Concerning changes to the sacrament of marriage (communion for divorced and remarried)

[mkoopman]

I … because of an irregular marriage, I am a card carrying Catholic …

I will pray that you may soon fill-up on regular and avoid all the North Sea piracy brands.

“Card carrying Catholic” … wow, wonderful – may I use this?

You are speaking of prayer cards, I expect, no?

 

[Deltadeliquent]

LOL…
I fear I have dated myself!

 

[Vico]

…

I’m sure they will explore the pastoral solutions. The internal forum issue was addressed by St. Pope John Paul II in Familaris Consortio posted earlier (and again below) and referenced by Cardinal Ratzinger: “rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in opposition to the statements of the Magisterium.”. From Familaris Consortio you can read what St. Pope John Paul II said was not in opposition to statements of the Magisterium: 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)
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

So, I still do not see any change of opinion or conflict. Am I missing something?

 

[AnneTeresa]

Finding pastoral solutions to the many complex situations around divorce and remarriage int today’s world does not necessarily mean changing the sacrament of marriage or the meaning marriage as permanent.

It seems that some people are so frightened of the church changing its teachings that they cannot understand this. They really are two different things however.

 

[Sirach2]

So, I still do not see any change of opinion or conflict. Am I missing something?

Yes. I posted the footnote from 2005 from Pope Benedict, who said, "I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so… "

I thought my last post was perfectly clear, Vico, but it seems you are still stuck in the rut of “no pastoral solutions.” Whereas, Benedict is exploring the possibility of invalidity of a sacrament that is celebrated initially without faith. Let’s not belabor this any further.

 

[Sirach2]

Vico,

What seems problematic with your single-minded focus on JPII is that Benedict had developed the concept further, as I pointed out in his 2005 footnote. Brother Jay has often pointed out that no pope can bind his successor.

Originally Posted by JReducation
*

*4) If all Catholics believed something to be doctrinally true at a time and was taught in the church, can it be claimed later to be wrong? *

*Yes, if the belief is incorrect. There are many things that people believe to be doctrine that are disciplines, theological statements, or commentaries on a doctrine. Often, people think that everything that a pope writes or a council writes is a doctrine or that everything that is in an encyclical is infallible. Very often, these writings are about an infallible belief, but what is being said about the belief can be a development of the thought, not necessarily another infallible statement. …] However, these explanations cannot contract the doctrine. They can simply be insufficient or unclear.

*You may want to read the works of St. Boniface. He speaks very clearly on the authority of the pope over councils, even those of the past and over previous popes. To paraphrase him, no pope is bound by any decree of any council or any previous pope unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation. *

No pope is bound by any doctor of the church, any saint or any miracle or private apparition. All revelation comes from Christ. All law comes from Christ and it is written in the heart of the pope. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s a very long statement, which you may be able to find online.

 

[Vico]

Yes. I posted the footnote from 2005 from Pope Benedict, who said, "I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so… "

I thought my last post was perfectly clear, Vico, but it seems you are still stuck in the rut of “no pastoral solutions.” Whereas, Benedict is exploring the possibility of invalidity of a sacrament that is celebrated initially without faith. Let’s not belabor this any further.

I was hoping you would post the two sentences side by side demonstrating a change in the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVII. I could not demonstrate any change in his opinion with the information I have now.

 

[Memaw]

What time are tryouts for the throwing team? Do we have to bring our own stones or will they be provided?

No stones needed, bring your love and your prayers. Satan has enough stones already. Judge the sins, Not the sinners Eternity!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[otjm]

Apparently, my friend is the rare exception to the rubber stamp annulments that are being churned out. Pope John Paul was greatly concerned about the great number of annulments in the US and the West. He did not think it a good thing at all.

What John Paul 2 objected to, in part, was the fact that some tribunals were granting decrees from a “pastoral” standpoint, rather than being based on facts which supported the Canon Law which was the basis for the decision. Additionally, there was little or no evidence as to how many decrees were being granted out of the total number of Catholics divorced, and how many were not granted due to withdrawal (as they are not reported).

Well after his death, information has finally been gathered. It shows that about 7% of all divorced Catholics have received a decree. Further it shows that 8% have not received a decree after starting the process (which includes those who start with a pastor or advocate and do not file, those who file and withdraw for a multitude of reasons, and those who the tribunal decides do not have a case).

So more start it and don’t get one, than those who do start and get one.

But the most interesting statistic is that 85% of divorced Catholics have never even started the process.

The source of the information is CARA. And no one has challenged those statistics.

Out of the 85%, no one should doubt that there are a large number who had invalid first marriages. And it is my understanding (and I am not a Canon lawyer, and would gladly stand being corrected) that if in the case you mention, there was a split decision, that would not result in a decree, but would have to be appealed to a third court.

In any event, the number of decrees that are being granted currently are about 1/3 of what they were at the peak. We have altogether too many divorced Catholics who have not sorted things out, and need to.

Also, keep in mind that if the marriage was 30 years and they had 12 children, that would not indicate one way or the other the validity of the marriage - that goes back to the day of the wedding and whether or not there were any impediments on that day.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Surprised? #Synod14 “strongly reaffirms” that divorced & remarried Catholics cannot receive Communion – Fr. Lombardi

twitter.com/EdMorrissey/status/520172301380489216

 

[ProVobis]

Then there was the case of a free-to-marry Catholic marrying a divorced non-Catholic.

Was she excommunicated?

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/was-jackie-o-excommunicated/

 

[His_helpmeet]

I think we should all be concerned about the great number of annulments in the US and West. But I don’t believe that most are being “rubber stamped” as you suggest. Sure, there might be a diocese or two (and perhaps several in Germany) who are too loose with the annulment, but in general, I don’t think the Church is annulling valid marriages.

I think the real problem is too many young Catholic couples (and older ones for that matter) have bought into the secular redefinition of marriage. If they are getting married in the Church only to satisfy mom & dad or grandma; and do not believe in the Sacrament of Marriage, then their marriage may not be valid. If they believe that the vows are just words and ceremony, and don’t really mean anything; then there isn’t a Sacrament. And if they don’t believe the vows are between bride, groom & God, then there isn’t a Sacrament.

The real reason there are so many annulments is because there are way too many invalid marriages.

I pray that this Synod realizes that what needs to be done is teach YOUNG children, YOUNG Teens, Older Teens, Young Adults, Old Adults, etc about the Sacrament of Marriage.

In most places, we don’t receive Catechesis regarding the Sacrament of Marriage until Pre-Cana. Well, to be frank, it’s too late then. We need to be teaching about the Sacrament of Marriage (and all 7 Sacraments) from an early age and never stop. We need Young Adults finding potential spouses in a state of Chastity and understanding what Marriage is about. Not learning about the Sacrament of Marriage after the reception hall has been booked.

May The Father send down the Holy Spirit upon the Synod so they can make the right decisions for God’s people. Amen.

I am the sacramental wife of someone who has received a declaration of nullity. In his case, he and his ex were not Catholic when they married, and married primarily to legitimize a pregnancy and so that DH could be there as a father to his child, because he wasn’t from this country and could only qualify to immigrate on the family class - meaning he would have to marry the mother of his child. Both converted to Catholicism later on. His ex left him after they had been married 4 years. He received a declaration of nullity 15 months after filing for one.

My personal opinion is that it’s likely that those requesting declarations of nullity fall into one of about three distinct categories:

1. Poorly catechized Catholics and/or Catholics who left the Church and have since returned to it.
2. Divorced and remarried people wishing to become Catholic.
3. Divorced converts or divorced non-Catholics who wish to marry a Catholic.

Given these situations, it’s not surprising that many of such marriages would be found to be invalid - especially because for civil marriages in particular (which is what DH and his ex had) no “official” marriage preparation is typically required.

 

[1newcatholic]

Thank you all for such an educational conversation. Someone was kind enough to provide a link to the National Catholic Register, with a piece that gave Cardinal Burke a chance to respond to the controversy generated by his very public conservative response to the synod.

I could be completely mistaken, but there seems to be an attitude of retribution among conservatives who feel outraged that Cardinal Kasper had the audacity to speak about making any kind of changes at all–

This is reflected in the tenor of their official response. I was especially confused (and disappointed) to see Cardinal Burke try and frame his defense of tradition as a ‘merciful’ position:

*The Church’s teaching on the matter, the cardinal said, is merciful, “because it respects the truth that the person is indeed bound by a prior union which the person, for whatever reason, is no longer living.”

“The Church holds the person to the truth of that marriage,” Cardinal Burke continued, “while at the same time being compassionate, understanding the situation of the person, welcoming them into the parish community in ways that are appropriate and trying to help them to lead as holy a life as they can, but without betraying the truth about their marriage.”

This, he said, is mercy.

“It simply makes no sense to talk about mercy which doesn’t respect truth. How can that be merciful?”*

It sounds a little convoluted to try and couple the rhetoric of mercy with a rigid adherence to a complicated tribunal system that was produced in very different era–an argument that Cardinal Burke makes in the same article–because mercy is not the application of tradition with disregard, but the judicious abrogation of debt.

Surely mercy is not the same thing as letting divorced-remarried Catholics hang around the parish on the fringes of community life, as second-tier Catholics forever barred from receiving the Eucharist? I have no objection to keeping divorced-remarried Catholics from certain official positions, but to bar them from receiving the Bread of Life…? It seems extreme, not merciful at all. It sounds like the traditional application of doctrine is more important to Cardinal Burke than the salvation of souls–or is communion irrelevant to our salvation? Should people with sin be denied the experience of forgiveness the rest of us receive?

As a very liberal person in a very liberal part of the world, I have still been able to accept and enter the Catholic faith even though I struggle with some of the Church’s policies (and I have been very blessed!). I am interested to see how many Catholics on the other side of the spectrum will be able to roll with the punches the rest of us have learned to endure out of the love for our common Mother. BUT regardless of how these synods turn out, I am pleased to be a part of the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[mkoopman]

…

It sounds a little convoluted to try and couple the rhetoric of mercy with a rigid adherence to a complicated tribunal system that was produced in very different era–an argument that Cardinal Burke makes in the same article–because mercy is not the application of tradition with disregard, but the judicious abrogation of debt.

Surely mercy is not the same thing as letting divorced-remarried Catholics hang around the parish on the fringes of community life, as second-tier Catholics forever barred from receiving the Eucharist? I have no objection to keeping divorced-remarried Catholics from certain official positions, but to bar them from receiving the Bread of Life…? It seems extreme, not merciful at all. It sounds like the traditional application of doctrine is more important to Cardinal Burke than the salvation of souls–or is communion irrelevant to our salvation? Should people with sin be denied the experience of forgiveness the rest of us receive?

As a very liberal person in a very liberal part of the world, I have still been able to accept and enter the Catholic faith even though I struggle with some of the Church’s policies (and I have been very blessed!). I am interested to see how many Catholics on the other side of the spectrum will be able to roll with the punches the rest of us have learned to endure out of the love for our common Mother. BUT regardless of how these synods turn out, I am pleased to be a part of the Holy Catholic Church.

What has any form of tribunal system to do with the nature of truth? I must confess that I do not see how the good Kardinal presents a convoluted synthesis on mercy. I should like to see how K. Casper’s response points to the need for an outmoded form of annulity process, or, how it makes any direct commentary on annulment at all?

Do you perceive a problem with annulity, more generally? Is it not possible for a free gift of grace that is a Sacrament to be defective in bond? Or, do you believe that a marriage is only that union held by the Samaritan woman at the well even when witnessed by the church?

Mercy that denies the truth is found in many modern process rational forms such as the euphemism for murder of persons with terminal illness. Should the church accept “mercy killing” owing to the raisonne d’etat? I would call you guilty and guillotine’d, if you were to affirm such a fatally and seriously flawed “gap” in truth. There are no gaps in truth, unless God is made of Swiss cheese? Well, God is Holy. Ahem.

 

[Vico]

Yes. I posted the footnote from 2005 from Pope Benedict, who said, "I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so… "

I thought my last post was perfectly clear, Vico, but it seems you are still stuck in the rut of “no pastoral solutions.” Whereas, Benedict is exploring the possibility of invalidity of a sacrament that is celebrated initially without faith. Let’s not belabor this any further.

This pertains to “a sacrament celebrated without faith” per Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI, He said that he “realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further” even though he personally thought that “a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension”. As discussed in earlier posts, the canon law was modified by him (2010) to require the Catholic form of celebration for Catholics, even those formally defected. The changes actually result in less valid marriages, therefore he has worked towards a remedy according to what he personally thought.

The 1983 revision of canon law “was to ensure that marriages contracted by those members of the faithful would not be invalid due to defect of form or the impediment of disparity of cult.” But “Experience, however, has shown that this new law gave rise to numerous pastoral problems.” That 1983 canon law tended “to facilitate and even in some way to encourage apostasy” and “The new law also made difficult the return of baptized persons who greatly desired to contract a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage.”.

It is also more in keeping with the Eastern Orthodox practice, which makes it more harmonious with the eastern Catholic churches. The Eastern Orthodox are more strict in that they require both the spouses to be Christians and one, at least, Orthodox, and also the celebration must be blessed by a priest for validity. This is more like the Catholic Church practice prior to changes made about the time of Vatican II to allow disparity of cult dispensations.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

 

[Duane1966]

Thank you all for such an educational conversation. Someone was kind enough to provide a link to the National Catholic Register, with a piece that gave Cardinal Burke a chance to respond to the controversy generated by his very public conservative response to the synod.

I could be completely mistaken, but there seems to be an attitude of retribution among conservatives who feel outraged that Cardinal Kasper had the audacity to speak about making any kind of changes at all–

This is reflected in the tenor of their official response. I was especially confused (and disappointed) to see Cardinal Burke try and frame his defense of tradition as a ‘merciful’ position:

*The Church’s teaching on the matter, the cardinal said, is merciful, “because it respects the truth that the person is indeed bound by a prior union which the person, for whatever reason, is no longer living.”

“The Church holds the person to the truth of that marriage,” Cardinal Burke continued, “while at the same time being compassionate, understanding the situation of the person, welcoming them into the parish community in ways that are appropriate and trying to help them to lead as holy a life as they can, but without betraying the truth about their marriage.”

This, he said, is mercy.

“It simply makes no sense to talk about mercy which doesn’t respect truth. How can that be merciful?”*

It sounds a little convoluted to try and couple the rhetoric of mercy with a rigid adherence to a complicated tribunal system that was produced in very different era–an argument that Cardinal Burke makes in the same article–because mercy is not the application of tradition with disregard, but the judicious abrogation of debt.

Surely mercy is not the same thing as letting divorced-remarried Catholics hang around the parish on the fringes of community life, as second-tier Catholics forever barred from receiving the Eucharist? I have no objection to keeping divorced-remarried Catholics from certain official positions, but to bar them from receiving the Bread of Life…? It seems extreme, not merciful at all. It sounds like the traditional application of doctrine is more important to Cardinal Burke than the salvation of souls–or is communion irrelevant to our salvation? Should people with sin be denied the experience of forgiveness the rest of us receive?

As a very liberal person in a very liberal part of the world, I have still been able to accept and enter the Catholic faith even though I struggle with some of the Church’s policies (and I have been very blessed!). I am interested to see how many Catholics on the other side of the spectrum will be able to roll with the punches the rest of us have learned to endure out of the love for our common Mother. BUT regardless of how these synods turn out, I am pleased to be a part of the Holy Catholic Church.

Your problem is not with Burke but with what Jesus’ teaches. Let’s face it, according to Jesus’ words, divorced and remarried Catholics are committing adultery (unless the first marriage was invalid). HIS WORDS ARE ETERNAL. How can the Church give Holy Communion to them in light of what Jesus taught on adultery and what St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:27? Truly, the Church is being merciful by witholding Holy Communion!

 

[otjm]

Surely mercy is not the same thing as letting divorced-remarried Catholics hang around the parish on the fringes of community life, as second-tier Catholics forever barred from receiving the Eucharist? I have no objection to keeping divorced-remarried Catholics from certain official positions, but to bar them from receiving the Bread of Life…? It seems extreme, not merciful at all. It sounds like the traditional application of doctrine is more important to Cardinal Burke than the salvation of souls–or is communion irrelevant to our salvation? Should people with sin be denied the experience of forgiveness the rest of us receive?

As a very liberal person in a very liberal part of the world, I have still been able to accept and enter the Catholic faith even though I struggle with some of the Church’s policies (and I have been very blessed!). I am interested to see how many Catholics on the other side of the spectrum will be able to roll with the punches the rest of us have learned to endure out of the love for our common Mother. BUT regardless of how these synods turn out, I am pleased to be a part of the Holy Catholic Church.

I do not wish to get into a discussion of either pro or con about Cardinal Burke. I also do not want to come across as judgmental, either of you, or of the people of whom you reference.

But let’s try it from another angle. My recollection of John 6 is that after Christ’s statements about the Eucharist, many left Him. He then turned to Peter and said, effectively, “And are you leaving too?” To which Peter answered, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

So after that bit about the Eucharist, let’s look at St Paul. My recollection is that he says, rather bluntly, “He who eats the Eucharist unworthily brings condemnation down upon himself”.

And then we will jog back to the Gospels, where Christ says, clearly, that divorce and remarriage are serious sins.

We live in a world now in which the rules, which have been around for 2000 years, give or take a decade or two, have been removed from absolute rules, to personal preference. Morality now seems up to the individual, and we have all sorts of excuses (I refuse to use the word “reasons” as that implies that the rules were always subject to multiple permutations and interpretations) as to why someone, who has made deliberate choices, now finds themselves reaping the results of those choices.

I am well aware that many, many people - I would even dare say the majority - were not raised with these rules as rules - or perhaps even suggestions. All of that can be hashed out concerning that prior marriage. If someone has an invalid first marriage, then they can be reconciled with the Church and not be on the fringes.

On the other hand, if someone had a valid first marriage, and did not approach a tribunal before entering a second one, or approached and was told that the first marriage was valid, then they have made choices.

It seems nowadays that making choices is a) highly promoted, and b) something that should never have negative consequences. In fact, bad choices still have negative consequences. Given that with a valid first marriage a conscious, deliberate choice was made, and with the second marriage a conscious, deliberate choice was made, it does not carry any weight for the individual to then say “Well, I really didn’t mean it”, or 'Well, I had no clue what I was getting into." They are adults, not children, no one forced them into the second marriage, and Christ and St Paul are rather specific about sin (and a second marriage after a divorce from a valid first marriage is continuing adultery) and the reception of the Eucharist.

This isn’t about some cold-hearted male chauvinist celibate pigs grinning and in a sing-song voice saying “Now you got yours!”. This is not something cooked up by someone in the back rooms of the Vatican. This comes directly to us from Christ, and from the great Apostle Paul.

The Pope, the Cardinals, the bishops, the priests - none of them “cooked up” this. It comes right out of the Gospels and Epistles. And no, those statements were not “cultural to the Jews in first century Palestine”, and no, things have not changed. Adultery is still a sin; remarrying after a divorce from a valid first marriage is still continuing adultery, unless the couple either separates or lives as sister and brother, and yes, it is a hared, hard saying.

So were the words of Christ concerning the Eucharist - people left Him.

People still leave Him. And no, they ;don’t make "mistakes’. They make choices. They sinned, and are continuing to live in sin.

And yes, they need mercy; but Christ, when He forgave sinners, always said “Sin no more”, not “Well, you are really sad and sorry, and I know you are going to go back to that adulterous relationship, but I’ll just ignore that part”.

We want to have mercy, but our concept of mercy is to ignore the blatant sin before us of the second adulterous relationship. Christ didn’t; St Paul didn’t, and it is time we get back to calling sin a sin, and not a “mistake”.

A mistake is wearing a polka dot time with a striped shirt. And mercy is not saying “Well, I know you are living in an adulterous relationship, but that doesn’t really matter.”

According to Christ and St Paul, it matters.

IMHO, I also believe that we have a very large number of people who did not have valid first marriages, and we need to sort that out. But it needs to be sorted in truth, not in some misguided approach that in its essence says “Well, continuing in adultery really isn’t a sin, because, well, you made a mistake…”

 

[1newcatholic]

Your problem is not with Burke but with what Jesus’ teaches…

I do not wish to get into a discussion of either pro or con about Cardinal Burke. I also do not want to come across as judgmental, either of you, or of the people of whom you reference.

But let’s try it from another angle. My recollection of John 6 is that after Christ’s statements about the Eucharist, many left Him…

I appreciate both of your replies, and I want to state up front that I have no intention of changing your minds or winning an argument. I respect your positions and I defer my personal judgments of doctrine and tradition to the authority of the Catholic Church. One of my reasons for participating in the forums is to get a sense of my church culture in the wider world, and it has been a very enlightening experience.

What I want to point out is this: I observed that 1) The rhetoric of mercy seems like a bad idea in defense of a traditional tribunal system that developed over centuries, which is the subject of dispute between Burke and Kasper as outlined in the NCR article and 2) that some conservative Catholics have reacted to the controversy with disproportionate vindictiveness.

You both immediately responded by sweeping aside the actual issue (making some procedural changes to the way the church processes annulments) and by making defenses of your understanding of biblical doctrine (how very Protestant!) to defend a definition of marriage you attribute to Jesus, God, and the Apostles (as if the decisions of the Magisterium are irrelevant?). I’m not an expert on Catholic culture (obviously) but it seems to me that your responses demonstrate the reasonable nature of my observations: when I brought up Catholics who go crazy and change the subject, you went a little crazy and changed the subject.

*No one is suggesting that we should teach that divorce and remarriage is not sinful. * We are kind of–sort of–talking about changing the process by which the church forgives a particular category of sin. This does not seem to justify the wave of terror sweeping conservative Catholic blogs. Tuesday–in a class on Patristic-Medieval Exegesis–I heard a Dominican Father say, “Any time you have to make your argument based on authority, it’s a sign your argument has problems.” When people respond to a minor threat by going nuclear, it’s a sign that their position is difficult to defend.

 

[1newcatholic]

What has any form of tribunal system to do with the nature of truth? I must confess that I do not see how the good Kardinal presents a convoluted synthesis on mercy. I should like to see how K. Casper’s response points to the need for an outmoded form of annulity process, or, how it makes any direct commentary on annulment at all?

Let me provide you with what you must have missed when you carefully read the article:

For those seeking to claim nullity of their marriages, he said, “The Church has to have an apt process to arrive at the truth about that claim,” whereby it can be established whether or not a marriage has been null. “But to simply have people come before what’s called an administrative process or a so-called ‘pastoral process,’” one in which “people simply tell their story to a priest,” who then makes the decision with regard to their reception of the sacraments — “how does that respect the truth of Our Lord’s teaching about marriage?”

“The marriage-nullity process is the fruit of centuries of development and by various expert canonists, one of the great ones being Pope Benedict XIV,” the cardinal said. “For us now simply to say we don’t need that anymore is the height of pride and therefore foolishness.”

Do you perceive a problem with annulity, more generally? Is it not possible for a free gift of grace that is a Sacrament to be defective in bond? Or, do you believe that a marriage is only that union held by the Samaritan woman at the well even when witnessed by the church?

I think you’re going to have to be clearer–what precisely do you mean?

Mercy that denies the truth is found in many modern process rational forms such as the euphemism for murder of persons with terminal illness. Should the church accept “mercy killing” owing to the raisonne d’etat? I would call you guilty and guillotine’d, if you were to affirm such a fatally and seriously flawed “gap” in truth. There are no gaps in truth, unless God is made of Swiss cheese? Well, God is Holy. Ahem.

You deserve recognition for the Swiss cheese joke. I think I will use it in the future. But I am confused–I thought we were talking about divorce and remarriage and annulments, and now you are talking about euthanasia. Your argument is made of swiss cheese–its full of holes…

 

[Tigg]

Surely mercy is not the same thing as letting divorced-remarried Catholics hang around the parish on the fringes of community life, as second-tier Catholics forever barred from receiving the Eucharist

Divorced, remarried Catholics are not considered second-tier and the synod has already addressed this: “It was in any case recalled that for divorced and remarried persons, the fact of not having access to the Eucharist does not mean that they are not members of the ecclesial community; on the contrary, it is to be taken into consideration that there exist various responsibilities that may be exercised.”

I have no objection to keeping divorced-remarried Catholics from certain official positions, but to bar them from receiving the Bread of Life…? It seems extreme, not merciful at all. It sounds like the traditional application of doctrine is more important to Cardinal Burke than the salvation of souls–or is communion irrelevant to our salvation? Should people with sin be denied the experience of forgiveness the rest of us receive?

Mercy has been discussed to a great extent: You may want to read Post #156 of this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=911766&page=11

Also pay particular attention to Post #42 in which I wrote: God’s mercy can only be accessed through true repentance. The poster, Ender expounded on this:

This point seems completely lost on most of those calling it merciful to give communion to the divorced/remarried. **It is a failure to understand the nature of mercy. **On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth, especially in the face of the witness of the cross and resurrection of Christ.

In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness.

(7) c) It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution. (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)

I realize the words of John Paul II are difficult for modern Catholics, but they need to be taken to heart. God’s mercy first demands repentance, then satisfaction for sin. This is because God’s perfect attributes include justice, and justice and mercy are closely intertwined. Repentance opens the flood of grace and forgiveness and new life, but it is clearly the (additional) sin of presumption to assume God will automatically be merciful without the prerequisite of contrition.