Cardinal Wuerl: The Catholic Church is moving from legalism to mercy

[ProVobis]

The tribunal is for the purpose of determining whether or not his first marriage was valid, and thus to help him know whether or not he is living in an invalid second marriage. In presenting himself for communion, he is making a decision as to his personal belief about the status of his first marriage and his second marriage.

If a determination is made the first marriage was invalid or null, then he or she still needs to take steps to ensure the “second” marriage is sacramentally valid, I would think. But you knew that, I’m sure.

 

[LongingSoul]

Of course, as then Fr Ratzinger noted. There cannot be revelation without one for whom the truth can be revealed.

The truth about contraception being an intrinsic evil ( always and under every circumstance against the law of God)

That is a revealed truth, and while we might understand further particular facets of that truth, the truth itself will not change. It will always, and under every circumstance, be an evil.

Given that, a certain conscience could never judge that it is a good and therefore could be used. Correct?

There are certain pastoral concessions to the hard and fast rule here. For instance if a woman has had her tubes tide as a contraceptive measure… then comes to repent of that decision even though it can’t be changed, she is permitted to receive Communion without abstaining from the contraceptive sexual activity she has set up by her decision. This is a case of where a concession is made to the general rule based on the unique circumstance.

 

[Thomas_White]

.

Actually, the question of contraception was already part of the Deposit of Faith.

Heck, the word ‘condom’ comes from the preaching of medieval bishops against barrier methods, they were “Contra Dominium” …against God.

You seem to think that the very act of questioning means that the revealed truth is open to change. What If the questioners are in error in presuming that it can be?

In bringing up that example, you are showing ignorance of the history of that commission. Artificial Contraception had already been ruled by the Church, through the Deposit of Faith, to be evil. The question before the commission was originally the examination of if hormonal contraceptives were artificial in nature, as they used a natural, biological process to achieve the end. The commission took it upon itself to expand the question into an area where the Church had already ruled. Pope Paul simply restated what the Church already knew to be true.

It was those who opposed clear Church teaching in that matter that were (and are) questioning Church dogma, not I.

In so far as my understanding of Dei Verbum, the Church has given us great examples.

Take Mariology, for example. We have quite a number of revealed truths about Mary. Her Fiat, her Immaculate Conception. One point of further understanding is her role as Mediatrix of All Graces. That is a term that is in the process of understanding exactly what it means to be such a Mediatrix. But it takes away nothing of what we already know of Mary. She will never cease to the the Mother of God, the Theotokos. Her Conception will always be ( and has always been, Immaculate).

That is pure Dei Verbum. Always add to our understanding, never taking away, ( or contradicting) what we already know.

One related question for you, can the teaching of Dei Verbum change? Or is that the single teaching that cannot change

Apostolic preaching and the understanding of it are two separate things. This in itself is fundamental to an understanding of Dei Verbum.

What I do not understand is why comments like the following are necessary in what ought to be a civil discussion: “In bringing up that example, you are showing ignorance…” I do not believe ad hominem remarks are appropriate.

 

[JimG]

If a determination is made the first marriage was invalid or null, then he or she still needs to take steps to ensure the “second” marriage is sacramentally valid, I would think. But you knew that, I’m sure.

Yes. In approaching communion, he is stating that his first marriage was not valid and that his second marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Apostolic preaching and the understanding of it are two separate things. This in itself is fundamental to an understanding of Dei Verbum.

Yes, one can understand the current teachings on Mary, and be open to learning more about her. But none of that will change what we already DO know about her. It will all be true

That is the nature of Apostolic teachings and understanding. And it is equally applicable to the teachings on contraception and adultery. Everything we know and understand will continue unchanged.

What I do not understand is why comments like the following are necessary in what ought to be a civil discussion: “In bringing up that example, you are showing ignorance…” I do not believe ad hominem remarks are appropriate.

It was not intended as an ad hominem. It was a presumption that if you had knowledge of the purpose of the Pope calling the committee into existence, you would not have attempted to portray that event as indicating that a definitive Church teaching was in doubt.

 

[Thomas_White]

It was not intended as an ad hominem. It was a presumption that if you had knowledge of the purpose of the Pope calling the committee into existence, you would not have attempted to portray that event as indicating that a definitive Church teaching was in doubt.

A commission of six European non-theologians was established in 1963 by Pope John XXIII to study questions of birth control and population.

 

[Ender]

Any way, as long as no one can produce this practice as a defined doctrine, the bishops that want to see some change and do not believe it to be doctrine are not guilty of any heresy for their differing beliefs.

What would you accept as proof that something is doctrine? If premise A is doctrine, premise B is doctrine, and conclusion C is logically arrived at based on those premises, what is the argument that C is suspect because it is not specifically cited as doctrinal?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

There are certain pastoral concessions to the hard and fast rule here. For instance if a woman has had her tubes tide as a contraceptive measure… then comes to repent of that decision even though it can’t be changed, she is permitted to receive Communion without abstaining from the contraceptive sexual activity she has set up by her decision. This is a case of where a concession is made to the general rule based on the unique circumstance.

I think this analogy has quite a few parallels. Now I understand the Catholic Church says it is not the same thing, but darned if I can understand why one is a state of mortal sin and the other isn’t. Both involve (or can involve) a continuing act that in and of itself is considered a mortal sin.

 

[pnewton]

If premise A is doctrine, premise B is doctrine, and conclusion C is logically arrived at based on those premises, …

This was why Limbo was thought to be doctrine for so long.

What it would take for me is the same thing it always takes for me. The Catholic Church would need to teach this as a doctrine.

Oh, and I do not agree (as I have gone through at length, so don’t ask for a repeat) that the conclusion is not the* only *logical conclusion, based primarily on definition of terms shifting, and other parallels. It is one logical possibility and a prudent course of action. It is also the practice of the Church.

 

[Ender]

I think this analogy has quite a few parallels. Now I understand the Catholic Church says it is not the same thing, but darned if I can understand why one is a state of mortal sin and the other isn’t. Both involve (or can involve) a continuing act that in and of itself is considered a mortal sin.

It is not sinful to have sex when there is no possibility of conception. The act of rendering herself sterile was sinful. That sin can be absolved. In what way is it then sinful for her to have sex afterward when her condition is no different than that of a woman who is naturally sterile?

Ender

 

[Ender]

There are certain pastoral concessions to the hard and fast rule here. For instance if a woman has had her tubes tide as a contraceptive measure… then comes to repent of that decision even though it can’t be changed, she is permitted to receive Communion without abstaining from the contraceptive sexual activity she has set up by her decision. This is a case of where a concession is made to the general rule based on the unique circumstance.

I don’t see where any concession is being made. She had herself sterilized; that was the sin. It is not a sin for a sterile woman to have sex. There is no exception to the rule here. Being sterilized may well be a much more serious sin than the use of contraception, but it is still a one time act, and that act can be repented of.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

A commission of six European non-theologians was established in 1963 by Pope John XXIII to study questions of birth control and population.

When Rock began research on oral contraceptives, he believed that the pill offered a means of birth control that the church would accept, because it simply repressed ovulation and replicated the body’s hormonal condition in early pregnancy. In 1963, he even wrote a book making the case, called “The Time Has Come: A Catholic Doctor’s Proposals to End the Battle Over Birth Control.”

As momentum built for the church to reconsider its position, Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council, a gathering of thousands of bishops from all over the world, in 1962. The conference, known as Vatican II, resulted in a number of reforms that modernized church practices. Many believed that afterward, the church’s position on contraception might be relaxed. In fact, Pope John was putting together a committee to consider the matter shortly before he died. It then fell to Pope Paul VI to resolve the issue

.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-catholic-church-almost-came-to-accept-birth-control/2012/02/21/gIQAdy1JYR_story.html

The purpose of the committee was to review Dr Rock’s proposal.

 

[Brendan]

I think this analogy has quite a few parallels. Now I understand the Catholic Church says it is not the same thing, but darned if I can understand why one is a state of mortal sin and the other isn’t. Both involve (or can involve) a continuing act that in and of itself is considered a mortal sin.

Would you agree that there is a difference between a one time theft, and being in a crime cartel?

Or between having done one wrong act and having the intention of committing that act many more times for the rest of your life?

Remember that the sin happens when a person forms the intent, not in the commission of the act itself.

If one forms the intent to continue to commit the sin whenever the opportunity presents itself, that is a state of sin. As long as that intent is there, so is the sin.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think this analogy has quite a few parallels. Now I understand the Catholic Church says it is not the same thing, but darned if I can understand why one is a state of mortal sin and the other isn’t. Both involve (or can involve) a continuing act that in and of itself is considered a mortal sin.

Yes I see levels of parallel as well. Committing to permanent contraception or permanent non sacramental marriage are conundrums for the purpose of teaching gospel values. The only real solution according to the letter of the law, would be to permanently abstain from sexual intercourse. However according to Aquinas divine law presupposes natural law and we have to honour natural marriage for what it is too. How is it served by permanent abstinence from sex?

 

[sarah_j]

Funny thing is we present ourselves for communion all the time based upon a self examination of conscious; but in this case people are arguing vehemently that a tribunal is required. I find that very interesting…

The Church has said that in the case of the divorced and remarried a tribunal is required. >

" Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion."

[/library/curia/cdfdivor.txt]
ewtn.com/expert/answers/…and_remarr.htm

 

[Thomas_White]

.The purpose of the committee was to review Dr Rock’s proposal.

I think it was more general than that. The purpose of the committee was to study questions concerning ABC, and it was greatly expanded by Pope Paul VI after the death of John XXIII from 6 members to 72. The recommendations of the committee were rejected.

But this is a side issue quite apart from the OP. I don’t wish to pursue it further.

 

[pnewton]

The Church has said that in the case of the divorced and remarried a tribunal is required. >

" Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion."

Right below this quote, made by an EWTN writer in 1994, there is an exception memntioned. What is not said is how such an exception could be made if the penitent never approached the Sacrament of Penance in the first place, but let’s not cloud this good article with unneeded logic. What the latest synod called for is for the penitent to approach the pastor, something that could have always happen, and they explore the process of conversion and integration into the Church together. I do not know what the Holy Father will say is the final take away from the synod, but I look for this to stay.

 

[sarah_j]

The Vatican has said that it is doctrine that the divorced/ remarried cannot receive Communion unless the first marriage is judged null. I don’t know how much plainer they can make it :

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the** doctrine** and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).

1. The **doctrine **and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion”(9). The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

 

[KSU]

I sat in a pew and listened to a CRS priest state that if the church’s AIDS clinics in Africa gave out condoms, thousands of people would be spared the disease every year. That included infants who can be exposed to the disease in childbirth. And through time, the combined efforts of prevention and education might spare people so much misery. He later came back and announced that married people, where one partner has AIDS, were allowed by the church now to use condoms during sex. The church’s allowance of the use of birth control by people who need it for medical reasons is a step in the right direction. I know a doctor who is so beloved by our archdiocese that they gave him a holy relic to display in his office. While he wont write prescriptions for birth control normally, he will prescribe birth control for women who need them for other health reasons, such as abnormal bleeding or when pregnancy is a serious health risk to the mother. And he said that our archdiocese has no problem with that. There are times when following the law to the letter actually works against the mission of Christ. No one should use rules and regs to deny righteous action or to defend inaction. And if righteous action means the church condoning the use of birth control in some instances, than so be it. We alone stand before God on judgement day and we alone answer for our actions, good and bad.

Absolutely right–we alone will answer for our actions.

Our Lady of Fatima:

More souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.

Many marriages are not of God and do not please Our Lord.

Do not be surprised that I speak to you so much about hell. This is one truth that it is necessary to recall often in these times, because we forget that souls are falling into hell in droves.

---

But, hey, so what? None of that is doctrine so we are not bound to believe it, and, just like actual doctrine, our understanding of it could change, and there could be exceptions, right?

At Fatima, Our Lady taught us this prayer: “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, deliver us from the fire of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need of your mercy.”

 

[pnewton]

The Vatican has said that it is doctrine that the divorced/ remarried cannot receive Communion unless the first marriage is judged null. ]

Yes, I remember when this was posted a couple of times last month. It is a wonderful letter. I understand the purpose of conjunctions and words like “consequently” and “practice”. Yet, I also understand why many believe this practice is a doctrinal necessity, annulment proceedings and allowable exceptions notwithstanding.

And just to be clear, the words used by Cardinal Ratzinger were “doctrine **and **discipline”.