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

[Thomas_White]

Well then the answer is the same for either mercy or for conscience. They do not change the status of a marriage. When it comes to marriage, the concern is following the words of Jesus, and I don’t consider following Jesus’ words to be legalism.

I am pretty sure the many provisions of Canon Law as they continues to evolve are not the same thing as or have the full meaning of Scripture. I will let it go with that observation.

 

[JimG]

I am pretty sure the many provisions of Canon Law as they continues to evolve are not the same thing as or have the full meaning of Scripture. I will let it go with that observation.

Well, I refer you to Ed Peters for that discussion, and also let it go with that.

 

[OraLabora]

Well then the answer is the same for either mercy or for conscience. They do not change the status of a marriage. When it comes to marriage, the concern is following the words of Jesus, and I don’t consider following Jesus’ words to be legalism.

On the other hand Jesus doesn’t impute culpability on the abandoned spouse. Yet our law does when the abandoned spouse remarries.

 

[Brendan]

On the other hand Jesus doesn’t impute culpability on the abandoned spouse. Yet our law does when the abandoned spouse remarries.

You are talking about two distinct acts.

The first is the deterioration of the marriage. You are correct that the abandoned spouse has not culpability in that act.

But the two remain married. The act of abandonment does not break the marriage bond.

So if the abandoned spouse attempts a second marriage, there is culpability, because he\she is doing that evil of their own free will.

There is, of course, reduced culpability if the abandoned spouse needs a provider to survive, but the act of attempted remarriage remains a moral evil, as are any acts of sexual congress with the new partner.

 

[Ender]

Christ didn’t prioritize those in need of mercy, thankfully. Neither should we.

Did you read any of my comments about when mercy was or was not appropriate? Mercy requires repentance, without that mercy is not appropriate. Otherwise it is merely the indulgence of evil.

Ender

 

[OraLabora]

You are talking about two distinct acts.

The first is the deterioration of the marriage. You are correct that the abandoned spouse has not culpability in that act.

But the two remain married. The act of abandonment does not break the marriage bond.

So if the abandoned spouse attempts a second marriage, there is culpability, because he\she is doing that evil of their own free will.

There is, of course, reduced culpability if the abandoned spouse needs a provider to survive, but the act of attempted remarriage remains a moral evil, as are any acts of sexual congress with the new partner.

This is true, but the question remains: is the abandoned/remarried spouse mortally or venially culpable? That is: are the three conditions of grave matter, full knowledge, full consent of the will present in each case? One could argue the latter isn’t in some cases, which is why I believe there may be room to consider individual circumstances in a way that, while it might violate the letter of the law, doesn’t violate its spirit nor suggest permissiveness. This is where mercy meets human weakness. It’s where a judge shows mercy to a starving man stealing a loaf of bread, and where application of the letter of the law would be a greater cruelty than doing injury to the law itself.

 

[Ender]

I am pretty sure the many provisions of Canon Law as they continues to evolve are not the same thing as or have the full meaning of Scripture. I will let it go with that observation.

It was very clever of Cardinal Wuerl to put the focus of the discussion on Canon Law rather than the doctrines on which those laws are based because it makes the charge of “legalism” seem more reasonable. In fact, of course, it is not Canon Law that is the problem. Those laws are nothing more than an expression of the application of the doctrines, but the discussion about “legalism” doesn’t get very far when it is understood to mean objection to church teaching.

It is the doctrines, not the laws derived from them, that prohibit the divorced and remarried from receiving communion, and following those doctrines is better known as faith than legalism.

Ender

 

[gilliam]

“In the Gospels there is usually no conflict between law and mercy. But when there is, Jesus always chooses mercy, never letting someone suffer.” - Fr. James Martin

I think he is correct here.

 

[OraLabora]

It was very clever of Cardinal Wuerl to put the focus of the discussion on Canon Law rather than the doctrines on which those laws are based because it makes the charge of “legalism” seem more reasonable. In fact, of course, it is not Canon Law that is the problem. Those laws are nothing more than an expression of the application of the doctrines, but the discussion about “legalism” doesn’t get very far when it is understood to mean objection to church teaching.

It is the doctrines, not the laws derived from them, that prohibit the divorced and remarried from receiving communion, and following those doctrines is better known as faith than legalism.

Ender

Canon law also involves the application of disciplines, that are not doctrine written in stone, and also the application of simple administrative housekeeping that is neither doctrine nor discipline.

The Synod made clear that no doctrine will change, i.e. a valid sacramental marriage is indissoluble.

There is, however a lively theological debate-at a pay grade well above ours I would add-as to whether readmission to the sacraments for the remarried is an intrinsic part of the doctrine, or is itself a discipline where in certain limited cases a penitent could be readmitted without doing injury to the doctrine.

It is clear from the subsequent comments of some cardinals that this issue is not settled: some say readmission is not possible according to the report, some say the report opens the door to that possibility.

Clearly then, it will fall on the Holy Father to decide. When he does, it will behoove us to acquiesce to that decision in humble obedience, no matter what side he comes down on.

 

[irishpatrick]

The Church has existed for more than 2,000 years, yet only now do we have a Church that wants to make Divine Mercy the most important aspect of the faith?

(yes, yes, I know–God’s Mercy has always been a central message behind the Gospel, yet I can think of no other time in history when Divine Mercy has been so heavily stressed for 15 years and running)

So—why? Why now? Why, at this time in salvific history, is the Holy Spirit so heavily stressing Divine Mercy?

I think it is important for all people to contemplate those questions. Why is Divine Mercy being so heavily stressed now?

 

[Thomas_White]

It was very clever of Cardinal Wuerl to put the focus of the discussion on Canon Law rather than the doctrines on which those laws are based because it makes the charge of “legalism” seem more reasonable. In fact, of course, it is not Canon Law that is the problem. Those laws are nothing more than an expression of the application of the doctrines, but the discussion about “legalism” doesn’t get very far when it is understood to mean objection to church teaching.

It is the doctrines, not the laws derived from them, that prohibit the divorced and remarried from receiving communion, and following those doctrines is better known as faith than legalism.

Ender

I understand. But with respect to a marriage case presented to a tribunal, there are a multitude of technicalities involving time limits, appropriate diocesan jurisdiction, interpretations of provisions of Canon Law translated to English from the authorized Latin text (the only text that has force of law) and so on. These are not matters of doctrine, but can be significant in judging whether or not a marriage is found null and void under Canon Law. This can involve something as remote from doctrine as whether or not a letter was sent within a specific time period, whether a certified mail receipt was signed or where one party resides.

 

[Brendan]

This is true, but the question remains: is the abandoned/remarried spouse mortally or venially culpable? That is: are the three conditions of grave matter, full knowledge, full consent of the will present in each case? One could argue the latter isn’t in some cases, which is why I believe there may be room to consider individual circumstances in a way that, while it might violate the letter of the law, doesn’t violate its spirit nor suggest permissiveness. This is where mercy meets human weakness. It’s where a judge shows mercy to a starving man stealing a loaf of bread, and where application of the letter of the law would be a greater cruelty than doing injury to the law itself.

Understood, but either way, the adultery is highly offensive to God, even if the person is not personally assigned guilt (or much guilt) for the offense

And thus the adultery is to cease.

 

[gracepoole]

Did you read any of my comments about when mercy was or was not appropriate? Mercy requires repentance, without that mercy is not appropriate. Otherwise it is merely the indulgence of evil.

Ender

I haven’t disagreed with you. I’m just extremely uncomfortable claiming that we should pay more or less attention to giving mercy to some who are repentant over others who are also repentant.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Did you read any of my comments about when mercy was or was not appropriate? Mercy requires repentance, without that mercy is not appropriate. Otherwise it is merely the indulgence of evil.

Ender

Exactly. This is the Jesus Christ of the Gospels anyway…

 

[KSU]

Last night, Cardinal Wuerl was interviewed by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN’s The World Over.

The Cardinal was requested, twice, to say whether or not the Synod opened the door to possible reception of the Eucharist by those in irregular marriages. He replied at length about mercy being at the center of the Faith, etc., but offered no clarification regarding the question.

 

[JimG]

This is true, but the question remains: is the abandoned/remarried spouse mortally or venially culpable? That is: are the three conditions of grave matter, full knowledge, full consent of the will present in each case? One could argue the latter isn’t in some cases, which is why I believe there may be room to consider individual circumstances in a way that, while it might violate the letter of the law, doesn’t violate its spirit nor suggest permissiveness. This is where mercy meets human weakness. It’s where a judge shows mercy to a starving man stealing a loaf of bread, and where application of the letter of the law would be a greater cruelty than doing injury to the law itself.

Without regard to degree of culpability for the breakup of the first marriage, there remains ultimately the question of the status of the marriage itself. If the marriage is valid, then a second marriage on the part of either party is void, and thus, an adulterous union. If the first marriage is not valid, then either party is free to remarry.

There is no way to say that the innocent party is relieved from the marriage vows and the guilty party is not. A marriage cannot be both valid and invalid at the same time. I don’t see how the application of mercy can resolve the situation. If the innocent party is in a second marriage and allowed to receive communion, (assuming ongoing sexual relations) then the first marriage must be declared null for both parties.

 

[gilliam]

The Cardinal was requested, twice, to say whether or not the Synod opened the door to possible reception of the Eucharist by those in irregular marriages. He replied at length about mercy being at the center of the Faith, etc., but offered no clarification regarding the question.

Not sure what “opened the door” means in this context. The door was closed by the previous pope and a Synod doesn’t have the power to open it. The only one who can right now is Pope Francis and we won’t know if he does until the Apostolic Exhortation is released.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Last night, Cardinal Wuerl was interviewed by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN’s The World Over.

The Cardinal was requested, twice, to say whether or not the Synod opened the door to possible reception of the Eucharist by those in irregular marriages. He replied at length about mercy being at the center of the Faith, etc., but offered no clarification regarding the question.

I’ll take that as a no… IMHO, if it was a “yes” I think he would have been right on top of that. Just a hunch.

 

[KSU]

“In the Gospels there is usually no conflict between law and mercy. But when there is, Jesus always chooses mercy, never letting someone suffer.” - Fr. James Martin

I think he is correct here.

Did Fr. Martin give examples of the conflicts in Scripture where Jesus trumped the law for the sake of mercy?

Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Not sure what “opened the door” means in this context. The door was closed by the previous pope and a Synod doesn’t have the power to open it. The only one who can right now is Pope Francis and we won’t know if he does until the Apostolic Exhortation is released.

I thought the Synod reviewed this issue as part of the overall three week discussion, no? And voted on the paragraphs in the final report with reference to it? Opined if you will, as requested by the Pope. I can see this (name removed by moderator)ut could be perceived as “opening a door” or “closing a door.”

Cardinal Dolan:
"The Church’s longstanding practice—recently confirmed clearly by St. John Paul II after the synod on the family in 1980, and renewed by Pope Benedict XVI after the synod on the Eucharist in 2005—is that they cannot as long the second conjugal union continues. It is the necessary consequence of what Jesus taught about divorce and re-marriage and of what St. Paul the Apostle taught about being in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion. The final proposals of the Synod bishops did nothing to alter that teaching.

Catholics in such situations are often carrying a heavy cross; they may well feel like the forlorn disciples on the road to Emmaus. Yet the Church cannot admit them to Holy Communion if she is to remain faithful to the teaching of Christ. The synod did not change any of this, despite what you may have read in misinformed reports."