CDF confirms Church ban on Communion for divorced/remarried [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LupusCatholicus said:
I have a number of issues with this essay and the interpretation that Muller is speaking for the Holy Father. Namely that:
  1. Jesus was not so strict as Muller makes him out to be. In Matthew’s Gospel in chapter 19 we find the Lord making the exception for divorce in the case of infidelity. Traditional interpretations of Matthew’s recounting of the teaching insist that Jesus was referring to annulments and not divorce, but the verb in Greek, apoluo, specifically refers to the act of the wife in Greco Roman culture divorcing the husband. There was no concept of annulments or nullifying the marriage as if it had never existed in the first place, as Jews and Greeks and Romans in first century Palestine had no concept of annulments to begin with. Even in the context outside of divorce, the verb is used to mean releasing someone from their debts, or to set someone free or let go or dismiss them in a more general sense. The verb very clearly has overtones of separation, not nullification and in the context presented here Jesus is very clearly referring to divorce.
  2. It was Francis himself who put forth the idea of being more merciful in a pastoral framework towards divorced and remarried Catholics, as well suggesting that looking into the Orthodox solution of 2nd and 3rd marriages was definitely on the table. Is it really Archbishop Muller’s place to be criticizing the direction that the Holy Father is considering for the Church? It almost seems to me that Muller is ridiculing Francis’ suggestions, considering his language here is fairly strong. I am not sure it is really Muller’s or the CDF’s place to attempt to set the tone for the Synod or for the direction Francis wants to take the Church in. I would almost suggest this be to border lining on dissension. It seems incredibly out of line for Muller to be criticizing the Holy Father’s decision making process this openly.
  3. It makes no sense to me to say that Muller is speaking for Francis- this seems incredibly wishful thinking on Mr. Akin’s part. If Francis was dead set against allowing 2nd marriages or showing mercy towards divorced couples, why would he suggest such things as currently being tabled for suggestion? It would be like dangling a carrot in front of someone’s face and saying “nyah nyah you can’t have it” and then yanking it away, which quite frankly seems cruel to me and inconsistent in regards to what we know of the Holy Father’s personal character.
All in all, this seems to me to be the Curia/CDF grinding their teeth and being dragged kicking and screaming at the mere mention of the possibility of change to any sort of pastoral practice. Goodness, they helped elect this man! The least they should do is support his leadership and not criticize his suggestions so openly: for a Curia who elected this Pope on the mandate of reforming them, this certainly does not make them look good! Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
  1. Muller isn’t making Jesus out to be any particular way, he’s just repeating what the Church says about Jesus. Francis says the word “mercy” and people make up all kinds of conclusions on their own (what this essay is trying to prevent).
  2. Francis never put forth that the Orthodox solution was “on the table”; he just mentioned that it exists. Muller in no way contradicted anything Francis has said, and to assert that he contradicted Francis in order to spite him is not charitable or realistic. Francis reappointed him to his current position just a couple of months ago.
  3. Francis never did suggest that such things were on the table, and he never dangled that carrot. The media and others have inferred that he dîd, but he didn’t. All he said is mercy and pastoral care, which is exactly what Muller talks about here. This essay would be intended specifically to keep people from getting false ideas in the first place, so that they don’t feel like their “carrot” got taken away later.
The Cardinals elected Francis to reform the Curia, not change practices. Issues like this don’t have anything to do with Curial reform.

Francis didn’t actually suggest the solutions you mentioned, so Muller isn’t contradicting him. In fact, it would seem the whole purpose of this essay is to correct those that think Francis is suggesting those solutions.

All IMO of course.
 
McCall1981 said:
  1. Muller isn’t making Jesus out to be any particular way, he’s just repeating what the Church says about Jesus. Francis says the word “mercy” and people make up all kinds of conclusions on their own (what this essay is trying to prevent).
  2. Francis never put forth that the Orthodox solution was “on the table”; he just mentioned that it exists. Muller in no way contradicted anything Francis has said, and to assert that he contradicted Francis in order to spite him is not charitable or realistic. Francis reappointed him to his current position just a couple of months ago.
  3. Francis never did suggest that such things were on the table, and he never dangled that carrot. The media and others have inferred that he dîd, but he didn’t. All he said is mercy and pastoral care, which is exactly what Muller talks about here. This essay would be intended specifically to keep people from getting false ideas in the first place, so that they don’t feel like their “carrot” got taken away later.
The Cardinals elected Francis to reform the Curia, not change practices. Issues like this don’t have anything to do with Curial reform.

Francis didn’t actually suggest the solutions you mentioned, so Muller isn’t contradicting him. In fact, it would seem the whole purpose of this essay is to correct those that think Francis is suggesting those solutions.

All IMO of course.
Click to expand...
Francis isn’t condemning these solutions either though- keep that in mind. I went back and checked the relevant sections of the interviews with the Holy Father where second marriages came up- it would appear you are correct and I was in error when I wrote that the Pope said that 2nd marriages were currently being considered. I apologize for any misrepresentation I may have caused.

However, and this is an important however, I still think Muller is out of line in condemning 2nd marriages or having a more “merciful” outlook on the reception of the sacraments. He is already trying to set his agenda here, trying to defend the CDF’s position on things. I think instead the CDF should be trying to keep an open mind on this- not endorse the opposite positions but remain open to them in the context of a debate. Instead of going into the Synod with preconceived notions of what “will” or “must” happen, perhaps the CDF should drop any form of defense or bias on their part and be open to what the Holy Spirit has to say and try to learn from that. After all, the Orthodox Bishops are guided by the same Holy Spirit as we are, it could be they might be on to something, or perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. Who knows, all I’m saying is the CDF and the Curia should go into the Synod without a set agenda or ideology/bias/position to defend and just let the Holy Spirit do the work.
 
Reading this makes me wonder how much longer before Communion would be denied for Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion or vote against abortion restrictions. Surely abortion is as important as divorce.
 
The Polish have this right IMO. Every Christmas they exchange the oplatki and it’s a form of communion for all there. It’s unconsecrated bread and has the same ingredients as the hosts we consume at Mass. It’s a beautiful tradition. 90% of the Poles are Catholic btw.
 
So it’s the same as antidoron which is distributed at Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
 
What! This is crazy! I thought Pope Francis was the hope and change for the Church. I thought Catholic Obama was going to create a liberal christian utopia? I thought he was not judgemental or concerned about “rules.” Yet here is a man whom the Pope put at a position that is going off the reservation and back in time to a more rigid rule oriented Church?
Next, someone is going to say killing babies in the mothers womb is a bad thing…
Oh the horror!!:eek:😉
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
What! This is crazy! I thought Pope Francis was the hope and change for the Church. I thought Catholic Obama was going to create a liberal christian utopia? I thought he was not judgemental or concerned about “rules.” Yet here is a man whom the Pope put at a position that is going off the reservation and back in time to a more rigid rule oriented Church?
Next, someone is going to say killing babies in the mothers womb is a bad thing…
Oh the horror!!:eek:😉
Click to expand...
It gets worse Hoosier Daddy!! Pope Francis has instructed the Argentinian, Bolivian and Irish Bishops to start denying communion to “Catholic” politicians who vote in favor of abortion. I can’t wait till it hits the USA and Canada!!
 
Perhaps it’s an educational technique. Francis is the “good cop” and CDF gets to be the “bad cop.” The good cop raises questions, looks for opportunities for Mercy, attempts to open closed doors… Once people are interested, CDF gets the opportunity to explain WHY some doors are closed and that the door lock is NOT a harshness, but a mercy not easy to perceive.

In such a way, perhaps people actually LEARN about how the Church and the gospel are connected, not in conflict. To be sure, there will be people who just want what they want and aren’t interested in being challenged or learning new truths. There isn’t much you can do for them. But others might actually discover that they’ve had it wrong all along and repent!

I do think there is a dire need for change in how the church treats marriage. For one thing, I think there needs to be a lot more bluntness in marriage preparation. When it is clear that there are circumstances in the relationship that a later tribunal would probably find to be “defective consent” or another impediment, SAY SO! Why on earth do we let so many clueless people play-act a Christian marriage in the first place? Second, perhaps the tribunal process needs serious reform. I mean, really: “Tribunal?” How many people check out right there? I think there ought to be regional semi-annual gathering for those hurt in divorce to discuss healing forgiveness, reconciliation and healthy means of recovery (whether the marriage can be saved or not). Those should always be the start of nullity cases and could be handled much more pastorally and less “bureaucratically.” The current system is just cold. It doesn’t need to be cold to be rigorous and orthodox.
 
manualman said:
Perhaps it’s an educational technique. Francis is the “good cop” and CDF gets to be the “bad cop.” The good cop raises questions, looks for opportunities for Mercy, attempts to open closed doors… Once people are interested, CDF gets the opportunity to explain WHY some doors are closed and that the door lock is NOT a harshness, but a mercy not easy to perceive.

In such a way, perhaps people actually LEARN about how the Church and the gospel are connected, not in conflict. To be sure, there will be people who just want what they want and aren’t interested in being challenged or learning new truths. There isn’t much you can do for them. But others might actually discover that they’ve had it wrong all along and repent!
Click to expand...
I don’t think painting the CDF as a merciless bad cop and Pope Francis as an unchecked mercy advocate who has no concept of theology or justice is a good idea. Perhaps and this might just surprise you. The two are not in conflict. Perhaps the CDF and the Pope are in agreement.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I don’t think painting the CDF as a merciless bad cop and Pope Francis as an unchecked mercy advocate who has no concept of theology or justice is a good idea. Perhaps and this might just surprise you. The two are not in conflict. Perhaps the CDF and the Pope are in agreement.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the reference. Good cop and bad cop are ALWAYS in it together. That’s the point. It’s a technique done in partnership. CDF doesn’t come off as merciless in the article do they? I don’t see it. I see clear and articulate explanation that people spurred to interest by Francis might READ.
 
manualman said:
You misunderstand the reference. Good cop and bad cop are ALWAYS in it together. That’s the point. It’s a technique done in partnership. CDF doesn’t come off as merciless in the article do they? I don’t see it. I see clear and articulate explanation that people spurred to interest by Francis might READ.
Click to expand...
No, I understood it and I was not meaning to imply that that is what YOU thought but I highly doubt the Pope and the CDF are playing psychological cop games and trying to trick people with some thought out plan that is “so crazy it just might work” :rolleyes:

How about the Church is clear on Her timeless unchanging theology and teaching.

If we really think the church is so culture and media savvy that they would actually do as you suggest then, based on the recent follies in the media the Church would be foolish.
 
stevendempster said:
It gets worse Hoosier Daddy!! Pope Francis has instructed the Argentinian, Bolivian and Irish Bishops to start denying communion to “Catholic” politicians who vote in favor of abortion. I can’t wait till it hits the USA and Canada!!
Click to expand...
👍
 
The ‘no’ has been handed down - clearly with the approval of the pope - by the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, in today’s edition of “L’Osservatore Romano,” with a document fully reconfirming the doctrine of the Catholic Church in this matter, released contemporaneously in seven languages.
Click to expand...
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350630?eng=y
 
Well, to me, this is absolutely justified. Those who married and did not get an annulment and are therefore assumed to be in (or were in) valid marriages until proven otherwise by an annulment tribunal but get remarried after divorcing are committing adultery. Adultery is grave sin and if you are living in grave sin then you cannot receive the Eucharist without committing sacrilege.

Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
2384 *Divorce *is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
Click to expand...

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2384

Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."218 Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.
Click to expand...

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#1385

Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
**2120 ***Sacrilege *consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.
Click to expand...

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2120
 
LupusCatholicus said:
all I’m saying is the CDF and the Curia should go into the Synod without a set agenda or ideology/bias/position to defend and just let the Holy Spirit do the work.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. This is a difficult topic. On one hand, we are dealing with the grave sin of adultery. It is a somewhat unique situation among mortal sins. If one is a thief, the Church does not say he lives in a state of thievery. Yet with marriage, the mere fact of the marriage leaves on in a state of mortal sin.

On the other hand, marriage is a matter of canon law. It is probably the number one topic canon lawyers have to wrestle with. This part of the Church’s position is disciplinary and subject to change, especially if the changes in society make a change in canon law beneficial.
 
pnewton said:
I tend to agree. This is a difficult topic. On one hand, we are dealing with the grave sin of adultery. It is a somewhat unique situation among mortal sins. If one is a thief, the Church does not say he lives in a state of thievery. Yet with marriage, the mere fact of the marriage leaves on in a state of mortal sin.

On the other hand, marriage is a matter of canon law. It is probably the number one topic canon lawyers have to wrestle with. This part of the Church’s position is disciplinary and subject to change, especially if the changes in society make a change in canon law beneficial.
Click to expand...
Hello,

It’s not the mere fact of the marriage (“getting married”)–it is living as a married couple, without being married, that is the deciding factor. While the Church does not accept the re-marriage as being valid, it does accept the Parties’ attempt at marriage as being a public fact. Their cohabitation makes one presume they are living as a married couple, objectively violating a Commandment. So, if they stop living in that manner, they are no longer in an objective state of sin.

This could happen with any grave matter. If a person is a notorious gangster, blasphemer, yes, even thief, it can lead to a denial of Communion/Sacraments. It’s just that a notorious theif is usually behind bars, not able to steal and removed from his near occasion of sin. With a good confession, he’s good to go.

While you can say that this is a “disciplinary” matter, it is so bound up with divine law that there is not a lot that can be changed and yet remain faithful to that law. Consequently, I don’t know how those involved in the upcoming Synod can not have an “agenda” or “position.” They certainly can’t start from scratch.

Dan
 
I don’t see this as a question about marriage only. It’s about sin and you should’t receive while in a state of sin. Adultry will always be a sin. There are a few times when Jesus stopped with parables and was straight with people. Adultry/divorce was one of those times so there’s not much to debate about in my opinion.

I feel like the moment I started to truly believe in the real prescense was when I realized that I wasn’t fit to receive. I did get the annulment but since we are living together I’m still out until our wedding.
 
dans0622 said:
Consequently, I don’t know how those involved in the upcoming Synod can not have an “agenda” or “position.” They certainly can’t start from scratch.

Dan
Click to expand...
They can’t start from scratch, I agree. Note that you used the word “presume”. This part can be evaluated, as can the method and criteria for annulments. But no, cohabitation is not adultery. Adultery is the commission of sex to someone other than your spouse. That is why a couple in an irregular marriage can agree to live together as brother and sister and receive Communion.

I do not know what will happen, but I do know there is lattitude within moral theology, more that exists within tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top