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

[Ender]

Oh, yeah? Well what about Mercy? It trumps love, you know.

Welllll, one virtue does not trump another. The virtues differ from one another but they are not in opposition.

Ender

 

[Trad_Catholic27]

True Mercy is telling the adulterous man or woman to return to the Confessional and to get there marriage annulled.

The Church has viewed Sin especially Mortal Sin as an offense against God and His Divine Laws.

There cannot be Communion for the divorced or remarried period until they go to the Confessional.

 

[gracepoole]

That’s not what is at issue here. The mercy being spoken of is for the unrepentant. That’s the difference.

Ender

Neither you nor I nor anyone here can possibly say who among the divorced and remarried is repentant. This is why it strikes me as problematic to say that the Church is focusing too much on this group of people and not enough on others also deserving of mercy. And this is the claim to which I was responding.

 

[LongingSoul]

True Mercy is telling the adulterous man or woman to return to the Confessional and to get there marriage annulled.

.

People can be helped to understand what it is that makes a marriage valid, but what of those who can’t fit their situation to the tribunals criteria? Tney married in the church, were madly in love and sexually bonded. It just broke down. The vow didn’t work. Is that the end of there sacramental life?

 

[pnewton]

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.

Then he answered correctly. The synod chose to make no statement on this. Arroyo knows this, but his interviewing can be rather leading if he wants to try an make a point with his own words.

 

[OraLabora]

And thus the adultery is to cease.

Keeping in mind of course, that there may be an uncooperative partner in the second union. This may especially be true in cultures where women are subjected to a much more submissive role in the family. Again, a situation where culpability may be lessened for the grave matter.

Life isn’t always black and white

It isn’t adultery if the first marriage was invalid.

Another view is that if enough penance has been put in the culpability is lessened (say the person has been in a second faithful marriage for 35 years and the first marriage was abusive and only for 1 year.)

This is true. And I agree with your second part. My wife is a family physician and she sees the physical and psychological pain that messy situations often cause. Unfortunately it is rarely a case of black-and-white “s/he left for another /boss/secretary/whatever”. My wife related a particularly sad case last night; 15 years ago she delivered a severely handicapped child. The parents, to their credit, elected to raise the child at home. It was a 24/7 job. Eventually the strain was simply too much and the marriage failed. Then some time later, after single-mothering the handicapped child while holding down a job, the mother found a new man willing to accept the situation; the result was a new blended family.

Fast-forward and the mentally and physically handicapped child made an accusation of sexual impropriety on the part of the stepfather. Who knows it may be true but the stepfather is now in jail, because for such matters it’s essentially “guilty until proven innocent” in these parts. It’s his word against that of the handicapped child. You can imagine the strain on the poor mother.

These sorts of situations, more or less unheard of 50 or 100 years ago when divorce was more difficult to obtain, are increasingly common.

When people in these kinds of situations come to the Church asking for help & healing, what is the answer we can give them? Yes to warming a pew but no to sacramental grace?

 

[pnewton]

I’m lost. If the door was closed by B XVI, even Pope Francis can’t open it. Right?

The answer to this goes to central question of when doctrine ends and discipline begins. Pope Francis can open any door involving discipline, even those which are a consequence of doctrine, if he believes the issue does not rise to the level of doctrine. Perhaps there is another consequence of doctrine that would also work. But this is all just begging the question that not all cardinals and theologians agree on.

I would be surprised if Pope Francis makes any greater statement than was made at the synod over the matter. Communion for the remarried will not be “open” under Pope Francis for the same reason it has never been open. Now a better question is whether more paths might exist for those whom a priest can determine is not in a state of grave sin. Some might find it possible to receive who could not before, but I wouldn’t bet on it being too many.

 

[Brendan]

Keeping in mind of course, that there may be an uncooperative partner in the second union. This may especially be true in cultures where women are subjected to a much more submissive role in the family. Again, a situation where culpability may be lessened for the grave matter.

Even so, the adultery must cease.

 

[OraLabora]

The answer to this goes to central question of when doctrine ends and discipline begins. Pope Francis can open any door involving discipline, even those which are a consequence of doctrine, if he believes the issue does not rise to the level of doctrine. Perhaps there is another consequence of doctrine that would also work. But this is all just begging the question that not all cardinals and theologians agree on.

I would be surprised if Pope Francis makes any greater statement than was made at the synod over the matter. Communion for the remarried will not be “open” under Pope Francis for the same reason it has never been open. Now a better question is whether more paths might exist for those whom a priest can determine is not in a state of grave sin. Some might find it possible to receive who could not before, but I wouldn’t bet on it being too many.

Like you I don’t think, officially at least, that the doors will thrown wide open.

But I do think and pray that some paths will be open for people in situations that are complex and far from black-and-white.

The real danger I guess is that this may lead to a liberal interpretation by some more liberal priests and bishops, and a more restrictive one by more conservative clergy. And the result of that would be unequal application of the law which in itself can lead to injustice. I think that might be the biggest danger of a vague general statement of principles. I believe some form of guidelines will be required.

Or we may just end up with situations like birth control where some confessors take a “meh” attitude towards its gravity and others who are far stricter about it in the confessional.

Truth be told, I happen to know that on the issue of divorced and remarried, many clergy already simply look the other way and let the communicant take responsibility for his or her choice to receive and the possible eternal consequences thereof.

We are a 1-billion strong Church and like any institution with 1 billion members there is going to be a wide range of opinions, interpretations, practices, etc. Humanity is messy. It’s like herding cats to get everyone doing the same thing. I think it’s simply unrealistic to expect anything else so I’ve long ago stopped losing sleep over people who don’t toe the line or who have a loosey-goosey approach to doctrine.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by 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.

Then he answered correctly. The synod chose to make no statement on this. Arroyo knows this, but his interviewing can be rather leading if he wants to try an make a point with his own words.

You may want to ease up a bit on Arroyo. It hopefully is a minority view, but at least two prelates ( the Synod’s Special Secretary, Archbishop Bruno Forte, and Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster) disagree with you about what the Synod did:

Archbishop Bruno Forte, the synod’s special secretary, told the Italian Episcopal Conference’s radio station that the final report permits the reception of Holy Communion by “some” persons who have remarried outside the Church, following an examination of conscience and a discernment process with their pastors. Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster lent support to the latter interpretation, telling journalists that “no one will set out on this pathway [of discernment] with the single aim of receiving Holy Communion. And nobody will be accompanied on this pathway with the single principle that they can’t.” The synod, he added, “quite deliberately set aside the question of admission to the Eucharist, because that had become a yes-no issue. And the very nature of this is that it’s not as simple as yes-no.” “It’s a pathway,” he said. “And it is not for me or for the priest who is doing the accompaniment to pre-empt or foreclose that pathway.”
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26530

 

[Ender]

But I do think and pray that some paths will be open for people in situations that are complex and far from black-and-white.

But…isn’t it an either/or situation? Either they are prohibited by grave sin or they aren’t. Where is the grayness here?

The real danger I guess is that this may lead to a liberal interpretation by some more liberal priests and bishops, and a more restrictive one by more conservative clergy. And the result of that would be unequal application of the law which in itself can lead to injustice. I think that might be the biggest danger of a vague general statement of principles. I believe some form of guidelines will be required.

I fully agree with this. Regrettably, this seems what is most likely to happen, and if it does it will only reinforce the perception among many Catholics that church doctrines are optional.

I think it’s simply unrealistic to expect anything else so I’ve long ago stopped losing sleep over people who don’t toe the line or who have a loosey-goosey approach to doctrine.

It is bad enough when the laity has this attitude. It is catastrophic when the bishops have it.

Ender

 

[ProVobis]

But…isn’t it an either/or situation? Either they are prohibited by grave sin or they aren’t. Where is the grayness here?

In fairness to OraLabora, he does have a point. For example, there might be an elderly couple who are just living out their lives as comfortably as possible and so forth. It’s an entirely different matter for vibrant couples who have rejected the Church and refuse to consider any kind of reconciliation.

 

[OraLabora]

Even so, the adultery must cease.

This doesn’t strike me as particularly helpful to someone in a difficult situation for example where the other partner is uncooperative about ending marital relations, and the Catholic partner is in a situation where a second separation could cause hardship to children or their mother, for example. Culpability can thus be reduced.

But…isn’t it an either/or situation? Either they are prohibited by grave sin or they aren’t. Where is the grayness here?

Gravity of a sin is objective. Culpability is subjective.

Again to be in a state of mortal sin, three conditions must come together: grave matter (yes), full knowledge (maybe), full consent (maybe). In the example above, consent may not be full. Thus, the person isn’t in a state of mortal sin. It would seem to me to be far more helpful to allow that person access to sacramental grace which may give her the strength to either exit the union if feasible, or bring her partner, with time, on side to the Christian view if it isn’t feasible to split. Sacramental grace as medicine, not reward, to paraphrase the Holy Father.

 

[JimG]

But…isn’t it an either/or situation? Either they are prohibited by grave sin or they aren’t. Where is the grayness here?

I fully agree with this. Regrettably, this seems what is most likely to happen, and if it does it will only reinforce the perception among many Catholics that church doctrines are optional.

It is bad enough when the laity has this attitude. It is catastrophic when the bishops have it.

Ender

“They didn’t stand up and shout, “Jesus was wrong” or “Jesus, like Homer, sometimes nods” or “We can forgive Jesus his unfortunate and not-very-merciful error since he, poor man, didn’t have the benefit of the moral wisdom readily available to those of us who are so happy as to live in the marvelous twenty-first century.” But this is the real meaning of what they were proposing.” --David Carlin, Does Jesus Nod?

 

[Brendan]

This doesn’t strike me as particularly helpful to someone in a difficult situation for example where the other partner is uncooperative about ending marital relations, and the Catholic partner is in a situation where a second separation could cause hardship to children or their mother, for example. Culpability can thus be reduced…

Do they regret their attempt at marriage while they are married to another?

Do they regret when they are either emotionally or financially compelled to engage in adulterous sex?

Have they come to accept that they are still in a marital bond to their valid spouse?

If so, I can see your point. The civil relationship is, at that point, a type of forced prostitution. And yes, culpability can be reduced.

But absent those recognitions of truth, I would say that they are still on the path to reception of the Sacraments, but not their yet.

The Church is called to accompany them along their journey to the point where they recognize the validity of the marital bond and have regret over entering into a adulterous relationship.

Church should also spare no effort in converting the reluctant party to the truth of their relationship.

 

[Thomas_White]

“But I say to you, whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

What does “in his heart” mean? What then is adultery? Is it perhaps any sexual activity not intended for the sole purpose of procreation? This is one of the difficulties of judging others before taking the timber out of one’s own eye.

 

[Brendan]

“But I say to you, whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

What does “in his heart” mean? What then is adultery? Is it perhaps any sexual activity not intended for the sole purpose of procreation? This is one of the difficulties of judging others before taking the timber out of one’s own eye.

The moral fault occurs when the person makes the decision to commit the moral wrong. If one decides to murder another, but mistakenly shoots a mannequin instead, they are still guilty of the sin of murder.

If a married man makes the decision that he would commit adultery with a woman, if given the chance, he is already an adulterer.

As far as any sexual activity outside of the purpose of procreation, the adultery fits in when one or both parties is married, and the act occurs outside of the marital bond.

If neither are married, the act is fornication. If the act is singular, it is masturbation. If the end of the act is outside the normal procreative method, the act is sodomy.

So those acts are not the same, they fall under the same genus of sexual sins, but are distinct among themselves.

 

[DlandFan06]

ROME — “The frame of reference is now going to be: ‘What does the Gospel really say here?’ That’s our first task.”

That’s Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl summing up the new course for Catholicism set by the momentous Vatican meeting of 270 bishops from around the world that concluded last weekend, a three-week marathon in which he played a key role.

After often-contentious talks on whether to adapt the Church’s approach to issues such as divorce and cohabitation, the high-level synod succeeded in giving Pope Francis a document that offers him significant new flexibility in shaping more pastoral policies.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/10/28/cardinal-wuerl-the-catholic-church-is-moving-from-legalism-to-mercy/

So what does this mean then? Are to just look away when sin is being committed? This type of talk doesn’t fly in the criminal justice system.

 

[LongingSoul]

So what does this mean then? Are to just look away when sin is being committed? This type of talk doesn’t fly in the criminal justice system.

Coincidentally, I am travelling/sightseeing in Tasmania at the moment and this past day we have just visited Port Arthur… one of the earliest covict settlements here. It was quite confrounting to learn of the harshness of the criminal justice system then compared a mere 150 years later to now. In the 1830s males were cosidered fully culpable for crime from age 9 and sent on squalid covict ships 10,000 miles from their homes and families to this hell on earth. There were punishments like flogging and brutal solitary confinements that sent men insane for crimes like insolence towards a soldier.

The criminal justice system is being changed all the time as we become more knowledgeable about what costitutes culpability and the human capacity for reform. How much more knowledgable must God be about that aspect of us. Human dignity demands that we show respect and dignity towards ou fellow man as we grow in unity and brotherhood.

 

[KSU]

“They didn’t stand up and shout, “Jesus was wrong” or “Jesus, like Homer, sometimes nods” or “We can forgive Jesus his unfortunate and not-very-merciful error since he, poor man, didn’t have the benefit of the moral wisdom readily available to those of us who are so happy as to live in the marvelous twenty-first century.” But this is the real meaning of what they were proposing.” --David Carlin, Does Jesus Nod?

What a great summation to the Synod thus far. Even the comments are worth reading.