Doctrinal wars? Both sides fire over Communion for divorced, remarried

[McCall1981]

Here’s a small update on the original article.

Apparently the quote is that Kasper has the “impression” that the Pope also wants to see an “opening” on the communion issue.

“In an interview published in the forthcoming issue of The Tablet Cardinal Walter Kasper adds that his “impression” is that the Pope would also like to see an “opening” in this area.
“I hope the bishops will listen to the voice of people who live as divorced and remarried – the sensus fidei. They should listen and then next year they should decide what is possible and what is not possible,” he said.”

thetablet.co.uk/news/1153/0/kasper-says-pope-francis-would-like-to-see-an-opening-on-church-teaching-on-divorced-and-remarried

 

[Colorad007]

Here’s a small update on the original article.

Apparently Kasper has the “impression” that the Pope also wants to see an “opening” on the communion issue.

“In an interview published in the forthcoming issue of The Tablet Cardinal Walter Kasper adds that his “impression” is that the Pope would also like to see an “opening” in this area.
“I hope the bishops will listen to the voice of people who live as divorced and remarried – the sensus fidei. They should listen and then next year they should decide what is possible and what is not possible,” he said.”

thetablet.co.uk/news/1153/0/kasper-says-pope-francis-would-like-to-see-an-opening-on-church-teaching-on-divorced-and-remarried

The Tablet? Really?

 

[McCall1981]

The Tablet? Really?

My understanding is that The Tablet did the interview, so they would know what he said. I’m not saying it’s right, just that his quote is that he has this “impression”, which wasn’t in the OP.

 

[McCall1981]

The Tablet? Really?

Well, apparently that was his quote to The Tablet.

 

[Tigg]

Here’s a small update on the original article.

Apparently the quote is that Kasper has the “impression” that the Pope also wants to see an “opening” on the communion issue.

“In an interview published in the forthcoming issue of The Tablet Cardinal Walter Kasper adds that his “impression” is that the Pope would also like to see an “opening” in this area.
**“I hope the bishops will listen to the voice of people who live as divorced and remarried – the sensus fidei. They should listen and then next year they should decide what is possible and what is not possible,” he said.”
**
thetablet.co.uk/news/1153/0/kasper-says-pope-francis-would-like-to-see-an-opening-on-church-teaching-on-divorced-and-remarried

We were afraid of this very thing with the survey. If one is not living in a state of grace, nor assented to the truth of church teaching, how can they have sensus fidelium? It does not mean the majority opinion of those not living a sacramental life.

 

[JimG]

Please show me the passage where Jesus says that it is impossible to receive communion if you are divorced and remarried.

I direct your attention to the passage about forgiveness, seventy times over.

The question is not one of forgiveness. Forgiveness is always possible, always offered. The question is rather of how to deal with what is a de facto state of continuing adultery due to the presence of a prior, presumably valid marriage.

Mostly, those in such situations probably do not see the first marriage as still binding, and so do not perceive themselves to be in a statue of adultery. The solution, then, is to demonstrate that the prior marriage was null from the beginning, and not binding. That’s the purpose of the annulment process.

I have often told the story of my Aunt, who married very young, and it seems to me, foolishly. I was not around at the time. The husband abandoned her within months. She applied for annulment; it was denied. In those days declarations of nullity were not easily obtained.

She met and married a very good man, who stayed with her for life. She did not leave the Church. She was active in her parish, and well known to her pastor as a volunteer. She just did not receive communion because of her marital state. I urged her once to appeal the original annulment decision (decades later.) She declined. She said she accepted the original decision. Many years later, her husband became impotent due to advancing age. She went to confession and began going to communion again. Nothing in her situation caused her to separate from the Church.

 

[McCall1981]

We were afraid of this very thing with the survey. If one is not living in a state of grace, nor assented to the truth of church teaching, how can they have sensus fidelium? It does not mean the majority opinion of those not living a sacramental life.

For what it’s worth, the Pope had some good things to say about the Sensus Fidelium a little while back, about how it is not the same as public opinion, etc.

 

[1newcatholic]

Because we as Devout Catholics care about the souls of others, and worry about what effect “relaxing” the “rules” regarding the reception of the Eucharist might have.

So you sit as judge over the decisions the Holy Catholic Church makes in her capacity as God’s instrument of salvation.

Sounds like a pretty typical Devout Catholic to me.

 

[ProVobis]

I have often told the story of my Aunt, who married very young, and it seems to me, foolishly. I was not around at the time. The husband abandoned her within months. She applied for annulment; it was denied. In those days declarations of nullity were not easily obtained.

She met and married a very good man, who stayed with her for life. She did not leave the Church. She was active in her parish, and well known to her pastor as a volunteer. She just did not receive communion because of her marital state. I urged her once to appeal the original annulment decision (decades later.) She declined. She said she accepted the original decision. Many years later, her husband became impotent due to advancing age. She went to confession and began going to communion again. Nothing in her situation caused her to separate from the Church.

Good to know there are people who realize God loves them as much as He loves those who receive at every opportunity. The key is that they don’t leave the Church.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Today Fr. Z commented that if a more “synodal” form of Church governance is pursued, rows over the juicy questions of the day will basically be the status quo of how things operate, a la the early Church synods.

I think there’s some truth to that. If everyone is invited to make their opinions known… they will make them known!

 

[sainthumbert]

“They claim to know on their own what truth is, but Catholic doctrine is not a closed system, but a living tradition that develops,” German Cardinal Walter Kasper told the Italian daily Il Mattino. “They want to crystallize the truth in certain formulas … the formulas of tradition.”

This cardinal could use a little St Nick smack-down. I’m afraid we don’t have any St Nicks though.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The only way I know of to enable communion for the divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity, is to make obtaining a declaration of nullity a lot easier. The Church has no authority to overturn a command of Jesus.

Perhaps there will be a “presumption of nullity” for all first marriages. Actually in today’s society, such a presumption may not be far from the truth. However, the Church has always taken the position that a marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise.

The only other possibility is to take the position that yes, we assume your first marriage remains valid and so the existing second one cannot be, so you are living in an objective state of adultery, but no matter–you can receive communion anyway. Such a position, if taken, would almost certainly have to be extended to other sins as well.

That is a horrible thought. “So I’m Fr. Jones here and I’m witnessing your marriage on behalf of the Church, we both know that this thing probably isn’t real, so why don’t you two save yourselves the photographer money, split now, and move on two your number twos?”

Marriage would existentially collapse. I can’t go around doubting everyone’s marriage no matter what anybody says, nor how bad society gets. How presumptuous! How uncharitable! shiver

 

[JimG]

That is a horrible thought. “So I’m Fr. Jones here and I’m witnessing your marriage on behalf of the Church, we both know that this thing probably isn’t real, so why don’t you two save yourselves the photographer money, split now, and move on two your number twos?”

Marriage would existentially collapse. I can’t go around doubting everyone’s marriage no matter what anybody says, nor how bad society gets. How presumptuous! How uncharitable! shiver

A “presumption of nullity” is a sort of horrible thought. And yet I think of how many wedding ceremonies I have attended where I couldn’t help but think “this will not last.” Has anyone ever had that experience? When attending a wedding ceremony, do you presume that the bride and groom both intend a permanent, binding, unbreakable marital relationship that can be severed only by death? Do they have the intention of permanence, of fidelity–forsaking all others–, and of openness to life–no contraceptive intent? If they don’t, they don’t have the proper intention for marriage.

 

[CradleJourney]

The only way I know of to enable communion for the divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity, is to make obtaining a declaration of nullity a lot easier. The Church has no authority to overturn a command of Jesus.

I think this is exactly what needs none. For those married with obvious possible impediments (young age, pregnancy) and those who were not part of the Church for both the prior marriage and the prior divorce, there should be a review of the case, but it should be much easier than it seems to be now. There also needs to be more staff to handle applications and actual programs / councilors to help those who wish to apply.

Currently, we have extensive preparation for the sacrament of marriage. However, that was not always the case in the past and I think a more streamlined approach to those situations would not endanger the validity of the sacrament but instead help return those trapped by a bad decision to full communion in the Church.

 

[Lorelael]

I think this is exactly what needs none. For those married with obvious possible impediments (young age, pregnancy) and those who were not part of the Church for both the prior marriage and the prior divorce, there should be a review of the case, but it should be much easier than it seems to be now. There also needs to be more staff to handle applications and actual programs / councilors to help those who wish to apply.

Currently, we have extensive preparation for the sacrament of marriage. However, that was not always the case in the past and I think a more streamlined approach to those situations would not endanger the validity of the sacrament but instead help return those trapped by a bad decision to full communion in the Church.

I think that is where I am understanding of the reasons, marriage is a covenant with God, yet frustrated with the process. We were not Catholic when we got married, and our church married us even though he had been married prior (even at the same church) It is making the RCIA process very difficult on us and feels like punishment, particularly for myself. Why does it have to take so long (we were told 1-2 years) when my husband’s ex wife is more than willing to admit that she was unfaithful? Why do I have to pay several hundred dollars (that I can’t afford - yes I know there can sometimes be assistance with that) for something as simple as a phone call or a meeting with her? She is more than willing to come to the church and tell our priest about the previous marriage. I’m just heartbroken that my family might not be able to be fully received into the church during this Easter Vigil and partake in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[pnewton]

I think that is where I am understanding of the reasons, marriage is a covenant with God, yet frustrated with the process. We were not Catholic when we got married, and our church married us even though he had been married prior (even at the same church)… I’m just heartbroken that my family might not be able to be fully received into the church during this Easter Vigil and partake in the Holy Eucharist.

Your situation is one that brings me to be more sympathetic to Cardinal Kaspar’s position. Presumption of validity equates to presumption of sin in this case, which to me seems contradictory to the Church’s teaching on rash judgment. Furthermore, since mortal sin requires full knowledge, it must be that those married for a second time with a blessing of their beliefs that it is not sin, as is the case in most Protestant churches, could *not *be subjective sin. Like the use of birth control, which is not considered sinful in these denominations. How can a person sin when they are not only following their conscience, but they are actively seeking to form their conscience as a Christian?

One thing Cardinal Kaspar says I totally agree that the second court is a questionable step, as it gathers no new data and does little but delay the process with no increased consideration.

 

[Lorelael]

Your situation is one that brings me to be more sympathetic to Cardinal Kaspar’s position. Presumption of validity equates to presumption of sin in this case, which to me seems contradictory to the Church’s teaching on rash judgment. Furthermore, since mortal sin requires full knowledge, it must be that those married for a second time with a blessing of their beliefs that it is not sin, as is the case in most Protestant churches, could *not *be subjective sin. Like the use of birth control, which is not considered sinful in these denominations. How can a person sin when they are not only following their conscience, but they are actively seeking to form their conscience as a Christian?

One thing Cardinal Kaspar says I totally agree that the second court is a questionable step, as it gathers no new data and does little but delay the process with no increased consideration.

I’m still learning as much as I can about canon laws, but being in that position as you put it much more eloquently than I can…I entered into my marriage for life in the eyes of God. Yes my husband may have been married prior, but his same church married him again because of the prior situation. Therefore I do not feel like out marriage is invalid nor am I committing a sin because I chose to grow in my faith and come to the Catholic church. It was only then, when I started the RCIA, that I found out that everything about my marriage was wrong and sinful (to put it simplistically) until there was an annulment. How was to ever know, when I have done everything “right” according to what I have been raised in Christian beliefs.

 

[RaphaelJ]

According to Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus stated that "It was also said “Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery and whoever married a divorced woman commits adultery”. Thus, what seems strange is actually the practices of other Christian churches that allow divorce because it is very strong here that divorce and remarriage is said to be adultery.

However, what can change is how the Church treats this. It is possible but imprudent (in my opinion) to allow people who are currently living in irregular status to first receive penance but allow them to keep living in an irregular status.

Edit: About Matthew 5:31-32, other translations state that in the place where “unless the marriage is unlawful”, there is adultery, fornication or other sins. Can someone give a proper translation here?

 

[Lorelael]

According to Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus stated that "It was also said “Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery and whoever married a divorced woman commits adultery”. Thus, what seems strange is actually the practices of other Christian churches that allow divorce because it is very strong here that divorce and remarriage is said to be adultery.

However, what can change is how the Church treats this. It is possible but imprudent (in my opinion) to allow people who are currently living in irregular status to first receive penance but allow them to keep living in an irregular status.

On some of my research, I have read that during this process of annulment, particularly in my case, that they can still receive the Blessed Sacrament if they can practice abstinence until the process is complete. While, that is possible, it still does take a very large degree of self control. After being married for 19 years, and very much in love, it makes it even more of a daunting task considering the extreme length of time that I have been told it would take for the tribunal to review it and approve it. I just really wish that it were easier…not that I agree with divorce/annulment, but in circumstances such as mine and others where there is a breach in the Sacred covenant of marriage that is very obvious and “simple” it could be handled in a more streamlined fashion.

 

[ProVobis]

I think this is exactly what needs none. For those married with obvious possible impediments (young age, pregnancy) and those who were not part of the Church for both the prior marriage and the prior divorce, there should be a review of the case, but it should be much easier than it seems to be now. There also needs to be more staff to handle applications and actual programs / councilors to help those who wish to apply.

While I find nothing wrong with this approach, do realize that there will always be some who will not go through an annulment process for any reason. I’ve known people to fight their ex-spouses on this matter. At least the ones I know know well enough not to receive if they’ve remarried. In those cases, I doubt if anything that comes out of these discussions will affect them.