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

[Thomas_White]

The words and parables Jesus used to demonstrate what mercy is seem to very clearly make a distinction between mercy and just desserts though. Otherwise the unmerciful servant would not have been condemned by the Master for merely trying to follow the law in his dealings with his fellow servant. Otherwise the prodigals Father would have just accepted the son back as a lowly servant as the son had hoped. Mercy seems clearly to manifest in being apart from eye for eye justice and the logical consequences we deserve.

I would offer this observation:

“It is essential to remember that the truths of Holy Scripture should never be isolated. Always they must be fitted into the whole, where further truths develop or limit their sense, or balance them with some important counter-truth. For example, the message of the Angels on Christ’s birth night is one of peace to all who are of good will (Luke 2:14), and Jesus himself says he has come “to seek and to save what was lost”. Again and again he pities the many who wander restlessly about “like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). This sounds quite different from the words about the few who are chosen. Yet it too must be included. Both are true. Intellectually we cannot unravel the contradiction; we must try to accept it as it stands, each as best he can before God” (The Lord, Romano Guardini, pg. 106).

“The idea that few are chosen is hard to accept and profoundly discouraging–more discouraging than the apparently harsher supposition that, strictly speaking, no one is capable of fulfilling the Christian demands” (Ibid., pg. 105). Guardini goes on to say this is why mercy and forgiveness are offered.

 

[LongingSoul]

We are talking past one another.
Here is another expression of the idea that justice and mercy are not an either/or, and are not opposed to one another.

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/justmercy.htm
In God these attributes are unified, not separate. It is we who cannot reconcile them.

I don’t think I’m talking past you. You seem to not want to answer my question in a simple way.

You said “The point I was trying to make is, God is merciful when he chastises us and calls us to repentance. It is an act of love and mercy on God’s part to allow just consequences that flow from our freely chosen actions. Another sign of God’s mercy is the disciplines the Church employs for the sanctification and edification of the faithful.”

That just doesn’t seem like the message of the prodigal son or the unmerciful servant. What was the the prodigals father demonstrating by his wholesale forgiveness of everything and not only that, giving the boy so much more than he deserved? If mercy means chastising and disciplining and allowing consequences to flow… what then was the father demonstrating here?

 

[LongingSoul]

Maybe because mercy is sort of a two-way street? One shouldn’t EXPECT mercy if he’s not willing to do the same (“as we forgive those who trespass against us”).

Contemplating the verse gives me a strong sense that I’m obliged to be merciful rather than it being an optional path if I so fancy. I have to find every possible way to forgive the debts I’m owed having recourse to modes of justice only as a practical last resort. It’s the principle behind social welfare really.

 

[clem456]

I don’t think I’m talking past you. You seem to not want to answer my question in a simple way.

You said “The point I was trying to make is, God is merciful when he chastises us and calls us to repentance. It is an act of love and mercy on God’s part to allow just consequences that flow from our freely chosen actions. Another sign of God’s mercy is the disciplines the Church employs for the sanctification and edification of the faithful.”

That just doesn’t seem like the message of the prodigal son or the unmerciful servant. What was the the prodigals father demonstrating by his wholesale forgiveness of everything and not only that, giving the boy so much more than he deserved? If mercy means chastising and disciplining and allowing consequences to flow… what then was the father demonstrating here?

How do you imagine the Father does not allow consequences in this parable???

You are isolating the actions of the Father in the feel good moment and ignoring the rest of the parable. God is not pigeonholed in that way. He is not dead in the verse you choose. The Father is not a gumball machine waiting to eject the good stuff at the right moment, on demand from the son. The father does not simply stand there waiting to reward bad behavior.

Consider:
The father allows the son to freely choose from the beginning, knowing what the consequences of such an impulsive desire will be.
The son acts stupidly, and suffers the consequences. Do you see in the parable that the son suffers consequences?

The Father allows this because he is just and merciful, and does not violate free will. He honors our choices. Choices have consequences. Part of the mercy of the Father is, the Father allows his son to suffer consequences.
If the son did not suffer consequences and return to his senses, where is he now? A very successful debauched person.
In hell.
If he is grateful to his Father he is going to have to accept his providence in all things, including consequences. The writings of the saints is full of such gratitude.

 

[LongingSoul]

I would offer this observation:

“It is essential to remember that the truths of Holy Scripture should never be isolated. Always they must be fitted into the whole, where further truths develop or limit their sense, or balance them with some important counter-truth. For example, the message of the Angels on Christ’s birth night is one of peace to all who are of good will (Luke 2:14), and Jesus himself says he has come “to seek and to save what was lost”. Again and again he pities the many who wander restlessly about “like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). This sounds quite different from the words about the few who are chosen. Yet it too must be included. Both are true. Intellectually we cannot unravel the contradiction; we must try to accept it as it stands, each as best he can before God” (The Lord, Romano Guardini, pg. 106).

“The idea that few are chosen is hard to accept and profoundly discouraging–more discouraging than the apparently harsher supposition that, strictly speaking, no one is capable of fulfilling the Christian demands” (Ibid., pg. 105). Guardini goes on to say this is why mercy and forgiveness are offered.

I don’t really understand what you are getting at?

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t really understand what you are getting at?

“Again and again he pities the many who wander restlessly about “like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). This sounds quite different from the words about the few who are chosen. Yet it too must be included. Both are true. Intellectually we cannot unravel the contradiction…” (The Lord, Romano Guardini, pg. 106).

 

[Michael1978]

How do you imagine the Father does not allow consequences in this parable???

You are isolating the actions of the Father in the feel good moment and ignoring the rest of the parable. God is not pigeonholed in that way. He is not dead in the verse you choose. The Father is not a gumball machine waiting to eject the good stuff at the right moment, on demand from the son. The father does not simply stand there waiting to reward bad behavior.

Consider:
The father allows the son to freely choose from the beginning, knowing what the consequences of such an impulsive desire will be.
The son acts stupidly, and suffers the consequences. Do you see in the parable that the son suffers consequences?

The Father allows this because he is just and merciful, and does not violate free will. He honors our choices. Choices have consequences. Part of the mercy of the Father is, the Father allows his son to suffer consequences.
If the son did not suffer consequences and return to his senses, where is he now? A very successful debauched person.
In hell.
If he is grateful to his Father he is going to have to accept his providence in all things, including consequences. The writings of the saints is full of such gratitude.

Excellent post. The son from a prominent and wealthy family is reduced to feeding pigs in a field wishing that he had as much to eat as the pigs, solely because of the terrible decisions that he made. He received his just reward - in the filth with swine. The son, though he made foolish choices, was wise enough to see the error of his ways. He didn’t curse his father for not doing more for him. He didn’t demand his father give him more inheritance so that he could try again. Heck, he didn’t even ask his father to take him back as his son: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.” And we know the rest of the story. With the current discussion on mercy, some seem to want to focus on the mercy extended by the father to his son without addressing the fact that the son approached the father begging for mercy and repenting of his sin. He didn’t demand mercy from his father and he didn’t demand the father accept his debauched lifestyle. He confessed and repented and was shown mercy.

 

[LongingSoul]

How do you imagine the Father does not allow consequences in this parable???

You are isolating the actions of the Father in the feel good moment and ignoring the rest of the parable. God is not pigeonholed in that way. He is not dead in the verse you choose. The Father is not a gumball machine waiting to eject the good stuff at the right moment, on demand from the son. The father does not simply stand there waiting to reward bad behavior.

Consider:
The father allows the son to freely choose from the beginning, knowing what the consequences of such an impulsive desire will be.
The son acts stupidly, and suffers the consequences. Do you see in the parable that the son suffers consequences?

The Father allows this because he is just and merciful, and does not violate free will. He honors our choices. Choices have consequences. Part of the mercy of the Father is, the Father allows his son to suffer consequences.
If the son did not suffer consequences and return to his senses, where is he now? A very successful debauched person.
In hell.
If he is grateful to his Father he is going to have to accept his providence in all things, including consequences. The writings of the saints is full of such gratitude.

But now what you are saying is different to what you said before. Can you explain what you said before in relation to the prodigals Fathers reaction…

"The point I was trying to make is, God is merciful when he chastises us and calls us to repentance. It is an act of love and mercy on God’s part to allow just consequences that flow from our freely chosen actions.* Another sign of God’s mercy is the disciplines the Church employs *for the sanctification and edification of the faithful."

Sure the Father let the son go but what of the rightful chastisement and the ‘disciplines’ he employs? The boy squandered an obviously large part of the families inheritance and now is going to welcomed back without so much as a dimes repayment. What do you call that Father if not merciful?

 

[clem456]

But now what you are saying is different to what you said before. Can you explain what you said before in relation to the prodigals Fathers reaction…

"The point I was trying to make is, God is merciful when he chastises us and calls us to repentance. It is an act of love and mercy on God’s part to allow just consequences that flow from our freely chosen actions.** Another sign of God’s mercy is the disciplines the Church employs **for the sanctification and edification of the faithful."

Sure the Father let the son go but what of the rightful chastisement and the ‘disciplines’ he employs? The boy squandered an obviously large part of the families inheritance and now is going to welcomed back without so much as a dimes repayment. What do you call that Father if not merciful?

I give up. Someone else can go at it as it seems you are just trying to find something to disagree with.

I didn’t say the Father is not merciful. Not once, not even implied.
Done.

 

[LongingSoul]

Excellent post. The son from a prominent and wealthy family is reduced to feeding pigs in a field wishing that he had as much to eat as the pigs, solely because of the terrible decisions that he made. He received his just reward - in the filth with swine. The son, though he made foolish choices, was wise enough to see the error of his ways. He didn’t curse his father for not doing more for him. He didn’t demand his father give him more inheritance so that he could try again. Heck, he didn’t even ask his father to take him back as his son: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.” And we know the rest of the story. With the current discussion on mercy, some seem to want to focus on the mercy extended by the father to his son without addressing the fact that the son approached the father begging for mercy and repenting of his sin. He didn’t demand mercy from his father and he didn’t demand the father accept his debauched lifestyle. He confessed and repented and was shown mercy.

That’s how Cardinal Kasper would no doubt describe someone divorced/remarried while they were off estranged from the Church, but had come back into the fold repentant and seeking inclusion. People don’t convert or revert because they are having a brilliant life as a sinner. They are missing something and longing for a deeper experience in the joy of Christ. They simply can’t repay the debt they owe. What then?

 

[LongingSoul]

I give up. Someone else can go at it as it seems you are just trying to find something to disagree with.

I didn’t say the Father is not merciful. Not once, not even implied.
Done.

I don’t know why you even brought it up then? The situations being addressed by the synod were invoking mercy as in the examples of the prodigal son and the unmerciful servant ie. having a debt or sin forgiven and full inclusion in the family again. What purpose did you think that defining mercy as ‘chastisement’ and ‘discipline’ would serve?

I think people should just come out and say what they mean and how they feel about the Popes synod challenge. It’s like playing with smoke and mirrors sometimes.

 

[KSU]

… I think Pope Francis is trying to bring back the emphasis on prescriptions [as opposed to proscriptions] by endeavoring to identify what is good in any relationship whether it is strictly valid or not. I really do like that approach because I know that even legitimate marriages can become prisons of the letter of the law when there is no emphasis on the spirit of the law concerning sacramental marriages.

Your most recent posts about mercy are of a piece with that opinion, i.e., you think Francis wanted the Synod to reflect new prescriptions rather than old proscriptions; that the spirit of the law should trump the letter of the law by means of more merciful prescriptions for new practices.

My opinion is that the Holy Father, with the blessing of Benedict XVI, actually wanted to explore that idea. He wanted to give it a no-holds-barred examination just to see if such new prescriptions, which evaded the prayer and theological searching of Benedict, could be found. Thus the invitation to the German and other like-minded prelates, including Synod officials, to give it their best shot. Hello, Spirit of the Synod.

That caused orthodox observers (like me) to wince and pray. We know that when the Church gives a prescriptive inch, progressives in practice** always** take a mile. Think “Spirit of Vatican II.”

After the Synod, Pope Francis said it wasn’t "…about finding exhaustive solutions for all the difficulties and uncertainties which challenge and threaten the family, but rather about seeing these difficulties and uncertainties in the light of the faith, carefully studying them and confronting them fearlessly, without burying our heads in the sand…”

He said, however, that is not to detract from the importance of formula, laws and divine commandments–your proscriptions, LS. He said, “Indeed, it means upholding all the more the laws and commandments, which were made for man and not vice versa.”
ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-synod-was-about-affirming-family-indissoluble-marriage/

Having said that, the only thing everybody agrees on is that nobody knows what Francis will do next. Personally, I think he sees us through the eyes of a distraught father grieving for his children suffering from proscriptions. And, because he often has shown himself to be susceptible to progressive influence, he might again be inclined to giving a prescriptive inch.

 

[Michael1978]

That’s how Cardinal Kasper would no doubt describe someone divorced/remarried while they were off estranged from the Church, but had come back into the fold repentant and seeking inclusion. People don’t convert or revert because they are having a brilliant life as a sinner. They are missing something and longing for a deeper experience in the joy of Christ. They simply can’t repay the debt they owe. What then?

He probably would, and I disagree with him. The problem for the divorced/remarried, unlike the prodigal son, is that their sin continues if they continue to engage in the marital act while still validly married to another person, but you know this already. There are mechanisms in place to address this issue, but you know this too: annulment; practicing continence if and until such time their marriage can be regularized, etc. One cannot continue in the sin and expect mercy. But this horse has been beaten to death in this thread and many others.

 

[clem456]

I don’t know why you even brought it up then? The situations being addressed by the synod were invoking mercy as in the examples of the prodigal son and the unmerciful servant ie. having a debt or sin forgiven and full inclusion in the family again. What purpose did you think that defining mercy as ‘chastisement’ and ‘discipline’ would serve?(HUH?)

I think people should just come out and say what they mean and how they feel about the Popes synod challenge. It’s like playing with smoke and mirrors sometimes.

I don’t appreciate the fact that you twist words and misrepresent what is said. Why do you do that? It makes good faith discussion impossible.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t appreciate the fact that you twist words and misrepresent what is said. Why do you do that? It makes good faith discussion impossible.

Now come on lets not play silly beggers here. You’ve made very strong statements on this thread about mercy that I don’t believe are accurate at all. For example #266…

God is merciful - all the time.
All the time - God is merciful.
Hallelujah.

When sin has consequences, God is merciful.

When I justly fall on my butt due to sin, God has been merciful.

When I suffer because of my sin, God is merciful.

When sinners (all of us) hear the call to repent, God is merciful.

When God is just in his dealings with us, he is merciful.

When the Church proposes disciplines for the encouragement of repentance and communion, God is merciful.

When I experience the joy of repentance and conversion and communion, God is merciful.

**The idea that God’s mercy is an avoidance of consequences or disciplines is an outright lie. **

It is the worst kind of lie, as it takes the truth that we can find peace in God’s mercy and distorts it into a cross-less road to perdition. This lie traps the individual in a search for an easy and cheap peace that leads to self justification and stagnation.

There is no time or circumstance when God is not mercy, even while He is justice, even while he allows us to endure the consequences of our sins. Only God can be an admixture of all these things, according to his holy wisdom and will.

**“The idea that God’s mercy is an avoidance of consequences or disciplines is an outright lie.” **

How does this fit with the unmerciful servant who borrowed 10,000 bags of gold from the Master and on pleading for time, was completely forgiven the debt and rather than disciplined was sent back to his family free as a bird.

Or the prodigal who didn’t have to work off his debt or work as a servant to pay his keep, was treated with welcoming and complete forgiveness. No consequences (other than natural consequences not imposed by the father) and no discipline. Just forgiveness and complete inclusion.

I’m not twisting anything. They were your words and with my hand on my heart I believe that you have misrepresented mercy in your own interpretation.

 

[LongingSoul]

He probably would, and I disagree with him. The problem for the divorced/remarried, unlike the prodigal son, is that their sin continues if they continue to engage in the marital act while still validly married to another person, but you know this already. There are mechanisms in place to address this issue, but you know this too: annulment; practicing continence if and until such time their marriage can be regularized, etc. One cannot continue in the sin and expect mercy. But this horse has been beaten to death in this thread and many others.

It has been beaten to death and it will be interesting to eventually see where the focus of the theological examination is most intense. The culpability aspect of a pre-conversion Catholic in this situation or the Orthodox principle of economia (“the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people”).

 

[LongingSoul]

Your most recent posts about mercy are of a piece with that opinion, i.e., you think Francis wanted the Synod to reflect new prescriptions rather than old proscriptions; that the spirit of the law should trump the letter of the law by means of more merciful prescriptions for new practices.

‘New’ prescriptions? I’ll repost my sentence and you can carefully peruse it for the word or impression of ‘new’ prescriptions and get back to me.

Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
… I think Pope Francis is trying to bring back the emphasis on prescriptions [as opposed to proscriptions] by endeavoring to identify what is good in any relationship whether it is strictly valid or not. I really do like that approach because I know that even legitimate marriages can become prisons of the letter of the law when there is no emphasis on the spirit of the law concerning sacramental marriages.

I thought I had said ‘bring back the emphasis’ which to me means something already a part of Church teaching about marriage.

My opinion is that the Holy Father, with the blessing of Benedict XVI, actually wanted to explore that idea. He wanted to give it a no-holds-barred examination just to see if such new prescriptions, which evaded the prayer and theological searching of Benedict, could be found. Thus the invitation to the German and other like-minded prelates, including Synod officials, to give it their best shot. Hello, Spirit of the Synod.

Well that’s what synodality is. I think it shocks some people that the the German Cardinals aren’t stripped of their ministries and excommunicated, but how else has the Church done all this work before. I was surprised to learn that Thomas Aquinas was an avid opponent of the Marian doctrines being proposed in the middle ages but there you go. If you had been an Aquinas fan living in that time you probably would have been fair and square behind him too. He just happened to be wrong. No big deal. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

That caused orthodox observers (like me) to wince and pray. We know that when the Church gives a prescriptive inch, progressives in practice** always** take a mile. Think “Spirit of Vatican II.”

I happen to know there is a different way to see it. I grew up in a strong and conservative Catholic family that had lots of opinions and judgements about Church teaching. One thing they didn’t ever do though was doubt the role of the Pope or treat any of his words with caution. The Pope is to be trusted and supported with an open heart especially for we who are by no means experts and living saints. The synod was his challenge to the College of Bishops and the Catholic public to pray and listen and contemplate on the Gospels from where the doctrines spring. Not be hostile-y inflexible in our approach.

After the Synod, Pope Francis said it wasn’t "…about finding exhaustive solutions for all the difficulties and uncertainties which challenge and threaten the family, but rather about seeing these difficulties and uncertainties in the light of the faith, carefully studying them and confronting them fearlessly, without burying our heads in the sand…”

He said, however, that is not to detract from the importance of formula, laws and divine commandments–your proscriptions, LS. He said, “Indeed, it means upholding all the more the laws and commandments, which were made for man and not vice versa.”
ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-synod-was-about-affirming-family-indissoluble-marriage/

Having said that, the only thing everybody agrees on is that nobody knows what Francis will do next. Personally, I think he sees us through the eyes of a distraught father grieving for his children suffering from proscriptions. And, because he often has shown himself to be susceptible to progressive influence, he might again be inclined to giving a prescriptive inch.

I on the other hand think Pope Francis is as astute and wiley as they come. He isn’t susceptible to anyone but God and crew.

 

[JimG]

Is marital indissolubility in danger of being downgraded from a doctrine based on the words of Jesus, to an ideal to be strived for, but which may be regrettably unobtainable in practice? I hope that that is not what we mean by moving from legalism to mercy.

It would be a great mercy, I think, to upcoming generations of Catholics, to clearly teach the indissolubility and dignity of marriage.

“There are those who maintain that the principle of marital indissolubility—that a validly contracted and consummated sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved save by death—is the “ideal” or the “goal,” and can even remain so on the level of dogmatic teaching. In the “real” world, however, the “pastoral application” of that dogmatic teaching may take various forms including, apparently, a kind of Confessional “wink and tell” conclusion that this particular person may be convinced that—ecclesiastical discipline notwithstanding—“his” (or “her”) situation is such as to justify their receiving the Eucharist.”

Source: Is Marital Indissolubility Only an Ideal?

 

[KSU]

‘New’ prescriptions? I’ll repost my sentence and you can carefully peruse it for the word or impression of ‘new’ prescriptions and get back to me…I thought I had said ‘bring back the emphasis’ which to me means something already a part of Church teaching about marriage.Viz:
Originally Posted by LongingSoul
“… I think Pope Francis is trying to bring back the emphasis on prescriptions [as opposed to proscriptions] by endeavoring to identify what is good in any relationship whether it is strictly valid or not. I really do like that approach because I know that even legitimate marriages can become prisons of the letter of the law when there is no emphasis on the spirit of the law concerning sacramental marriages.”

Nice try, but your meaning was exposed by the remainder of your sentence. I.E., there are no existing prescriptions that under “the spirit of the law” would permit administering the Eucharist to a "relationship whether it is strictly valid or not… ". Therefore, either you mean new prescriptions or the sentence is unintelligible.

Well that’s what synodality is a no-holds-barred examination just to see if such new prescriptions, which evaded the prayer and theological searching of Benedict, could be found].
I think it shocks some people that the the German Cardinals aren’t stripped of their ministries and excommunicated, but how else has the Church done all this work before.

That’s a strange view of how the Church has worked before. How the Church has worked before is to hold a Council or issue an encyclical to correct such error.

I grew up in a strong and conservative Catholic family…The Pope is to be trusted and supported with an open heart especially for we who are by no means experts and living saints. The synod was his challenge to the College of Bishops and the Catholic public to pray and listen and contemplate on the Gospels from where the doctrines spring. Not be hostile-y inflexible in our approach.

You should take to heart clem’s impression of your replies.

I on the other hand think Pope Francis is as astute and wiley as they come. He isn’t susceptible to anyone but God and crew.

"On the other hand" doesn’t belong in your reply because I don’t believe the contrary; Francis is indeed astute and wiley. At the same time, he is without a doubt susceptible to progressive influence. Let it rest there, LS.

 

[pnewton]

Is marital indissolubility in danger of being downgraded from a doctrine based on the words of Jesus, to an ideal to be strived for, but which may be regrettably unobtainable in practice?]

As this is a clear doctrine of the Church, such a downgrade is not possible, nor has anyone suggested it. It is a straw man that keeps popping up.