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

[Brendan]

I do not doubt that some people may be confused about this. However, disagreement is not the same as confusion, two terms which themselves are often interchanged here for effect, when actual the tactic just begs the question. I have yet to see anyone, CA apologists, posters, or any bishop, quote authoritative church documents that state civilly divorced and remarried cannot receive communion is a doctrine of the Catholic Church. .

There are some doctrines that are in play here

1. At attempt at remarriage while one’s valid spouse is alive is adultery ( Matt 5:27-28)
2. Adultery is grave sin (Hebrews 13:4)
3. Those who are in grave sin gain no benefit from Holy Communion, in fact, it is determinant to their spiritual life ( 1 Cor 11:29)

So the denial of Holy Communion is require by doctrine

That is why Pope Saint John Paul II noted that this practice is based on Sacred Scripture

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.

Familaris Consortio - 84

Do you disagree with JPII’s assessment of the authority of the ban, or it’s Scriptural necessity?

 

[Ender]

I have yet to see anyone, CA apologists, posters, or any bishop, quote authoritative church documents that state civilly divorced and remarried cannot receive communion is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

If there is a good argument that it is not doctrine I have yet to see it. There are very powerful reasons to accept it as doctrinal.
*Epikeia and aequitas canonica exist in the sphere of human and purely ecclesiastical norms of great significance, but cannot be applied to those norms over which the Church has no discretionary authority. The indissoluble nature of marriage is one of these norms which goes back to Christ Himself and is thus identified as a norm of divine law. The Church cannot sanction pastoral practices - for example, sacramental pastoral practices - which contradict the clear instruction of the Lord. *

In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception. (Ratzinger)
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

You are mixing two different issues. No one has claimed that a full understanding of every revelation has been reached; everyone expects and allows for the expansion of doctrine. What is rejected is the idea that doctrines can change to the extent they can be reversed, or that what the church doctrinally proclaims can be denied if one fervently disagrees with it. Ratzinger was discussing the refinement of doctrine, not its reversal.

Ender

You are mixing two different issues. No one has claimed that a full understanding of every revelation has been reached; everyone expects and allows for the expansion of doctrine. What is rejected is the idea that doctrines can change to the extent they can be reversed, or that what the church doctrinally proclaims can be denied if one fervently disagrees with it. Ratzinger was discussing the refinement of doctrine, not its reversal.

Ender

That no one has claimed that a full understanding of every revelation has been been reached is the point, and no one has said that doctrines can change to the extent they can be reversed.

 

[Thomas_White]

You are mixing two different issues. No one has claimed that a full understanding of every revelation has been reached; everyone expects and allows for the expansion of doctrine. What is rejected is the idea that doctrines can change to the extent they can be reversed, or that what the church doctrinally proclaims can be denied if one fervently disagrees with it. Ratzinger was discussing the refinement of doctrine, not its reversal.

Ender

That no one has claimed that a full understanding of every revelation has been been reached is the point, and no one has said that doctrines can change to the extent they can be reversed (or even at all).

 

[Ender]

That no one has claimed that a full understanding of every revelation has been been reached is the point, and no one has said that doctrines can change to the extent they can be reversed (or even at all).

Good, then we should be agreed on the fact that the doctrines that now prohibit the reception of communion by the divorced and remarried cannot change to the extent that they will permit it in the future.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Actually, I think it is basic to what the church claims about herself.The knowledge which the church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. (Fides et Ratio #7)

The Church gratefully accepts and lovingly preserves the entire deposit of Revelation, treating it with religious respect and fulfilling her mission of authentically interpreting God’s law in the light of the Gospel. (Veritatis Splendor #45)

…the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. (Dei Verbum #10)
To reject these claims is to reject an essential truth of Catholicism. If you don’t believe these claims then what is the sense of believing anything the church says?

Ender

It has not been questioned that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church…”

This is the proper role of the Church, and rejection of this ‘claim’ has not been asserted. What I do question, Ender, is why you question whether this claim is believed and what then “is the sense of believing anything the church says?” I believe it is righteous judgments of this sort that are so typical that ought to be questioned.

If the concern is the question of whether the divorced and remarried could be permitted to receive communion, it is noted the Church has long had a provision where this is permitted.

 

[pnewton]

The Church is clear on the issue of divorced/ remarried and the reception of Communion. Popes JP II and Benedict, as well as the Congregation for the
Doc. of the Faith, have spoken to this issue.

While all of these have spoken to many issues, what has not been said, and no one has yet shown where there has been addressed, is where it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that no one who has remarried may not receive communion. I know that they may not. I understand. Yet, I have yet to see where the Church has declared it a doctrine. Citing other doctrines, names and the plethora of other known and agreed upon issues will not add up to a doctrine being proclaimed by the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Citing other doctrines, names and the plethora of other known and agreed upon issues will not add up to a doctrine being proclaimed by the Magisterium of the Church.

What has been said is that the divorced and ‘remarriage’ cannot receive without violating one of the doctrines that HAVE been presented.

Do you hold that the Church must establish a separate doctrine for every individual sin that falls under St. Paul’s prohibition on unworthy reception of Holy Communion?

 

[pnewton]

There are some doctrines that are in play here

1. At attempt at remarriage while one’s valid spouse is alive is adultery ( Matt 5:27-28)
2. Adultery is grave sin (Hebrews 13:4)
3. Those who are in grave sin gain no benefit from Holy Communion, in fact, it is determinant to their spiritual life ( 1 Cor 11:29)

Yes, though on that last verse, let me quote it more fully, as the qualifying conjunction derives its effect from the preceding cause.

• Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. ** For *those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

So the denial of Holy Communion is require by doctrine

That is the commonly held opinion, though like I have said, Catholic theologians and bishops are split on this, at least that it is an absolute requirement.

That is why Pope Saint John Paul II noted that this practice is based on Sacred Scripture

Familaris Consortio - 84

Do you disagree with JPII’s assessment of the authority of the ban, or it’s Scriptural necessity?

No I do not disagree with it. Do you disagree that Saint John Paul called it a practice, not a doctrine? I do not think anyone questions that this is the practice of the Catholic Church.

I know I have said this before, but let me reiterate, that I am not necessarily in favor of admitting remarried into communion, though I might believe there is more that one way of determining whether they are in fact, in a second valid marriage. I surely believe those bishops who want a strict control on annulments and communion have pastoral reasons. The use of Church discipline to address sin has always been motivated for mercy.

 

[Ender]

It has not been questioned that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church…”

You keep making statements that imply things you apparently don’t mean. I was replying to this:The difficulty occurs when existing doctrine and Church teaching is confused with revealed truth.
The apparent meaning of this sentence is that church doctrine is not, or at least is not always, based on revealed truth. If that isn’t what you meant then explain what you were trying to say here.

If the concern is the question of whether the divorced and remarried could be permitted to receive communion, it is noted the Church has long had a provision where this is permitted.

This is true but misleading. What you refer to is the reception of communion by those who fulfill certain specific requirements. Phrasing it the way you did makes it easy to misunderstand this point.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

What has been said is that the divorced and ‘remarriage’ cannot receive without violating one of the doctrines that HAVE been presented.

Do you hold that the Church must establish a separate doctrine for every individual sin that falls under St. Paul’s prohibition on unworthy reception of Holy Communion?

No. The specific prohibition St. Paul gave covered everything, but it is not the criteria the Church uses. St. Paul specifically appealed to self-examination.

 

[Ender]

That is the commonly held opinion, though like I have said, Catholic theologians and bishops are split on this, at least that it is an absolute requirement.

I think you have been taken in by a disingenuous argument. Which doctrine do “Catholic theologians and bishops” believe is not absolute? The assertions that have been made are vague and imprecise precisely because the position will collapse as soon as it becomes specific. The moment someone claims “this doctrine does not apply” is the moment the argument becomes obviously unsupportable. It will survive only as long as it remains unfocused and generic. If you disagree, you can make a specific suggestion as to how all this might work.

Ender

 

[Ender]

No. The specific prohibition St. Paul gave covered everything, but it is not the criteria the Church uses. St. Paul specifically appealed to self-examination.

That St. Paul gave one criterion does not preclude the possibility of others. The requirement for self-examination is expressed in Canon 916, which specifies the responsibility of the individual. Clearly the existence of Canon 916 did not preclude the existence of Canon 915, which details the responsibility of the minister of communion.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

If there is a good argument that it is not doctrine I have yet to see it.

An argument from absence can be valid if there is compelling reason to believe something should exist. I can think of no other doctrine that the Church believes, but use not said or defined. In fact, one could say that it is the very defining of an idea that makes it doctrine. Yet where the Church speaks of this, she uses words like “practice”.

Even in the latest document, two-thirds of the synod did not want this specifically included. The conservative bishops who constituted the minority on this vote are equally valid in their opinions, but yet they were in the minority.

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.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is part of the Sacred Tradition, the Deposit of Faith that was given to

Whether the Sacred Tradition is clearly understood

My reply asked the question of whether revealed truth is ‘revealed’ in the sense of being at once fully understood by man. Was the Apostolic preaching immediately understood or was there a process of understanding? When would this process end? Why was a synod held? These are obvious questions.

Sacred Scripture is the same, it must be interpreted by an infallible source. Would you claim that Scripture is not revealed truths?

No.

Where does Dei Verbum stated that what is known about a truth becomes false? If contraception is known to be intrinsically evil, can that truth become false, in that it is neither the evil is not in intrinsic, or that the evil is, in fact, a good?

No one has said Dei Verbum states that a truth can become false. To even ask this question reveals a misunderstanding. That there even could be “intrinsic evil” is to misunderstand the nature of God’s good Creation.

I understand the teaching, my premise is that you do not.

My proof of that premise is that you cannot take the teachings of Dei Verbum and actually apply it to a situation.

Could or would are not the same thing. Do you suppose the understanding of Apostolic preaching has never in any instance advanced during the past 2,000 years? I do not see that such a question would even deserve consideration.

The question about contraction still remains, does an increase in understanding about a truth render the truth to be false. Can what is revealed, via the Deposit of Faith, become false? Can what is known to be intrinsically evil, become false, in that it is neither the evil is not in intrinsic, or that the evil is, in fact, a good?

It is a simple, yes or no question. I claim that the answer is ‘no’.

What is your answer?

The question itself reveals a lack of understanding of Dei Verbum. The understanding of revelation and revealed truth is a process. It is noted that a papal commission was appointed by Pope Paul VI to consider the question of contraception. I would doubt this was done on the premise the teaching could not change. In my view, you are questioning Church dogma.

 

[steve_b]

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/

I heard him interviewed by Raymond Arroyo. Wurel played dodge ball with Raymond’s tough questions.

 

[anthrogirl]

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.

 

[gilliam]

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…

 

[JimG]

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…

In practice, there is nothing to prevent a divorced and remarried person from presenting himself for communion. In a large parish, his marital status is not known to the priest or EMHC. 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.

 

[Brendan]

The question itself reveals a lack of understanding of Dei Verbum. The understanding of revelation and revealed truth is a process. It is noted that a papal commission was appointed by Pope Paul VI to consider the question of contraception. I would doubt this was done on the premise the teaching could not change

.

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.

In my view, you are questioning Church dogma.

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