Communion for divorced and remarried? Africa's bishops have other concerns, cardinal says [CNA]

[CNA_News]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...copal_Diocese_via_Flickr_CC_BY_20_CNA.jpgRome, Italy, Feb 19, 2015 / 04:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A leading African cardinal says the continent’s bishops want the upcoming Vatican synod to zero-in on strengthening the Church with good families – before getting sidetracked on other issues such as the contentious debate over allowing Communion for divorced and remarried couples.

Cardinal Wilfrid Napier of Durban was in Rome last week for a meeting of African bishops – known as the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar, or SECAM – with Pope Francis.

In a Feb. 13 interview, he told CNA that he’d gotten together with a group of cardinals the previous evening to discuss what issues they should bring to the table come October when the Synod on the Family meets in Rome.

“And the first thing we said was, we have to emphasize that we have good marriages, we have good families; let’s be positive first and foremost,” he said.

“Secondly, how can we ensure that the next generation is also going to have good families and good marriages? So the preparation and the accompaniment are two things that we really have concentrated on.”

Cardinal’s Napier’s comments emphasizing good families – and the preparation of good families in the future – were his answer to a question about a fellow African bishop’s supposed openness to admitting the divorced and remarried to Communion.

Crux’s John Allen wrote Feb. 11 that Ghanaian Archbishop Gabriel Palmer-Buckle of Accra said “he’s open to allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion, belying impressions of a uniformly hostile African stance toward change on such matters.”

Allen did not quote Archbishop Palmer-Buckle, but wrote that the prelate says he is disposed to “vote yes” on the “Kasper proposal.”

The term hearkens back to retired German cardinal Walter Kasper, who has suggested that Communion might be given in certain cases,to those who have divorced and subsequently remarried, without having obtained a decree of nullity of their first marriage.

After discussing the need for strengthening families now and in the future, Cardinal Napier turned directly to the issue of the Ghanaian archbishop’s comments:

“…one of the cardinals had the presence of mind to call the man concerned (Archbishop Palmer-Buckle), and he said, ‘Look, I was talking in a very general way, and yes it did come up, and my answer was (that) in cases like this, you have to look at it on a case by case basis, you can’t make a general statement that you can give Communion to people who are (divorced and) remarried, and so on.’”

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://forums.catholic-questions.or...r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/ZrEZMofiyfE

Full article…

 

[_Abyssinia]

Rome, Italy, Feb 19, 2015 / 04:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A leading African cardinal says the continent’s bishops want the upcoming Vatican synod to zero-in on strengthening the Church with good families – before getting sidetracked on other issues such as the contentious debate over allowing Communion for divorced and remarried couples.

Cardinal Wilfrid Napier of Durban was in Rome last week for a meeting of African bishops – known as the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar, or SECAM – with Pope Francis.

In a Feb. 13 interview, he told CNA that he’d gotten together with a group of cardinals the previous evening to discuss what issues they should bring to the table come October when the Synod on the Family meets in Rome.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/communion-for-divorced-and-remarried-africas-bishops-have-other-concerns-cardinal-says-87395/

 

[coachdennis]

I think the Universal Church can “walk and chew gum” at the same time. In other words, it’s not all or none and can work on multiple issues at the same time.

I’m sure some divorced Catholics are really gonna be comforted to know that their needs are considered by some church leaders as “sidetrack issues”. Yeah, that’s really gonna bring people back and feel welcomed – NOT!

 

[MJJean]

I think the Universal Church can “walk and chew gum” at the same time. In other words, it’s not all or none and can work on multiple issues at the same time.

I’m sure some divorced Catholics are really gonna be comforted to know that their needs are considered by some church leaders as “sidetrack issues”. Yeah, that’s really gonna bring people back and feel welcomed – NOT!

 

[ARSpade]

I’m sure some divorced Catholics are really gonna be comforted to know that their needs are considered by some church leaders as “sidetrack issues”. Yeah, that’s really gonna bring people back and feel welcomed – NOT!

A lot of those people aren’t going to come back unless you dropped the whole doctrine and said Jesus’ words were lies.

If you stregthen the faithful now, you might prevent those issues in the future. A “ounce of prevention is better than pound of cure” thing.

The remarried know how to come back to the Church, many of them just don’t want to. If you love your second spouse more than Christ, well, he talks about how that works with your real family.

 

[ProVobis]

A lot of those people aren’t going to come back unless you dropped the whole doctrine and said Jesus’ words were lies.

If you stregthen the faithful now, you might prevent those issues in the future. A “ounce of prevention is better than pound of cure” thing.

The remarried know how to come back to the Church, many of them just don’t want to. If you love your second spouse more than Christ, well, he talks about how that works with your real family.

True, true, and true.

 

[MaryT777]

I think the Universal Church can “walk and chew gum” at the same time. In other words, it’s not all or none and can work on multiple issues at the same time.

I’m sure some divorced Catholics are really gonna be comforted to know that their needs are considered by some church leaders as “sidetrack issues”. Yeah, that’s really gonna bring people back and feel welcomed – NOT!

 

[SWolf]

A lot of those people aren’t going to come back unless you dropped the whole doctrine and said Jesus’ words were lies.

If you stregthen the faithful now, you might prevent those issues in the future. A “ounce of prevention is better than pound of cure” thing.

The remarried know how to come back to the Church, many of them just don’t want to. If you love your second spouse more than Christ, well, he talks about how that works with your real family.

If you have to water down fundamental teachings to “make everyone feel welcome”, you will get praise from the secularists for your 'mercy", as the pews continue to empty.

See the Anglicans for a case study.

 

[Brendan]

If you have to water down fundamental teachings to “make everyone feel welcome”, you will get praise from the secularists for your 'mercy", as the pews continue to empty.

See the Anglicans for a case study.

 

[Brendan]

I I’m sure some divorced Catholics are really gonna be comforted to know **that their needs are considered **by some church leaders as “sidetrack issues”. Yeah, that’s really gonna bring people back and feel welcomed – NOT!

Their NEEDS certainly ARE considers. It some of the WANTS that are being asked to be avoided.

What those that you mention NEED to do is to respect the teachings of the Church and apply it fully in their lives.

There are many who do not WANT to do that, and are asking the Church to change Her teachings instead.

 

[ProVobis]

What those that you mention NEED to do is to respect the teachings of the Church and apply it fully in their lives.

And their children NEED to be brought up in the faith as well, even if they (the parents) themselves are not allowed communion.

 

[Rubia]

Ha! So much for John Allen’s piece on how Africa’s bishops are open to the heretical positions being advanced by some quarters. In this piece, Cardinal Napier says that the Cardinal John Allen spoke to was called by another African Cardinal for clarification after his interview

After discussing the need for strengthening families now and in the future, Cardinal Napier turned directly to the issue of the Ghanaian archbishop’s comments:

“…one of the cardinals had the presence of mind to call the man concerned (Archbishop Palmer-Buckle), and he said, ‘Look, I was talking in a very general way, and yes it did come up, and my answer was (that) in cases like this, you have to look at it on a case by case basis, you can’t make a general statement that you can give Communion to people who are (divorced and) remarried, and so on.’”

Not exactly the impression John Allen gave, is it?

No doing away with Christ’s words. A relationship is either adulterous or it is not. The church can’t say O yes, we believe it to be adulterous but no we refuse to treat it like it is adulterous. Talk about confusion! This is what the “change only the discipline but not the doctrine” crowd are advocating. Pharisee-ism is what it looks like to me. Where we say with our lips that we believe A then with our actions proudly announce that we in fact DIS-believe A.

For if the church retains the doctrine but admits the remarried after divorced (without annulment or death of first spouse) the church will be saying:

1. This is not a sin (the 2nd marriage) in which case Jesus is a liar or his words are inconsequential to the church. We might say we believe him but his words are of no import in what we actually do.
2. It is ok to receive communion without repenting of mortal sin first.

I don’t see what manner of intellectual summersaults can permit the church to hold any of the above positions.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

I get the sense that Napier is the Ray Burke of the African set.

And there are lots of reasons why people cannot get annulments. What is being argued against is the idea of “one size fits all” pastoral practices where the Church in America and the Church in Africa have the same set of parameters. This doesn’t work and actually seems to me to be a form of the “ideological colonization” that Pope Francis has railed against, but one imposed by the central Church in Rome rather than a Western NGO. Catholic priests in Africa need flexibility to minister to polygamous families and priests in the West need to be able to minister to remarried divorcees or gay couples.

 

[Rubia]

I get the sense that Napier is the Ray Burke of the African set.

And there are lots of reasons why people cannot get annulments. What is being argued against is the idea of “one size fits all” pastoral practices where the Church in America and the Church in Africa have the same set of parameters. This doesn’t work and actually seems to me to be a form of the “ideological colonization” that Pope Francis has railed against, but one imposed by the central Church in Rome rather than a Western NGO. Catholic priests in Africa need flexibility to minister to polygamous families and priests in the West need to be able to minister to remarried divorcees or gay couples.

Both the priests in the west and Africa need to believe Jesus when he defines for us what adultery is. The idea that taking Jesus’ words as they are and doing accordingly is somehow merciless is blasphemy. Here we are being told that Jesus is asking us to do the impossible. That is the only way people can dare to say that the church can go ahead and legitimately treat adultery as if it was a marriage: By disbelieving Christ. Let us be fools, but fools for him instead of clever humans who think Jesus could use an update on 21st century wisdom on marriage and sin.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Both the priests in the west and Africa need to believe Jesus when he defines for us what adultery is. The idea that taking Jesus’ words as they are and doing accordingly is somehow merciless is blasphemy. Here we are being told that Jesus is asking us to do the impossible. That is the only way people can dare to say that the church can go ahead and legitimately treat adultery as if it was a marriage: By disbelieving Christ. Let us be fools, but fools for him instead of clever humans who think Jesus could use an update on 21st century wisdom on marriage and sin.

The African bishops have to deal with their own problems in marriage, such as polygamy. How exactly do you deal with a family wishing to convert to Christianity where the husband has multiple wives? Do you tell him to throw his wives out? That he can only have one and has to choose and live with the others like brother and sister. That certainly punishes the additional wives more than it does the husband since he still gets to have intimate relations with his first wife. How about if one of the wives wishes to convert to Christianity but the rest of the family doesn’t? Should she be forced to leave her husband and children because he has multiple wives? Should she refuse her husband sex? (I’m sure that would go over quite while in many patriarchal cultures… not.)

And we don’t take Jesus’ words at it 100% today because there has to be a difference between doctrine and practice. There is the whole idea of the annulment system which is supposed to be an understanding that things aren’t perfect. However, this doesn’t work in many countries; most dioceses don’t have annulment tribunals. And it doesn’t work in most first world countries where the idea of marriage has changed and the societies are much more individualistic and consumer based. So other solutions must be found.

 

[Denise1957]

Well, there is one African Cardinal who has spoken out strongly against allowing communion for the divorced and remarried. He is Cardinal Robert Sarah. Here’s a short article about a book he has co-authored in the French language, called: “Dieu ou Rien: Entretien Sur la Fui” (Either God or nothing: Conversations on Faith).

Quote from book by Cardinal Sarah:

“I affirm solemnly that the Church in Africa will firmly oppose every rebellion against the teachings of Christ and the Magisterium.”

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/important-cardinal-sarah-detachment-of.html#more

I hope that the moderators don’t mind if I post a link to the article, since it’s from a website that is sometimes critical of the Pope, but this article doesn’t contain anything problematic. Please remove it if it’s a problem; thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

The African bishops have to deal with their own problems in marriage, such as polygamy. How exactly do you deal with a family wishing to convert to Christianity where the husband has multiple wives? Do you tell him to throw his wives out?

No, but you can’t have the kids converted with them thinking polygamy is okay too. The children should be the main concern, I would think. And I think the Pope would want that too.

 

[Rubia]

The African bishops have to deal with their own problems in marriage, such as polygamy. How exactly do you deal with a family wishing to convert to Christianity where the husband has multiple wives? Do you tell him to throw his wives out? That he can only have one and has to choose and live with the others like brother and sister. That certainly punishes the additional wives more than it does the husband since he still gets to have intimate relations with his first wife. How about if one of the wives wishes to convert to Christianity but the rest of the family doesn’t? Should she be forced to leave her husband and children because he has multiple wives? Should she refuse her husband sex? (I’m sure that would go over quite while in many patriarchal cultures… not.)

And we don’t take Jesus’ words at it 100% today because there has to be a difference between doctrine and practice. There is the whole idea of the annulment system which is supposed to be an understanding that things aren’t perfect. However, this doesn’t work in many countries; most dioceses don’t have annulment tribunals. And it doesn’t work in most first world countries where the idea of marriage has changed and the societies are much more individualistic and consumer based. So other solutions must be found.

Well,Ithink you speak only for yourself in your claimthat “these days” we dont take Jesus at his word…huh??? As far as I know the catholic church takes Jesus at his word apart from a minority of prelates who think they have discovered a way to be merciful that was somehow lost on Jesus, apostles and the church for two millennia. Your complaints reflect the 21st century version of the grumbling of the apostles when ‘Jesus taught them about marriage and adultery:It’s too hard!. So much for ‘these days’…that teaching was just as hard if not harder to accept or live back then. Well, you either believe in grace or not. Jesus is God or he is not, the sacraments provide all the grace we need to live by Jesus’ words or they don’t. There is nothing special about people today that makes it impossible for them to uphold the same faith with its great demands that Christians and converts to Christianity have lived for 2 millennia.

By the way, Africans have been living this same hard teaching for about a century now. Apparently,now that the majority of them are Christian (or Muslim), it is impossible for them to make the same sacrifices their convert ancestors made? St.Matia Mulumba did exactly that which you think is unthinkable, stuck to one wife and took material care of the rest. Jesus said to leave everything and follow him. These days we have Catholics who teach that some sacrifices are too great to be made for Jesus.

 

[Usige]

And we don’t take Jesus’ words at it 100% today because there has to be a difference between doctrine and practice. There is the whole idea of the annulment system which is supposed to be an understanding that things aren’t perfect. However, this doesn’t work in many countries; most dioceses don’t have annulment tribunals. And it doesn’t work in most first world countries where the idea of marriage has changed and the societies are much more individualistic and consumer based. So other solutions must be found.

The idea of annulments has nothing to do with recognizing that things aren’t perfect. It’s purpose is to discover the truth.

Your post speak directly to relativism. In essence you seem to be arguing that marriage is based not on divine law, but rather is defined by the society in with it exists. All I can say is no, No, NO.

In John 6, when Christ told his followers that the must eat His flesh and drink His blood, many left him because they could not accept the teaching. He didn’t say, “wait, wait, wait… some of you find this impossible so I didn’t mean it. You there can eat some wood; you over there can drink lamp oil; that group there, eat ground glass… What? You would die? But that’s part of your culture…”
My point is that following Christ is not easy. Christ did not call them back and change what he taught because it was too difficult to accept. He let them go. This idea that we need to adjust to cultures to accept their truth as part of the path to salvation will lead to more, not fewer souls lost. The purpose of the Church is to lead souls to salvation, not to make them comfortable in sin.

Those that can’t accept Church teaching on divorce. polygamy/polyandry, homosexuality, etc. are like the Jews in John 6. They are free to walk away. We can then just trust in God’s mercy. What we cannot do is teach falsely to fill the pews. To lead souls away from God is a much more insidious evil then letting those who cannot believe walk away.

 

[LongingSoul]

Both the priests in the west and Africa need to believe Jesus when he defines for us what adultery is. The idea that taking Jesus’ words as they are and doing accordingly is somehow merciless is blasphemy. Here we are being told that Jesus is asking us to do the impossible. That is the only way people can dare to say that the church can go ahead and legitimately treat adultery as if it was a marriage: By disbelieving Christ. Let us be fools, but fools for him instead of clever humans who think Jesus could use an update on 21st century wisdom on marriage and sin.

Did you know that Jesus didn’t make any specific concessions for annulment either? The provision of defect of form is specifically related to Catholic rules for marriage. The rules and the concessions to the rules are all discerned Catholic teaching. The reason that we give those rules and concessions our faith and obedience is because we trust in the special powers of the Church through Apostolic succession to guide us in the richness of the scripture. We are not sola scriptura believers saying ‘well Jesus never specifically said it, so I reject it’.

By your reasoning, annulments are heretical as well. If you don’t believe in the Churchs powers to discern our rules through the workings of the Magisterium, then are you sure you have the true Catholic spirit?