by the Pope affirming the Councils that dealt with the matter, but I wouldn’t think of it that way in the common sense.

Yes, the Pope can be a bad person. There have been plenty of them! It is remarkable, though, that despite their sinfulness, not one of them changed doctrine. Infallibility does not mean impeccability, nor omniscience. It does not mean that the Pope can say “Manchester United will win the next match!” and Catholics are somehow bound. He can’t step out onto the loggia and say “Ah look at the beautiful sunshine!” when there’s a storm raging.

Infallibility means that the Pope (and the Church) is protected from error in her solemn, official teaching. There are specific criteria for these cases. Thus, the Protestants’ objection you cite is really nothing more than a misunderstanding.

 

[McCall1981]

My answer to that is did man creat those things? If so then yes they are questionable…but in my opinion…to not discern them would be bad. Doesnt mean they are anything less divinly inspired just that you have thought about the connection.

My point is that one can’t use the argument that because Jesus didn’t specifically mention something, it means that thing is somehow less sure than something He did mention.

We’re citing these books saying “look, Jesus said this, but didn’t say that” etc. But those books were selected as being authoritative by the Church. It doesn’t make sense to pit passages from those books against the Church, when the whole reason we believe those books have authority in the first place is because the Church “picked” them.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Well, the Trinity isn’t an instance of Papal Infallibility in the strict sense. I suppose one could argue that it is in a certain way by the Pope affirming the Councils that dealt with the matter, but I wouldn’t think of it that way in the common sense.

Yes, the Pope can be a bad person. There have been plenty of them! It is remarkable, though, that despite their sinfulness, not one of them changed doctrine. Infallibility does not mean impeccability, nor omniscience. It does not mean that the Pope can say “Manchester United will win the next match!” and Catholics are somehow bound. He can’t step out onto the loggia and say “Ah look at the beautiful sunshine!” when there’s a storm raging.

Infallibility means that the Pope (and the Church) is protected from error in her solemn, official teaching. There are specific criteria for these cases. Thus, the Protestants’ objection you cite is really nothing more than a misunderstanding.

agreed! The church has always been able to right itself whn in the throws of evil men.

 

[CutlerB]

agreed! The church has always been able to right itself whn in the throws of evil men.

Exactly. Christ will not forsake His Church. Not in times of abuse (Reformation) nor heresy (Ecumenical Councils). He will guard and protect her from falling.

 

[Pio_Nono]

Maybe this issue will fall under the heading of Church discipline, which can change, like meat on Fridays, and some liturgical practices. I suppose even the issue of married priests is ultimately a discipline issue and not a dogmatic one?

And Jesus is quoted as saying that it is not lawful for a man to put away his wife for any reason, except fornication. That gospel passage has always been troubling to me.

However, unlike the Protestants, our Church pre-dates the New Testament. The Bible was compiled by the Church, not the other way around. Tradition–what the Church has always done-- is more important than the Bible, is it not? Also, the fact that the New Testament contains apparent contradictions gives credence to its authenticity, and the integrity of the early Fathers.

It is a very difficult issue, but it seems the time has come for a definitive answer, even if that answer consists only in a reiteration of Humanae Vitae.

 

[CutlerB]

Maybe this issue will fall under the heading of Church discipline, which can change, like meat on Fridays, and some liturgical practices. I suppose even the issue of married priests is ultimately a discipline issue and not a dogmatic one?

Celibacy is a disciplinary issue, yes. It isn’t intrinsically connected to a Sacrament in the way Communion for the divorced and remarried is. After all, there are married Catholic priests.

And Jesus is quoted as saying that it is not lawful for a man to put away his wife for any reason, except fornication. That gospel passage has always been troubling to me.

You may want to search the forums and Catholic.com, I know there are great answers there. I read something about that just recently, and it can be explained very well. Suffice it to say that this does not mean that marriage is dissolvable.

 

[Pio_Nono]

Thank you, Cutler B., for this info below. I shall check it out. Also, I just downloaded a lot of encyclicals written by Pius XII, Pius XI, and Leo XIII, many that deal with Christian marriage. I have a lot of reading to do before I can make any helpful comment about this issue. (Although I have no wish to marry anyone again, it is something that could apply to me directly some day)

You may want to search the forums and Catholic.com, I know there are great answers there. I read something about that just recently, and it can be explained very well. Suffice it to say that this does not mean that marriage is dissolvable

 

[Catholic_Press]

Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich, Germany, has suggested that the Vatican should release the full text of a lengthy address delivered by Cardinal Walter Kasper during the first session of …

More…

 

[kate_jackson]

I can understand why this is a difficult issue for people. Divorce and remarriage is the type of sin where it’s not that easy to turn back the clock and straighten things out.

With other sins, it can be a lot easier from a “Catholic-in-good-standing” perspective. Fornication? Confess and you’re good to go. Masturbation? Confess and you’re good to go. Theft, murder, drunkenness? Confess and you’re good to go.

With divorce and remarriage, though, it’s not that simple. And it’s quite easy for the under-catechized Catholic or potential convert to end up in a situation that is very complicated before that desire for Christ comes to the forefront. And then what? They go through the annulment process, which can take 12-18 months. That can be multiplied when considering multiple marriages. And if the petition is denied, then what? Do they divorce their current spouse (with whom they have spent years and years and have raised children with) to go searching after and attempt to reconcile with their previous spouse (who is probably unwilling and may even have also remarried)? Even if that were possible, it would create even more heartache and pain.

I know the answer is Confession and continence. But I can understand why people in these situations can feel overwhelmed and confused. There are not many sins that require the same amount of effort to overcome. Working this out with one’s pastor is always the way to go. It is hard. There’s no sugar-coating that. But I think there’s much spiritual reward to be gained through the process.

If that person was me and I was truly sorry for the past and had children in my present marriage I would not expect communion as a witness to marriage…am I right in thinking that that person could go forward for a ‘Blessing’ from the Priest? By not receiving the Eucharist that doesnt mean you are excluded from the Church.

 

[kate_jackson]

I have spoken with my priest…these people are why I am a catholic. My grandmother in particular is the rock our family has been built on. I talk with my priest every month for a few hours on a regular schedule. We are working on me becoming a deacon in the church but I do like to see what others think that have been doing this much longer than me…the typical response is sorry dude I guess your spending your time in heaven with out your family.

Why do you assume that if your grandmother is going to church but because she cant receive communion that she is going to hell! I think you’re well out of order!

 

[DAML72]

Our plan on earth. Get born, hopefully gain faith, get married, have childeren, then die! Thats human nature my friend and gods plan.

The priest thing is rediculous as they marry the church, but yes poor priests because no they dont experience the sacrament as we do…but thats their cross.

“Exactly, and that is why it is permanent. Marriage is a symbol of the love Christ has for His Church, as, I think, Saint Paul says, which is “a love that never falters, a love that pays the price, that pays upon the Altar the final Sacrifice” as the splendid I Vow to Thee My Country goes”

So if evil takes over the church were supposed to just stick it out and wait till the end and stand by it? You see what your doing here German? Your going to make another Luthor here! I think Paul meant Marriage is a symbol of the love Christ has for His “people”.

You see when you think the way you do one would think that you believe that those outside the"church" are not going to make it to the kingdom…

If marriage is a symbol of the love Christ has for his Church, a love that never falters, then how does it follow that a woman should leave her husband because of sin? Did Christ not give up his life for our sins? Are we not to pick up our crosses and follow Him? Do we not promise to love our spouse until death? It’s not ‘until he/she sins and breaks the bond’. The bond is never broken. What if the sinful spouse repents and comes back to Christ but now his wife is in another marriage? What if that was God’s plan all along? What if they had children? The family is now irreparable because the wife is in another relationship.

 

[DAML72]

So what happens if tomorrow the church changes its position on marriage and communion? What then…there are no restrictions…would this collaps the enitire faith?

Yes. Absolutely. Because the teachings of the Church would run counter to scripture. If Holy Scripture can not be trusted, then there is no faith. (And the reason I know this is because I lost my faith over this very issue because the Protestants who don’t make a big deal out of divorce and remarriage have it completely wrong),

 

[ProVobis]

I know exactly what martin was doing and why…he may have been wrong but the church wasnt the most holy place at the time…

when I asked the question about catholics what I meant was if I was born a methodist and followed the rules and lived a good life and died but had never taken catholic communion or confessed my sins would I go to hell?

The Church does not condemn any one to Hell. But I’m sure they won’t be promoting one Sacrament (Eucharist) at the expense of another (Matrimony).

 

[eightydeuce82]

Yes. Absolutely. Because the teachings of the Church would run counter to scripture. If Holy Scripture can not be trusted, then there is no faith. (And the reason I know this is because I lost my faith over this very issue because the Protestants who don’t make a big deal out of divorce and remarriage have it completely wrong),

This is to DAML an Kate

Fist off if you being batterd litterly to the point death and he is commiting adultry regularly and you are psychologically being tormented every day would you stay in that situation? Your comment would almost fall inline with battered wife syndrome…many stay and end up dead. The man never did repent. Why do I think she will go to hell? Well if you catholic you alreeady know that answer…she is living in a state of perpetual mortal sin…if she dies tomorrow then by catholic standards she will go to hell. I believe Christ suffered for us and won victory over sin yes. What ive noticed in many circles is that Catholic the very devout ones seem to want to mimic this…Some even cause harm to themselves just so they can live in guilt and carry the cross…what many of you are saying is that someone in this situation should just suck it up risk the chance of being beaten to death and your existance snuffed out for the sake of carrying your cross…thats just utter rediculousness…You all sound like Muslims and martyerdom not Catholic…

 

[kate_jackson]

This is to DAML an Kate

Fist off if you being batterd litterly to the point death and he is commiting adultry regularly and you are psychologically being tormented every day would you stay in that situation? Your comment would almost fall inline with battered wife syndrome…many stay and end up dead. The man never did repent. Why do I think she will go to hell? Well if you catholic you alreeady know that answer…she is living in a state of perpetual mortal sin…if she dies tomorrow then by catholic standards she will go to hell. I believe Christ suffered for us and won victory over sin yes. What ive noticed in many circles is that Catholic the very devout ones seem to want to mimic this…Some even cause harm to themselves just so they can live in guilt and carry the cross…what many of you are saying is that someone in this situation should just suck it up risk the chance of being beaten to death and your existance snuffed out for the sake of carrying your cross…thats just utter rediculousness…You all sound like Muslims and martyerdom not Catholic…

What you are describing sounds like a marriage that had grounds for annulment…after that you are free to marry unless you want to marry someone who has been married before and that narriage has not been annulled. Im no expert but if you are in a marriage wirh violence you are not wrong to leave

 

[eightydeuce82]

Im not going against the teachings of the church at all by saying that god wanted people to be happy and if they were in a bad situation they need to get out of it because sin is contagious. Ill never know why she never got an annulment it certainly warranted one. It was an arrainged marriage and she did not love the man. Im guessing it was taboo in the 40s. I can only imagine that she divorced and remarried in secret to make it look like she had been married to my grandpa all along because she certainly would have gotten some grief from over zelous catholics…bla…bla…bla the same reason why many leave the church. I heard it on Catholic Answers yesterday that most have been turned away by people in the church with bad personalities. That means there are alot of really crazy bad people all over in every church in the US casting stones at folks. I cant even imagine the stigma that a young itallian woman in a small community of the same would have gone through getting an annulment.

 

[eightydeuce82]

This is why I have such a hard time with all of this. Im a good catholic and try to live my life how the church wants me too but when I look at her situation and see someone that was so scared about how her community would see her even though she was being beaten she instead divorced and remarried in secret. In the 40s women were still second class citizens and were home makers. They didnt have the freedoms many women have today. Wearing the Scarlet letter was just as much of a death sentance as being beaten to death. So she lived her life in sin because of hypocrites. sure she made the choice but we all did stupid things as yound adults. If the addage goes that what ever is bound here on earth is bound in heaven and vice versa then the church has the authority to change its stance on marriage. Im not saying a free for all but a seriously conservitive look into a relationship outside of annulment to disolve a marriage and bring the inocent party back in harmony with the church not forcing them into becoming a Lay nun! and allowing them to live out our purpose which is to love find a mate and bring childeren into the world in christs name. How ironic that its exactly what she did and produced three childeren in christs name even though she was a mortal sinner.

 

[McCall1981]

There’s a thread on this, but I thought it would be good to post here too. This is Card. Muller, Prefect of the Congegation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400809.htm

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Just because many Catholics do not understand the church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage, that does not mean the church can change that teaching, said Cardinal Gerhard Muller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Speaking to reporters Feb. 25 – just days after the College of Cardinals held a two-day meeting to discuss the pastoral care of families – he said the widespread lack of understanding among Catholics about church doctrine was “lamentable.”

**However, just because people don’t understand Jesus’ word doesn’t mean it can or should be changed, he said. “It would be paradoxical if the church said, ‘Since not everyone knows the truth, the truth isn’t obligatory for the future.’”

Not allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics access to the Eucharist “is not about my opinion,” Cardinal Muller said; it reflects a long history of church teaching and doctrine.
**
After the Archdiocese of Freiburg, Germany, said it would make it easier for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion, Cardinal Muller wrote an article last summer – published in a German newspaper and in the various language editions of the Vatican newspaper – countering any expectations that the Catholic Church would relax its discipline on receiving the sacraments.

Pastoral attention to Catholics cannot go against doctrine, the cardinal told journalists Feb. 25.

**“Doctrine and pastoral care are the same thing. Jesus Christ as pastor and Jesus Christ as teacher with his word are not two different people,” he said.

While Pope Francis has called for new pastoral approaches that are creative, courageous and loving, Cardinal Muller said whatever those new approaches are, they cannot go against the will of Jesus.

The sacrament of marriage will remain as an indissoluble bond between husband and wife and that teaching cannot be changed, he said. Any new approaches “must deepen knowledge” and people’s understanding of that teaching.**

Many Catholics “think marriage is just a festive gathering celebrated in church, but the spouses are giving their word,” promising to fully live in each other, in body and soul, in faith and in God’s grace, he said.

"There is no solution, since church dogma isn’t just some theory created by some theologians;" it represents "the word of Jesus Christ, which is very clear. I cannot change church doctrine."

Cardinal Muller spoke to reporters minutes before a conference to present his new book on poverty. Sitting next to him at the book presentation was Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, with whom he has disagreed publicly over the church’s approach to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. The topic of marriage did not arise during the presentation.

 

[kate_jackson]

This is why I have such a hard time with all of this. Im a good catholic and try to live my life how the church wants me too but when I look at her situation and see someone that was so scared about how her community would see her even though she was being beaten she instead divorced and remarried in secret. In the 40s women were still second class citizens and were home makers. They didnt have the freedoms many women have today. Wearing the Scarlet letter was just as much of a death sentance as being beaten to death. So she lived her life in sin because of hypocrites. sure she made the choice but we all did stupid things as yound adults. If the addage goes that what ever is bound here on earth is bound in heaven and vice versa then the church has the authority to change its stance on marriage. Im not saying a free for all but a seriously conservitive look into a relationship outside of annulment to disolve a marriage and bring the inocent party back in harmony with the church not forcing them into becoming a Lay nun! and allowing them to live out our purpose which is to love find a mate and bring childeren into the world in christs name. How ironic that its exactly what she did and produced three childeren in christs name even though she was a mortal sinner.

Still sounds like an annulment issue to me but I am no expert… surely your grandmother could have her case looked at and do you know all the details of her young life? Because not all cases are this extreme and most people I see around me divorce for not a lot more than boredom and a change of partners more than any really serious issues.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Still sounds like an annulment issue to me but I am no expert… surely your grandmother could have her case looked at and do you know all the details of her young life? Because not all cases are this extreme and most people I see around me divorce for not a lot more than boredom and a change of partners more than any really serious issues.

I i know the case would be up for anulment…Her first husband is dead so not to sound morbid but thats a good thing. Funny thing was the Church actually married her and her second husband??? thats alwasy had me perplexed…Not sure if she takes communion or not…but im guessing not.