Cardinal Scola: Pope Francis will stand with tradition on marriage

[LongingSoul]

That sounds very holy and I hope I approach it with the same spirit. First, I don’t think Limbo was ever a teaching of the Church, so I don’t think it’s correct to use a phrase like “the change to the teaching on Limbo of the Infants.” Second, I don’t think the Catechism changes anything with regard to limbo, I think says nothing for or against it. From my understanding, limbo is still an acceptable theological theory. Third, I don’t think denying limbo is tantamount to de facto denying the necessity of baptism. Fourth, I don’t think the theory of limbo causes suffering to mothers who have lost unbaptized infants. Fifth, I don’t think those who continue to believe in limbo only want to uphold legalism.

It looks like there’s a lot of differences of opinion in this paragraph. If you think it’s a good idea, I think I could learn a lot by exploring them, because I don’t know a lot about limbo, and talking about what it means and what its history is helps me do research and learn more. Would you like to explore any of the five areas where I just said I disagree? If you think it could be divisive, then we probably shouldn’t.

The issue of limbo of infants serves to demonstrate that retrospectively a thing can be seen quite clearly in the light of theological examination, that is confusing and threatening to peoples understanding of doctrine as a mere question begging for examination. The Church only definitively let go of Limbo as an important safeguard of the doctrine of original sin, in 2007. The document prepared by the INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION entitled “THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED”… says this…

“The treatment of this theme must be placed within the historical development of the faith. According to Dei Verbum 8, the factors that contribute to this development are the reflection and the study of the faithful, the experience of spiritual things, and the teaching of the Magisterium. When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine. Only in this way - and observing the principle of the hierarchy of truths mentioned in the Decree of the Second Vatican Council Unitatis redintegratio (#11) – the topic can be reconsidered explicitly under the global horizon of the faith of the Church. This Document, from the point of view of speculative theology as well as from the practical and pastoral perspective, constitutes for a useful and timely mean for deepening our understanding this problem, which is not only a matter of doctrine, but also of pastoral priority in the modern era.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The point of mentioning the issue of Limbo was precisely to show how with hindsight and confidence in the wisdom of the Churchs theological studies… we are not disturbed by the changes. Prior to this, people genuinely believed that Limbo was a teaching of some doctrinal weight and were highly concerned that their faith may be shaken by any change. In fact, what it did was give us a more expansive understanding of the doctrines concerned and greater ecumenical opportunities.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t understand this. This is the way things already are… There are many divorced and remarried who receive the Eucharist and pay no attention to the teaching on this anyway. In the same way that many people receive the Eucharist in various states of mortal sin.

This is the point I was trying to make. The burden is really on the recipient of communion. There is, however, as one poster mentioned, the one committing manifest grave sin should be not admitted to communion.

 

[bisco]

if you are in a state of mortal sin, and you receive communion, you are sinning again. if the church says you can receive communion, you are not sinning.

 

[bisco]

Because for Absolution the person must truly repent their sin and try their best to not commit the same sin again. Most married couples are going to continue having sex and be committing the same sin over and over with no intention of stopping.

so, if they repent and try not to have sex, they’re good?

 

[dmar198]

The issue of limbo of infants serves to demonstrate that retrospectively a thing can be seen quite clearly in the light of theological examination, that is confusing and threatening to peoples understanding of doctrine as a mere question begging for examination.

Why do you think the theory of limbo would have been so confusing and threatening? I always thought everybody just took it as reasonable theological speculation toward envisioning a hopeful future for unbaptized infants. I get the impression that your understanding is quite different. I read your words and the impression I get is that people used to be confused and scared of limbo. Is that what you mean?

The Church only definitively let go of Limbo as an important safeguard of the doctrine of original sin, in 2007.

It is my understanding that the Church has always said that limbo is just a speculative theory about what happens to unbaptized infants, and that it isn’t part of divine revelation but is just a theory that some Catholics believe in. But it sounds like your understanding of this is different, like it was taught as doctrine until 2007. I’ve read the 2007 document you referred to, and from what I can gather it agrees that limbo was just a theory put forward by some theologians. Am I missing something? Because, if my understanding is correct, and limbo was always regarded as a theory that no one has to believe, then how could that be regarded as an “important safeguard of the doctrine of original sin”?

The document prepared by the INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION entitled “THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED”… says this…

“The treatment of this theme must be placed within the historical development of the faith. According to Dei Verbum 8, the factors that contribute to this development are the reflection and the study of the faithful, the experience of spiritual things, and the teaching of the Magisterium. When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine. Only in this way - and observing the principle of the hierarchy of truths mentioned in the Decree of the Second Vatican Council Unitatis redintegratio (#11) – the topic can be reconsidered explicitly under the global horizon of the faith of the Church. This Document, from the point of view of speculative theology as well as from the practical and pastoral perspective, constitutes for a useful and timely mean for deepening our understanding this problem, which is not only a matter of doctrine, but also of pastoral priority in the modern era.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The point of mentioning the issue of Limbo was precisely to show how with hindsight and confidence in the wisdom of the Churchs theological studies… we are not disturbed by the changes.

I don’t see the change. The document itself says that limbo was “elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, [but] never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium.” A few sentences later it says, “[It] remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.” It looks to me like we can infer four things from this: (1) the Church before Vatican II always regarded limbo as just a theory, (2) the Church after Vatican II still regards limbo as just a theory, (3) people were always permitted to believe in limbo, and (4) people are still permitted to believe in limbo.

It seems to me that you regard limbo as a former significant teaching of the Church that is now no longer accepted, but the document you cited as evidence seems to me to indicate that limbo was always just a permitted theory and it hasn’t been rejected, because people are still permitted to believe in it. What am I missing?

Prior to this, people genuinely believed that Limbo was a teaching of some doctrinal weight and were highly concerned that their faith may be shaken by any change.

Who believed that, and where did they get the idea that it was a teaching of doctrinal weight, when the document in question says “[it] never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium”?

 

[otjm]

Part of that stat comes from the fact a lot of catholics are not practicing and have no intention of ever applying for annulment. Also, to my understanding, it’s common for catholics in some European countries just carry on as if they aren’t divorced and remarried. Sort of a don’t ask, don’t tell. We also have to take into account that infrastructure in some countries is basically non-existent and catholics there cannot realistically apply due to said lack.

Actually no, none of that stat comes from Europe. It is strictly from the US. I agree with the rest of the comment.

In cases where there is insufficient evidence we must be aware that the lack of evidence does not equal the marriage being valid. Some people forget that.

However, as far as the Church is concerned, the marriage is still presumed valid. That leaves some people in a quandary, but not as many as one might think.

For those who have applied and the process was stopped short there could be many reasons. In my case, I had 5 Witnesses as the Tribunal here asks. 3 responded and the other 2 made excuse after excuse. I received a letter stating that because of those who did not respond my case was permanently stalled. A lot of people would assume there was nothing that could be done and leave it at that. I decided to call the Tribunal and speak to someone there about my case. Turns out, you don’t really need all 5. All I had to do was request during the call that those 2 Witnesses be dropped from the list and my case be reviewed to see if I had sufficient testimony with my other 3 Witnesses. If the Judge had deemed their testimony insufficient I found out I could pursue other avenues and ask the Tribunal to allow me to use character references. There was also the option of going over everything with a psychiatrist (the Tribunals) and submitting his/her testimony as evidence. If I wasn’t the persistent sort I could easily be one of those cases that never sees a Judge.

And this is why, at times, it would be best if someone had an experienced Canon lawyer assisting them. As constituted, many tribunals are under staffed and over worked.

And, yes, there are some priests out there that truly have issues with the annulment process for whatever reason (religious, cultural, who knows!) that tell people who may have a good case not to apply. There are others who are somewhat clueless and who give out bad information because even they don’t know any better. Our wonderful priests are human, after all.

As in most things human, there are excellent priests, pretty good priests, poor priests, not so good priests, and horrible priests. And scattered within those groups are priests who are experienced in matters post divorce, and those who are not. And there is no simple guide book.

Particularly from those who oppose decrees of nullity, it is often cited that very few cases or no cases 'lose"; but that presumes that the tribunals publish the “no decree” numbers,

That is my understanding too. Having heard from a number of people adamantly against decrees, it is my very strong suspicion that at least some of them are people whose spouse applied; the protester was wounded in the divorce, and wounded again in the decree; they often exhibit a fairly simple understanding of the Faith, and there isn’t room in their understanding for this action. They feel they have lost their anchor.

As far as I have found through research there are no available numbers for those who have asked about a decree of nullity and been told not to apply for whatever reasons. The parish priest/Deacon/Advocate is usually the one who interviews the Petitioner and determines whether or not there is a good case for the Tribunal to work with. This means that the weak cases are weeded out before they even apply. Obviously, this means that those who have applied are very likely to obtain an annulment.

The research from CARA covered that in their research; they tend to be very thorough and well thought out when the begin a process of research.

 

[otjm]

First, I don’t think Limbo was ever a teaching of the Church, so I don’t think it’s correct to use a phrase like “the change to the teaching on Limbo of the Infants.”

I was born in the late 40’s and raised on the Baltimore Catechism. I guarantee you it was a teaching of the Church. It was not a doctrine of the Church, but neither the good sisters who taught us, nor the Catechism ever made that distinction. The result was that many, if not most Catholics raised before me and my peers all treated iy as if it were defined doctrine.

Second, I don’t think the Catechism changes anything with regard to limbo, I think says nothing for or against it. From my understanding, limbo is still an acceptable theological theory.

That is correct; but must be viewed in light of what was understood from what the Church taught, before that came out. It came across as a radical departure, for many.

Third, I don’t think denying limbo is tantamount to de facto denying the necessity of baptism.

That is good; however, it does not change how others took it.

Fourth, I don’t think the theory of limbo causes suffering to mothers who have lost unbaptized infants.

Unless you are a parent who has lost a child due to a miscarriage or one which dies right after delivery, I would suggest that you be extremely cautious about what those who have had that think, or how they feel. For one who is deeply Catholic, desires their children be brought up true to the Faith, and is confronted with the issue, the emotions and the understanding of the necessity of baptism can cause tremendous grief. God gave us Christ as our savior and redeemer, and Christ taught us the need for baptism (and the other sacraments as well) , because we as humans need that structure and the graces flowing from it.

That, however, does not prevent some from approaching the sacraments as if they bind God, rather than understanding that they bind man. God does not need the sacraments in order to save man; man needs the sacraments in order to be saved. God can still act outside the sacraments, which is the underlying matter of the Church’s statement that it is possible that children who could not receive baptism may still be in heaven. Man, however, is still bound to follow what has been handed down to us.

Fifth, I don’t think those who continue to believe in limbo only want to uphold legalism.

That is a matter that would have to be decided on a case by case basis; it most certainly is not out of the realm of possibilities. And that is also something that Pope Francis has spoken about. He has not dismissed doctrine, but has spoken out about the need to focus on mercy as a balancing point, and not solely on doctrine; doing the latter tends to lead to legalism and judgmentalism.

Would you like to explore any of the five areas where I just said I disagree? If you think it could be divisive, then we probably shouldn’t.

It shouldn’t be divisive, unless someone is either not well schooled in what and how the Church teaches, or has possibly lost a child. Both can be problematic, for different reasons.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t understand this. This is the way things already are… There are many divorced and remarried who receive the Eucharist and pay no attention to the teaching on this anyway. In the same way that many people receive the Eucharist in various states of mortal sin anyway.

To receive communon when in mortal sin is ‘sacrilege.’ To receive Conmunion you need to be in a state of grace, but if you are divorced and civilly remarried and continuing to have sexual relations, how can you ever be in a state of grace? How can behaviour which has been seen as adulterous, then those people receive Communion? Are people who are commiting other mortal sins going to then argue well if some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Communion and they are not in a state of grace (unless somehow the Church then says divorced and civilly remarried are in a state of grace if they had been to confession, but then how would the Church not be changing what sin is, what state if grace means and is), then can X person receive Conmunion when they are not in a state of grace?

 

[bisco]

what if a remarried couple decides to stop having relations? but every now and again, they slip and repent?

 

[Tigg]

what if a remarried couple decides to stop having relations? but every now and again, they slip and repent?

If they are in a state of sexual abstinence and have received sacramental absolution for having marital relations while in an invalid marriage, then they are indeed allowed to receive the Eucharist. If they slip up, then sacramental confession is again necessary, but remember a condition of *true *repentance also requires a firm resolve to sin no more. Read JPII Familiaris Consortio

 

[Tigg]

^^^ Another thought:

IIRC, the above document also says something about the heroism that is necessary for couples to live in continence.

A departure from this “mind of the Church” comes from Cardinal Kaspar in this interview:

To live together as brother and sister? Of course I have high respect for those who are doing this. But it’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian.

commonwealmagazine.org/merciful-god-merciful-church

How is it that all are called to holiness if heroism is not for the average Christian?

 

[Tigg]

I’m not sure how the Holy Father abiding by the teachings of the Church is a shock to people.

:tiphat:

Indeed! That’s why I wonder about the motivation of those who believe HH is going to radically depart from teaching. Are they his friends or his enemies to think he would do such a thing???

 

[bisco]

it seems to me, with most habitual sins, the intent to stop is there, and the sorrow for offending God. in His love and mercy, He gives us the sacrament of reconciliation, and the eucharist for strength for future obedience. some things just take longer than others. without the eucharist, we are left weak and wanting.

otoh, for couples who have no desire for abstinence, i suppose that is what the fuss is all about. and some probably want children.

 

[Tigg]

it seems to me, with most habitual sins, the intent to stop is there, and the sorrow for offending God. in His love and mercy, He gives us the sacrament of reconciliation, and the eucharist for strength for future obedience. some things just take longer than others. without the eucharist, we are left weak and wanting.

Absolutely and here is the “authentic” part of mercy! God’s mercy is boundless toward those who recognize their weakness and acknowledge their sin and as long as they hold the love of Christ first in their hearts, His grace toward them will be endless.

 

[dmar198]

I was born in the late 40’s and raised on the Baltimore Catechism. I guarantee you it was a teaching of the Church.

I was also raised on the Baltimore Catechism and had to memorize long passages from it for my religion tests. I don’t remember being taught that limbo was a Church teaching, just a common belief, and I do remember being taught that the Church doesn’t know what happens to unbaptized babies. Since that seems to reflect what the 2007 document says, I think it’s reasonable that I was taught that. But why do you think you were taught what you were taught?

It was not a doctrine of the Church, but neither the good sisters who taught us, nor the Catechism ever made that distinction.

I understand the phrases “a teaching of the Church” and “a doctrine of the Church” to be exactly synonymous. But from what you’ve just said, I get the impression that we understand those phrases differently. What do you mean by “teaching” as opposed to “doctrine”?

Also: I think the Baltimore Catechism does make a distinction by saying, in its question on limbo, “it is the common belief [that unbaptized infants] will go to some place similar to Limbo [if they die], where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.” I think it is noteworthy that it does not say this is true, but that it is a common belief.

The result was that many, if not most Catholics raised before me and my peers all treated iy as if it were defined doctrine.

I am sad to hear it, and I hope you are glad to hear that that is not what I was taught, and I was taught out of the same Catechism you were.

That is correct; but must be viewed in light of what was understood from what the Church taught, before that came out. It came across as a radical departure, for many.

If many people were taught that limbo was a Church teaching, and then the 2007 document came along saying that limbo never was a Church teaching, I can see why that would confuse many people.

But I wonder why many people were taught that limbo was a Church teaching? And: how can we determine whether it is even true that many people were taught that? I certainly wasn’t. What I was taught matches what the Church has said since 2007, and I hope that my experience matches more closely with what most people were taught than it seems to with what you were taught, but I don’t know how we could determine that.

Unless you are a parent who has lost a child due to a miscarriage or one which dies right after delivery…

I’m not.

I would suggest that you be extremely cautious about what those who have had that think, or how they feel.

I think that is very reasonable. I don’t know how others feel, I was just trying to say that limbo shouldn’t cause anybody to feel badly because limbo envisions a hopeful future for infants who die without baptism, a future full of perfect happiness. There is nothing in that theory to cause anyone sorrow.

 

[ProVobis]

If they are in a state of sexual abstinence and have received sacramental absolution for having marital relations while in an invalid marriage, then they are indeed allowed to receive the Eucharist. If they slip up, then sacramental confession is again necessary, but remember a condition of *true *repentance also requires a firm resolve to sin no more. Read JPII Familiaris Consortio

But what if they put themselves out of the reach for confession?

 

[bisco]

how does one do that?

 

[ProVobis]

how does one do that?

By marrying outside of it.

 

[dmar198]

By marrying outside of it.

If a couple married outside of the Church and didn’t go to Confession or get their marriage rectified, I doubt they would be coming to church or trying to receive Communion. They’ve left behind so many elements of Catholicism, I think they’re hardly even Catholic, except perhaps in name. But if they did try to receive Communion anyway, and the priest knew about their situation, it is my understanding that he should inform them that they need to go to Confession first and get their marriage situation rectified.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I read every word of the Catechism with grateful awe as I have always done. I observe every word of the Catechism with obedience and endure my sufferings in the spirit of the Cross as best I can.

I also trust in the wisdom of the Magisterium as expressed by the Popes and guided by the Holy Spirit, to look at the wounds in the faith community that call for addressing. Back in 1992 when the new Catechism made the change to the teaching on Limbo of the Infants that didn’t definitively exclude unbaptized babies from heaven but entrusted their fate to Gods mercy…the same predecessors of the temple police we see today were saying the same things. “Denying limbo is tantamount to defacto denying the necessity of baptism”. They did not want to ease the suffering of the mums who had lost unbaptized infants… they only wanted to uphold legalism.

The Catechism never made any change in the teaching on Limbo because there never was a teaching on Limbo. It was and remains a theological hypothesis.