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

[JimG]

“The Synod has ended, and what a strange thing it is to hear the sighs of relief coming from some respected quarters of the Church. “It didn’t contradict the teachings of the Church.” “There is no doctrinal error in anything that has been published.” “The Synod itself is much, much better than the worst we have feared.” How did we arrive at the point where we are rejoicing that a Synod didn’t overthrow the teachings of the Church, and the Synod turned out to be much better than we had feared? That’s quite a commentary on the state of the Church today.”
Fr. Mark Pilon, from The Catholic Thing
thecatholicthing.org/

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t see it that way. The Church may be addressing the divorced and remarried right now but I don’t believe it’s at the expense of anyone who doesn’t fall into this category. For example, the Pope has made it possible for all priests to forgive the sin of abortion during the Year of Mercy. And of course, if the divorced and remarried represent a group that’s distanced from the Church (and therefore from Christ), it seems prudent to put as much time and energy as are needed into bringing them back into full communion.

At least in the US, priests have already had the capacity to forgive abortion. This is nothing new.

Pope Francis’ Sept. 1 announcement that priests worldwide will be able to absolve women for the sin of abortion will have little effect on pastoral practices in the United States and Canada, where most priests already have such authority in the sacrament of reconciliation.

“It is my understanding that the faculty for the priest to lift the ‘latae sententiae’ excommunication for abortion is almost universally granted in North America,” said Don Clemmer, interim director of media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2015/priests-in-us-canada-can-already-absolve-women-who-had-abortions.cfm

More Christians have been martyred in the last 115 years than all other centuries combined. They are not worried about taking communion after divorce and remarriage. Ditto aborted fetuses - 1-2 billion worldwide. Ditto the sick, the elderly, the poor, the refugees, the immigrants, the unemployed, the abused, the homeless, the terminally ill, the spiritually impoverished.

 

[gracepoole]

At least in the US, priests have already had the capacity to forgive abortion. This is nothing new.

More Christians have been martyred in the last 115 years than all other centuries combined. They are not worried about taking communion after divorce and remarriage. Ditto aborted fetuses - 1-2 billion worldwide. Ditto the sick, the elderly, the poor, the refugees, the immigrants, the unemployed, the abused, the homeless, the terminally ill, the spiritually impoverished.

But isn’t this a bit like saying, “Why should we focus on the poor (or refugees or the unemployed or…) when abortion is so rampant?” Surely we have enough compassion and energy to deal with many groups who need mercy – and so does the Church (moreso, I’d say). I imagine some sheep would bleat, “Why is the master searching for Henry when he wandered off of his own accord? Why is he spending so much time on Henry? What about those of us who are suffering in other ways?” Thankfully, Christ and His Church will never stop searching and assisting the lost, and the mercy of both is infinite. Aren’t we meant to model them in this way?

And of course, as I know you know, the Church is far more than North America. It’s great that priests on that continent can forgive abortion – it’s also a sign of mercy that this has been extended to other areas around the world beginning in December.

 

[ProVobis]

And of course, if the divorced and remarried represent a group that’s distanced from the Church (and therefore from Christ), it seems prudent to put as much time and energy as are needed into bringing them back into full communion.

It seems they’ve made the conscious effort to distance THEMSELVES from the Church. Meanwhile there are the homeless, the single parents, and others who have no one to turn to. If you have limited resources, which do you spend more time and energy on? Sure, maybe there are D/R couples who BOTH have decided to return to God and that’s good. But on whose terms, theirs or the Church’s?

 

[gracepoole]

It seems they’ve made the conscious effort to distance THEMSELVES from the Church. Meanwhile there are the homeless, the single parents, and others who have no one to turn to. If you have limited resources, which do you spend more time and energy on? Sure, maybe there are D/R couples who BOTH have decided to return to God and that’s good. But on whose terms, theirs or the Church’s?

See my previous post, which I think might have crossed with yours. It explains my view of the “what about group X” and “Henry wandered off on his own” questions. The Church’s resources are far less limited than one might assume. Through its various dioceses, parishes, and apostolates, it has quite an impressive reach. Christ didn’t prioritize those in need of mercy, thankfully. Neither should we.

 

[FollowChrist34]

But isn’t this a bit like saying, “Why should we focus on the poor (or refugees or the unemployed or…) when abortion is so rampant?” Surely we have enough compassion and energy to deal with many groups who need mercy – and so does the Church (moreso, I’d say). I imagine some sheep would bleat, “Why is the master searching for Henry when he wandered off of his own accord? Why is he spending so much time on Henry? What about those of us who are suffering in other ways?” Thankfully, Christ and His Church will never stop searching and assisting the lost, and the mercy of both is infinite. Aren’t we meant to model them in this way?

And of course, as I know you know, the Church is far more than North America. It’s great that priests on that continent can forgive abortion – it’s also a sign of mercy that this has been extended to other areas around the world beginning in December.

I honestly believe if I were divorced and remarried (which I am not) I would not be tearing down the Church door in tears over this issue. I would either (1) get an annulment or (2) go to Church and not take communion. I can’t tell you how many more homeless people I see everyday than I do the suffering remarried/divorced. This is Westernized, “Princess and the Pea” suffering, IMHO. Just ask someone in chemo. Or someone who just lost their job. Or their homeland. Or their head.

 

[Thomas_White]

I do personally find it odd that this one group of people and their cause (the divorced and remarried and their capacity/incapacity to take communion) has so cornered, consumed even, the mercy and focus of the Church. (not to overlook the odd crumb of course being offered to those in irregular unions or in active homosexual relationships) Frankly, it is a little surreal - tone deaf almost.

The teaching on divorce and remarriage is found in #1650 of the CCC. The language is plain and clear:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

This same teaching is found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church’s resources are far less limited than one might assume. Through its various dioceses, parishes, and apostolates, it has quite an impressive reach.

Somehow I don’t get that impression, but then maybe giving communion to everyone whether they’re properly disposed or not is sure to ensure sainthood for everyone.

 

[Mark121359]

Somehow I don’t get that impression, but then maybe giving communion to everyone whether they’re properly disposed or not is sure to ensure sainthood for everyone.

Sure. Especially since hell is practically impossible to be condemned to nowadays…or so it would seem reading some of the responses to threads about that topic on here of late.

---

Peace, Mark***

 

[gracepoole]

I honestly believe if I were divorced and remarried (which I am not) I would not be tearing down the Church door in tears over this issue. I would either (1) get an annulment or (2) go to Church and not take communion. I can’t tell you how many more homeless people I see everyday than I do the suffering remarried/divorced. This is Westernized, “Princess and the Pea” suffering, IMHO. Just ask someone in chemo. Or someone who just lost their job. Or their homeland. Or their head.

Yeah, I’m really no fan of the “First World Problem” meme. Probably for the same reason that I wouldn’t tell someone whose husband just left her that her suffering is less than that of someone undergoing chemo. Again – thankfully Christ didn’t and doesn’t prioritize those in need of mercy. He acknowledges suffering in an individual way. And thankfully He doesn’t require that one display his pain in order for it to be acknowledged.

 

[gracepoole]

Somehow I don’t get that impression, but then maybe giving communion to everyone whether they’re properly disposed or not is sure to ensure sainthood for everyone.

I’m not sure I understand – you don’t get the impression that the Catholic Church responds to and helps many different types of people who are in need?

 

[Trad_Catholic27]

We need Our Priests and Bishops to preach about Hell because the way things are today with the fact that mercy is talked about almost endlessly people need to know the Truth about mortal sin and the possibility of going to hell because of it

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yeah, I’m really no fan of the “First World Problem” meme. Probably for the same reason that I wouldn’t tell someone whose husband just left her that her suffering is less than that of someone undergoing chemo.

What did I say about the suffering of some poor woman whose husband left her?

Put in the context of her not being able to take communion (I am making that jump), does this make current Church practice and the suffering it inflicts the equal of cancer? Hopefully not.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure I understand – you don’t get the impression that the Catholic Church responds to and helps many different types of people who are in need?

Not only I but all those who think the Church doesn’t work fast enough on annulments among other things. Haven’t we covered this ad infinitum?

 

[gracepoole]

What did I say about the suffering of some poor woman whose husband left her?

Put in the context of her not being able to take communion (I am making that jump), does this make current Church practice and the suffering it inflicts the equal of cancer? Hopefully not.

You didn’t – it was an example of someone experiencing suffering and needing mercy. Certainly this hypothetical woman deserves mercy no less or more than anyone else.

I’ve said nothing about changing the Church’s teachings on marriage – and neither has the synod.

Not only I but all those who think the Church doesn’t work fast enough on annulments among other things. Haven’t we covered this ad infinitum?

No, we haven’t. If we read Catholic news outlets and participate here on CAF, we’ve simply heard about it ad infinitum.

 

[KSU]

I’ve said nothing about changing the Church’s teachings on marriage – and neither has the synod.

We have been hearing that for two years; no one wants to change Church teaching, just practice. It must be, then, that the Catholic news media has misled us. How else could we believe that some Synod prelates want to move away from the Church’s 2,000 year-old “unmerciful” reliance on some law or other in order to gradually allow adulterers and/or active gay couples to receive the Eucharist, provided of course that they are in the right frame of mind and that it of course does not involve a change in the Church’s teachings? After all, some believe that conscience is supreme.

pnewton, who has not said he is one of those people, in post #39 has shown how a prelate might do it. He asks:

“…If there is a time [Cannon Law] does not seem to work, meaning the Gospel is losing something in translation, can a bishop like Cardinal Wuerl exercise his office to follow the Gospel?”

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m not even sure what it means to move from legalism to mercy. If by “legalism,” we mean following the moral law, of course everyone is expected to follow the moral law. If by mercy we mean that we can simply disregard the moral law because it suits us to do so, none of us has that right.

And what does mercy have to do with an invalid marriage? Can mercy make an invalid marriage into a valid one? Can mercy declare a first marriage null?

In the article, Cardinal Wuerl is quoted as saying the following:

“I’ve had priests say to me that the pope is really just affirming what most of us know in our hearts that we are supposed to be doing anyway” (italics added).

This is almost certainly a reference to conscience.

 

[JimG]

In the article, Cardinal Wuerl is quoted as saying the following:

“I’ve had priests say to me that the pope is really just affirming what most of us know in our hearts that we are supposed to be doing anyway” (italics added).

This is almost certainly a reference to conscience.

Well, my question was whether mercy could make in invalid marriage into a valid one, or if mercy could make a first marriage null. The same question would apply to conscience. Can conscience make an invalid marriage to be valid? Can it make a valid marriage to be invalid?

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m not even sure what it means to move from legalism to mercy. If by “legalism,” we mean following the moral law, of course everyone is expected to follow the moral law. If by mercy we mean that we can simply disregard the moral law because it suits us to do so, none of us has that right.

And what does mercy have to do with an invalid marriage? Can mercy make an invalid marriage into a valid one? Can mercy declare a first marriage null?

In the article, Cardinal Wuerl is quoted as saying the following:

“I’ve had priests say to me that the pope is really just affirming what most of us know in our hearts that we are supposed to be doing anyway” (italics added).

This is almost certainly a reference to conscience.

Well, my question was whether mercy could make in invalid marriage into a valid one, or if mercy could make a first marriage null. The same question would apply to conscience. Can conscience make an invalid marriage to be valid? Can it make a valid marriage to be invalid?

No, of course an invalid marriage cannot be made into a valid marriage. In the context of comments voiced in the article, legalism would seem to mean following only the literal words of Canon Law. What “most of us know in our hearts we are supposed to be doing anyway” might reveal something different in individual cases. It would seem mercy is of the heart and not necessary the letter of the law. In a sense, it would be transcendent.

 

[JimG]

No, of course an invalid marriage cannot be made into a valid marriage. In the context of comments voiced in the article, legalism would seem to mean following only the literal words of Canon Law. What “most of us know in our hearts we are supposed to be doing anyway” might reveal something different in individual cases. It would seem mercy is of the heart and not necessary the letter of the law. In a sense, it would be transcendent.

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.