Cardinal Scola: Pope Francis will stand with tradition on marriage

[LongingSoul]

I think the Catechism encapsulates it in a general rule in CCC 1650. What are your thoughts on that paragraph? My understanding is that there is another major difference: it involves people living in a situation that the Catechism says “objectively contravenes God’s law.” (CCC 1650) From your response so far, I’m getting the impression that we must be talking about two different situations. What do you think? I don’t see how that is likely, given that Pope Francis has said he does not want to change the Church’s pastoral practice on this point. (See my previous post.) If Pope Francis doesn’t want the Church’s practice to change, then how would the practice get changed? When Peter was faced with some statements that he didn’t like, he said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life.” I don’t see why anybody would leave the Church unless it changed its teachings, and from what I can see, nobody is discussing any change in Church teaching. Anyway that’s what I think. What do you think?

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.

 

[McCall1981]

Before the Synod, check out what this Spanish Bishop said:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/spanish-bishop-pope-says-he-will-not-change-communion-rule-51174/

With this, and the quotes from what the Holy Father said on the plane from Rio de Janeiro to Rome, quoted by dmar98, these are two times when actually speaking on the subject, although Bishop Fernandez is saying what the Holy Father said on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, the Holy Father has not spoken favourably on allowing Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.

Card Meisner also said Pope Francis told him the same thing:

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/card-meisner-cites-pope-francis-no-communion-for-divorced-remarried/

deutschlandfunk.de/katholische-kirche-meisner-bestreitet-reformbedarf.694.de.html?dram:article_id=272951

However, Card Kasper claims that Francis is open to it, so who knows?

 

[boar2roar]

He emphasized that “the majority” of synod fathers supported the indissolubility of marriage."

That really tells us nothing since even Cardinal Kasper and his supporters would argue that they supports the indissolubility of marriage

 

[Denise1957]

He emphasized that “the majority” of synod fathers supported the indissolubility of marriage."

That really tells us nothing since even Cardinal Kasper and his supporters would argue that they supports the indissolubility of marriage

I agree. It’s not the indissolubility of marriage that’s the issue. Cardinal Kasper isn’t trying to change doctrine. Rather, he wants to change pastoral practice by allowing, in some cases, for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Then there’s also the issue of allowing practicing homosexuals to receive Holy Communion as well, but I think that this isn’t what the OP has addressed.

We have several second-hand accounts of what the Pope has personally told members of the hierarchy regarding his stand on the marriage issue. What I haven’t seen, though, is a first hand and direct statement from the Pope which states that he will not support communion for the divorced and remarried. I assume that he will issue a statement on this in the future.

 

[MJJean]

According to research by CARA, their estimates are that 85% of divorced Catholics have not even started the process of preparing a case for the Tribunal.

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.

Out of the remaining 15%, almost half (7%) have received a decree of nullity, leaving a bit over half (8%) not receiving one. And of that 8%, some have had a decision from the tribunal that there is insufficient evidence to grant a declaration of nullity; others have stopped the process short of that decision - snipped for space.

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.

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, 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.

If I run into a catholic interested in returning to the Church that has been told by their priest they don’t have a case I always tell them to contact their Tribunal directly and ask for help there up to and including obtaining the services of a canon lawyer.

I’m sure there are some out there who just stopped bothering with annulment simply because the process can be very painful and complicated. I’m sure others change their minds. And still more are just terrible at follow through. To those people I say "Nose to the grindstone! Do what you have to do to regularize your marital situation. Don’t give up on God, He wouldn’t give up on you!

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, I]snipped for space

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.

It’s ridiculously easy to have insufficient evidence. If you were married a long time ago just obtaining the required papers (marriage cert, divorce decree, Baptismal records, police and/or counseling reports, etc) can be difficult. It becomes even more difficult if the best Witnesses have passed on, decline to help, or have becomes lost in the sea of humanity. I was “married” 20 years ago. Divorced 12 years after a few year separation while waiting for the funds to cover the divorce. And I have kept in touch with a lot of people from that time in my life. Unfortunately, a couple were terrible with following through after agreeing to help, a few potentially excellent Witnesses I couldn’t locate after much searching, and a few potential Witnesses thought the whole thing silly and/or wanted nothing to do with the Church. Now imagine how hard it could be if you were married and divorced 25 or 30 years ago or if you’ve moved to a new country!

I would suspect that there would be no decision to have the bishop review the case, if for no other reason that it would appear to set up a tribunal outside the tribunal.

Yes and no. The priest and/or Bishop from each parish who would handle such matters would ideally be the new Tribunal. The current Tribunal system is a disaster! Between having mostly part time employees/volunteers, retirements, moving to new offices, the overload of cases to already understaffed Tribunals…this current system is not working in any real way. It’s not impossible or really even that difficult to streamline the process without compromising it. Perhaps have the priest make a first decision and then have the Bishops office ratify it or have the priest/Bishop make a first decision and have the existing system ratify it while the Petitioner and Respondent are admitted to the Sacraments while awaiting the second and official ratification. Something like that.

 

[MJJean]

Before the Synod, check out what this Spanish Bishop said:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/spanish-bishop-pope-says-he-will-not-change-communion-rule-51174/

With this, and the quotes from what the Holy Father said on the plane from Rio de Janeiro to Rome, quoted by dmar98, these are two times when actually speaking on the subject, although Bishop Fernandez is saying what the Holy Father said on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, the Holy Father has not spoken favourably on allowing Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.

Note the phrase “married in the Church.” I keep hearing that phrase and the phrase “marriage is indissoluble” . Do these men forget the converts who married outside of the Church without the catholic understanding of what marriage is and who really didn’t agree to actual marriage, the poorly catechized and poorly prepared for the Sacrament of matrimony, who also did not consent to an actual marriage, and the ex-spouses who married a catholic or convert who did intend to contract a valid marriage with full understanding yet who themselves did not intend to do so?

I fully believe the Church’s teachings on valid Sacramental marriage…now. I certainly did not when I was first civilly “married”. (Not to mention my ex was never baptized because his parents weren’t religious, so it wasn’t Sacramental.)

The problem is that an awful lot of people married without that understanding, did not validly marry, and I don’t think these discussions take that into account nearly as much as they should. Repeatedly stating things like “Those married in the Church…” and “Marriage is indissoluble.” (without adding the word valid) seem to completely discount those of us who never contracted a valid marriage according to the church’s teachings, those who of us who weren’t married in the Church, those who were duped by former spouses that did not really consent to a marriage, or who were married in the Church with truly lacking marriage prep and had no real idea of what they were supposedly consenting to!

The majority of annulments are filed by converts or those of other or no faith who want to marry a catholic. These are people who have been raised in a world where secular society and most Christian denominations accept divorce and remarriage without question. Is it any wonder a good number of folks were unable to contract valid marriages because they had no idea that marriage really is for life? Is it any wonder they become very frustrated with the Church’s seeming inability or unwillingness to recognize their situations and come up with a workable solution? And by workable solution I mean a process that doesn’t take years.

The current system isn’t good for people or the Church. Heck, I believe in the catholic Church (a big statement coming from a former Lutheran turned Pagan turned Atheist/Agnostic) and my husband was raised catholic and also believes in the Church after a period of time fallen away. Even we, through the many bureaucratic and spiritual struggles over the last year and a half since I began the annulment process, have been repeatedly sorely tempted to throw our hands up and jump ship to another similar denomination. And to take our kids with us! We won’t, I’ll make sure of that, but it’s been tempting. Especially since here we are putting great effort into not only making our marriage work, but trying to make it thrive through a bit more than our share of rough patches because we do believe and yet the Church doesn’t even consider us married!

 

[dmar198]

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.

That sounds very holy and I hope I approach it with the same spirit.

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.

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.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

I don’t see how allowing divorced and remarried persons to receive Eucharist would “de facto” change Church teaching.

The Church teaches that valid Sacramental marriages are indissoluble. However, an awful lot of catholics and converts were never in valid Sacramental marriages. The annulment process is long and very trying mentally and spiritually. This is a time when graces are needed desperately.

From a pastoral care standpoint, I don’t see why divorced and remarried people shouldn’t have their ability to receive taken on a case by case basis while they await annulment. Their pastor and/or Bishop could review their annulment papers and/or simply thoroughly interview them to discern if they are indeed validly married to a first spouse or if that “marriage” was invalid and they are being barred from receiving Communion due to nothing more than Church bureaucracy.

Allowing those who weren’t validly married in the first place to receive doesn’t change Church teaching on marriage one bit.

Yes, I realize the Church is talking seriously overhauling the annulment process. But that does not help the thousands suffering needlessly right now. I, myself, am coming up on a year and a half since my annulment case was accepted by the Tribunal. I have yet to receive a First Instance decision, much less a Second Instance decision and declaration of freedom to marry in the Church. That’s 18 months of RCIA, weekly Masses, Holy Days of Obligation, and intense pain as I cannot receive the Body and Blood of Christ and all the graces conferred. I know my first “marriage” wasn’t valid for numerous provable reasons. My priest has stated numerous times that he also believes that “marriage” to have been invalid. And, the kicker, when 2 Witnesses failed to return their questionnaires to the Tribunal, I was left with 3 Witnesses who did. The Judge in my case had to pull my file, read everything, and decide if there was enough evidence to proceed or not. He decided there was ample evidence to proceed and my case moved forward. However, because of the backlog of cases, I still have no decision. My case is still “in line to be judged”. Because, due to procedure, the Judge wasn’t allowed to make a determination when he had my file in his hands!

To receive, one must be in a state of grace (i.e. free from mortal sin). A divorced person may receive, if they are not in a relationship with someone else. Remarrying or having marital relations with someone else puts them in a state of mortal sin. Allowing people who remarried and/or are having marital relations with someone else to receive communion is basically saying those acts no longer constitute mortal sin. That is “de facto” changing Church teaching.

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree. It’s not the indissolubility of marriage that’s the issue. Cardinal Kasper isn’t trying to change doctrine. Rather, he wants to change pastoral practice by allowing, in some cases, for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Then there’s also the issue of allowing practicing homosexuals to receive Holy Communion as well, but I think that this isn’t what the OP has addressed.

We have several second-hand accounts of what the Pope has personally told members of the hierarchy regarding his stand on the marriage issue. What I haven’t seen, though, is a first hand and direct statement from the Pope which states that he will not support communion for the divorced and remarried. I assume that he will issue a statement on this in the future.

I think the fact Pope Francis expressly invited Card. Kaspar to present his idea to the synod, while not demonstrating uncritical support of his idea, demonstrates his support of a solid platform from which applications of the doctrine can be examined.

I wouldn’t have bothered a fig for the synodal process were it not for the hysterics that have been generated by some. I can easily imagine the synods of old discussing the divinity of Christ and the esteemed status of Our Lady and other such issues, as being robust and colourful debates in the same way. The Pope asked with hopeful foresight that we try and avoid two poisonous attitudes… hostile inflexibility and false compassion. It’s not just the synod that is hampered by these attitudes… its pretty much every human endeavor that strives for mature and creative treatment in the ministry to the temporal and spiritual wellbeing of humankind. You get them in every discipline of the sciences and humanities.

 

[bisco]

why can’t a married person (second marriage, first one no anulled) simply go to confession and then recieve the eucharist?

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

why can’t a married person (second marriage, first one no anulled) simply go to confession and then recieve the eucharist?

Because Confession doesn’t invalidate their first marriage…they would still be in a state of sin.

 

[MJJean]

To receive, one must be in a state of grace (i.e. free from mortal sin). A divorced person may receive, if they are not in a relationship with someone else. Remarrying or having marital relations with someone else puts them in a state of mortal sin. Allowing people who remarried and/or are having marital relations with someone else to receive communion is basically saying those acts no longer constitute mortal sin. That is “de facto” changing Church teaching.

Not if the person wasn’t in a valid marriage to begin with.

When choosing to receive we are basically doing an examination of conscience. We’re asked to determine to the best of our ability based on Church teachings what state we are in when we approach the Sacraments. If a person knows their previous “marriage” was never valid and believe their current marriage to be the truly valid marriage then according to their own conscience they are not in a state of Mortal Sin. They’re just waiting for the Church to recognize what they know.

And this situation is somewhat unique in the Church. For example, I see couples who are living together receive every week with no one batting an eye and everyone knowing the couples status. A few of these couples are either pregnant sans marriage or have recently had first, second or third babies together. Obviously, it can be argued that they are receiving while in a rather public state of Mortal sin since they are continuing living together and having relations (can’t see another way for the baby to have gotten here!). Yet no outcry is raised. Let a known divorced and remarried person do the same and watch heads explode.

Same with homosexuals. Whatever said gay person is doing privately, as long as it isn’t public knowledge and the Pastor doesn’t catch wind or turns a blind eye they can receive. But divorced people who have remarried? Nope!

 

[MJJean]

why can’t a married person (second marriage, first one no anulled) simply go to confession and then recieve the eucharist?

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.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Not if the person wasn’t in a valid marriage to begin with.

When choosing to receive we are basically doing an examination of conscience. We’re asked to determine to the best of our ability based on Church teachings what state we are in when we approach the Sacraments. If a person knows their previous “marriage” was never valid and believe their current marriage to be the truly valid marriage then according to their own conscience they are not in a state of Mortal Sin. They’re just waiting for the Church to recognize what they know.

I understand the reasoning, but such conscience decisions are similar to people who use artificial birth control because they believe it isn’t a sin and are following their conscience.

And this situation is somewhat unique in the Church. For example, I see couples who are living together receive every week with no one batting an eye and everyone knowing the couples status. A few of these couples are either pregnant sans marriage or have recently had first, second or third babies together. Obviously, it can be argued that they are receiving while in a rather public state of Mortal sin since they are continuing living together and having relations (can’t see another way for the baby to have gotten here!). Yet no outcry is raised. Let a known divorced and remarried person do the same and watch heads explode.

Same with homosexuals. Whatever said gay person is doing privately, as long as it isn’t public knowledge and the Pastor doesn’t catch wind or turns a blind eye they can receive. But divorced people who have remarried? Nope!

That’s because it isn’t private. Your argument seems to be that everyone else is doing it, so why not divorced/remarried couples? If they go to a parish where they are unknown and don’t register, then they can lie and receive the same as everyone else. There are divorced/remarried couples that do that.

If a priest knows that someone is in a non-married, “living together”, arrangement, he should counsel that couple not to receive, as well - ditto with homosexual couples, couples using artificial birth control, etc. If the priest doesn’t know, what is he to do? Assume?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I agree. It’s not the indissolubility of marriage that’s the issue. Cardinal Kasper isn’t trying to change doctrine. Rather, he wants to change pastoral practice by allowing, in some cases, for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Then there’s also the issue of allowing practicing homosexuals to receive Holy Communion as well, but I think that this isn’t what the OP has addressed.

Multiple people who have spoken, regarding this Communion issue, do not seem to see how the indissoubility of marriage can coincide with Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.

We have several second-hand accounts of what the Pope has personally told members of the hierarchy regarding his stand on the marriage issue. What I haven’t seen, though, is a first hand and direct statement from the Pope which states that he will not support communion for the divorced and remarried. I assume that he will issue a statement on this in the future.

 

[PJD1987]

On the way home the young man says to his girlfriend, ‘my parents are divorced and remarried and receive Communion, what’s the big deal?’ The indissolubility of marriage is over.

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.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

i wonder how the mainstream media will portray this one…

“Cardinal Slaps Pope. Pope impeded from progressing the Church.”

 

[FollowChrist34]

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.

Yes, I agree. That is why I am so suspicious of all this talk about making new pastoral changes with respect to this issue. Maybe it’s not like that everywhere. But I find it odd. Why just worry about that one group being excluded? This could open wide up in no time, believe me.

 

[PJD1987]

Yes, I agree. That is why I am so suspicious of all this talk about making new pastoral changes with respect to this issue. Maybe it’s not like that everywhere. But I find it odd. Why just worry about that one group being excluded? This could open wide up in no time, believe me.

My point though is that the seemingly no matter what the Church teaches, the practice of receiving the Eucharist in mortal sin still occurs on a regular basis, so if the Church every did change teaching…what exactly would change?

 

[Denise1957]

Not if the person wasn’t in a valid marriage to begin with.

When choosing to receive we are basically doing an examination of conscience. We’re asked to determine to the best of our ability based on Church teachings what state we are in when we approach the Sacraments. If a person knows their previous “marriage” was never valid and believe their current marriage to be the truly valid marriage then according to their own conscience they are not in a state of Mortal Sin. They’re just waiting for the Church to recognize what they know.

And this situation is somewhat unique in the Church. For example, I see couples who are living together receive every week with no one batting an eye and everyone knowing the couples status. A few of these couples are either pregnant sans marriage or have recently had first, second or third babies together. Obviously, it can be argued that they are receiving while in a rather public state of Mortal sin since they are continuing living together and having relations (can’t see another way for the baby to have gotten here!). Yet no outcry is raised. Let a known divorced and remarried person do the same and watch heads explode.

Same with homosexuals. Whatever said gay person is doing privately, as long as it isn’t public knowledge and the Pastor doesn’t catch wind or turns a blind eye they can receive. But divorced people who have remarried? Nope!

I have sympathy for how stressful it must be for a remarried person to refrain from receiving communion, while at the same time they observe that those who are living in a state of sin are receiving communion. Bless those who are doing the right thing by not receiving! Those who receive while being in a state of mortal sin are racking up another mortal sin every time they receive. Maybe they aren’t, in all cases, aware of this. It’s not like they’re going to hear what constitutes mortal sin from the pulpit or church bulletin these days (though there are a few exceptions in some parishes, where sin is actually mentioned from the pulpit).

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said that there needs to be support groups in parishes for people who are divorced, and for others in an irregular status. I’m all for having support for these folks.