Cardinals Scola, Ouellet, Confusing Statements

[OraLabora]

We might have liked our Blessed Lord to have taught differently regarding marriage (Matt. 19). The standard is His, not ours, to impose.

Yet He did give the Church the power to bind and loose. Nobody’s asking the Church to abandon the doctrine of indissoluble marriage.

What I am suggesting is that in specific pastoral circumstances, the Church (or rather her clergy) determine if continuing life in a state of grave sin (marriage after civil divorce), does in fact always constitute mortal culpability. After all the Church does teach that for other grave sins, culpability requires three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent. Why does this not apply to this situation? Why is it always assumed that the culpability is mortal?

For instance the CCC says this about another grave sin (masturbation):

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

I have yet to see a cogent case made for why similar circumstances wouldn’t apply to the divorced and remarried.

I would think the level of culpability is different for someone who abandons his young wife and kids to marry his secretary is rather different that of the abandoned wife who remarried and has been with the same person, in a stable union, with children, for 20 or more years. I think the Holy Father has alluded to the fact that the Orthodox more or less look at it this way.

Of course the Church could also streamline the annulment process, but at the risk of it being ridiculed as “Catholic divorce”…

The Current practice really comes across as “shunning” by another name.

 

[soulfree]

This is an impediment to marriage. It can be dispensed by the bishop for just cause ( for example, if the death was an accident)

In the case of murder, it would be difficult to convince a bishop to issue such a dispensation.

As such, the marriage would be invalid.

I was using David’s case and extrapolating it a bit. But God’s stance is “interesting”. Nowadays two people in their 40s who decide to separate after having raised their children will be made to feel like second-class Christians if they find themselves a new romantic partner. Mind you, nobody coveted anyone, nobody fuc…I mean fornicated with anyone’s wife while the husband was away, nobody planned anyone’s murder, reasonable people doing things amicably and moving on. Today’s religion breeds neurotic, OCD, anxious people who are afraid of God.

On another topic but still related to Ouellet, I’d interested in hearing his comments about one of his brothers. That skeleton will be fatal for his dreams to become a pope.

 

[ProVobis]

I have yet to see a cogent case made for why similar circumstances wouldn’t apply to the divorced and remarried.

The difference is that remarriage is a state, rather than an act. Adultery is an act, true, but it becomes the presumed state when cohabiting or being remarried. One could argue that seduction on the part of one lessens the culpability of the other, but by the fact that they consented to occupy the same space full time, that argument doesn’t seem to hold very well.

 

[Vico]

Yet He did give the Church the power to bind and loose. Nobody’s asking the Church to abandon the doctrine of indissoluble marriage.

What I am suggesting is that in specific pastoral circumstances, the Church (or rather her clergy) determine if continuing life in a state of grave sin (marriage after civil divorce), does in fact always constitute mortal culpability. After all the Church does teach that for other grave sins, culpability requires three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent. Why does this not apply to this situation? Why is it always assumed that the culpability is mortal?

For instance the CCC says this about another grave sin (masturbation):

I have yet to see a cogent case made for why similar circumstances wouldn’t apply to the divorced and remarried.

I would think the level of culpability is different for someone who abandons his young wife and kids to marry his secretary is rather different that of the abandoned wife who remarried and has been with the same person, in a stable union, with children, for 20 or more years. I think the Holy Father has alluded to the fact that the Orthodox more or less look at it this way.

Of course the Church could also streamline the annulment process, but at the risk of it being ridiculed as “Catholic divorce”…

The Current practice really comes across as “shunning” by another name.

From Pope John Paul II, 1981:

Catholics in Civil Marriages"The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments."
Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried"However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”(180) "

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

 

[soulfree]

From Pope John Paul II, 1981:

Catholics in Civil Marriages"The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments."
Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried"However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”(180) "

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

David would be a hopeless man if he were to be alive today. Jail time with men twice his size thinking he’s very cute. Bathsheba hightailing it off with one of his concubines’ son. Funny how God went from “anything goes” to our current state of affairs where nothing short of Christian perfection goes. Of course, Karol Wojtyla was a man with an inflexible idea of what a good Catholic ought to be. So the situation is that people who have remarried cannot come near the Eucharist, not only that but their very souls are at stake should they die in their sinful state. But David’s salvation is secured. Weird God, just weird.

 

[ProVobis]

So the situation is that people who have remarried cannot come near the Eucharist, not only that but their very souls are at stake should they die in their sinful state. But David’s salvation is secured. Weird God, just weird.

I ran this past BrJR once and he has yet to get back to me on it. My thinking is that since death terminates a marriage, it is impossible to die in a wrongly married state. However the adultery needs to be confessed. I still would like a moral theologian’s opinion on this.

 

[Vico]

David would be a hopeless man if he were to be alive today. Jail time with men twice his size thinking he’s very cute. Bathsheba hightailing it off with one of his concubines’ son. Funny how God went from “anything goes” to our current state of affairs where nothing short of Christian perfection goes. Of course, Karol Wojtyla was a man with an inflexible idea of what a good Catholic ought to be. So the situation is that people who have remarried cannot come near the Eucharist, not only that but their very souls are at stake should they die in their sinful state. But David’s salvation is secured. Weird God, just weird.

Why do you say the David’s salvation is secured?

 

[soulfree]

Why do you say the David’s salvation is secured?

Because it is.
**Nathan told David **that while he was forgiven, keeping the Lord God from striking him dead, he would no longer have peace with his enemies, his own wives would be taken and sexually assaulted by a relative, and his illegitimate child with Bathsheba would die.

David fasted and prayed but the boy still died. Although his servants could not get him to eat or to drink while the child was sick but not yet dead, once the child died David rose and bathed and worshiped, then he ate; explaining to astonished servants that there was no longer any chance that the Lord God would relent from His punishment, so he must go on with life.

Bathsheba bore David another son whom they called Solomon, but whom the Lord God instructed them through Nathan to also call Jedediah, meaning “loved by the Lord”.

Is God tempting people to commit murder to be allowed back in the fold? i’d like to have the word “perfection” defined in light of what I just quoted. Also, David’s devotion and piety seemed to temporarily flourish when he had something to gain, but not so much when he realized his little theatrics did not bring about the desired outcome. A great man in a nutshell. God’s kind of man.

 

[Hopey]

Because it is.
**Nathan told David **that while he was forgiven, keeping the Lord God from striking him dead, he would no longer have peace with his enemies, his own wives would be taken and sexually assaulted by a relative, and his illegitimate child with Bathsheba would die.

David fasted and prayed but the boy still died. Although his servants could not get him to eat or to drink while the child was sick but not yet dead, once the child died David rose and bathed and worshiped, then he ate; explaining to astonished servants that there was no longer any chance that the Lord God would relent from His punishment, so he must go on with life.

Bathsheba bore David another son whom they called Solomon, but whom the Lord God instructed them through Nathan to also call Jedediah, meaning “loved by the Lord”.

Is God tempting people to commit murder to be allowed back in the fold? i’d like to have the word “perfection” defined in light of what I just quoted. Also, David’s devotion and piety seemed to temporarily flourish when he had something to gain, but not so much when he realized his little theatrics did not bring about the desired outcome. A great man in a nutshell. God’s kind of man.

Are you upset at God because He is merciful to a repentant person? Also, notice what he will suffer with, no peace with enemies and also regarding his wives, due to his actions.

There is no way you can read that and get that God is tempting anyone to sin, commit murder.

The child also died due to his sin. I would wager he had to take Bathsheba as his wife to care for her. His days of living in peace were over. I wouldn’t question someone’s repentance either. As God knows the heart, he could have struck him dead but didn’t.

But, we live in a time where the fulfillment of God’s promise, to save us, has come to be, Christ.

 

[Vico]

Because it is.
**Nathan told David **that while he was forgiven, keeping the Lord God from striking him dead, he would no longer have peace with his enemies, his own wives would be taken and sexually assaulted by a relative, and his illegitimate child with Bathsheba would die.

David fasted and prayed but the boy still died. Although his servants could not get him to eat or to drink while the child was sick but not yet dead, once the child died David rose and bathed and worshiped, then he ate; explaining to astonished servants that there was no longer any chance that the Lord God would relent from His punishment, so he must go on with life.

Bathsheba bore David another son whom they called Solomon, but whom the Lord God instructed them through Nathan to also call Jedediah, meaning “loved by the Lord”.

Is God tempting people to commit murder to be allowed back in the fold? i’d like to have the word “perfection” defined in light of what I just quoted. Also, David’s devotion and piety seemed to temporarily flourish when he had something to gain, but not so much when he realized his little theatrics did not bring about the desired outcome. A great man in a nutshell. God’s kind of man.

How do we know that David was one of the just that was freed when Jesus descended into Hades for three days, to free the dead after his death?

Catechism 695 has : “There were several anointed ones of the Lord in the Old Covenant, pre-eminently King David.31 But Jesus is God’s Anointed in a unique way: the humanity the Son assumed was entirely anointed by the Holy Spirit.” 31 Cf. Ex 30:22-32; 1 Sam 16:13

However, David admitted he was guilty as Nathan said. David elaborated in Psalms 32 and 51, an admission of guilt. One that has repented can be justified.

 

[soulfree]

Are you upset at God because He is merciful to a repentant person? Also, notice what he will suffer with, no peace with enemies and also regarding his wives, due to his actions.

There is no way you can read that and get that God is tempting anyone to sin, commit murder.

The child also died due to his sin. I would wager he had to take Bathsheba as his wife to care for her. His days of living in peace were over. I wouldn’t question someone’s repentance either. As God knows the heart, he could have struck him dead but didn’t.

But, we live in a time where the fulfillment of God’s promise, to save us, has come to be, Christ.

Not striking him dead, that’s for God to judge. Ananias and Sapphira did not get so lucky. But letting David stay with Bathsheba, that’s crazy. Think about it: your son has his murder arranged by a man who knocked up your daughter-in-law while your son was away. Two months after the funeral, you’re invited to the “repentant” murderer and your pregnant sister-in-law’s wedding? All that sanctioned by God?!? God is a dubious character. Anyone with an ounce of judgement will think that is just preposterous. But not God.

 

[otjm]

Of course the Church could also streamline the annulment process, but at the risk of it being ridiculed as “Catholic divorce”…

It already is, and has been since the change to the current Code (and I suspect was ridiculed as such under the prior Code). Interestingly, it seems to be ridiculed by both the liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum - in and out of the Church. The most vicious comments seem to come from the conservative end of Catholicism.

However, the Church never has seemed to be directed by the slings and arrows which pop up with regularity. Some may consider ignorance a bliss. Not so much when one is on the receiving end of that ignorance.

We have had two really bright Popes critique the process of obtaining a decree of nullity, so I am not sure how the process can be sped up without venturing back into the quagmire of the 70’s and 80’s. What may be considered a “pastoral” decision by one may correctly be considered abusive by another, at least in some circumstances.

 

[Robert_Anthony]

How do we know that David was one of the just that was freed when Jesus descended into Hades for three days, to free the dead after his death?

Catechism 695 has : “There were several anointed ones of the Lord in the Old Covenant, pre-eminently King David.31 But Jesus is God’s Anointed in a unique way: the humanity the Son assumed was entirely anointed by the Holy Spirit.” 31 Cf. Ex 30:22-32; 1 Sam 16:13

However, David admitted he was guilty as Nathan said. David elaborated in Psalms 32 and 51, an admission of guilt. One that has repented can be justified.

I say the name of their second child is a pretty clear indication that David was back in God’s friendship. He had temporal pains to suffer, nonetheless he was forgiven by God and his marriage with Bathsheba had been approved of by God.

 

[CommonWeal]

catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-burke-media-hijacking-synod-on-the-family-79760/#.VCFkQXXa-OQ.facebook

Amen. God bless Cardinal Burke.

 

[CommonWeal]

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/communion-for-remarried-divorcees.html

Amen Amen. How beautifully and charitably said. I say again, Amen.