Kasper’s response to cardinals’ protests against communion for remarried divorcees

[McCall1981]

Speaking of Cardinal Burke:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404066.htm

Cardinal Burke: Synod should take Communion proposal 'off the table’

"While he said the debate over Cardinal Kasper’s proposal “can only be a healthy thing as long as there’s an honest and deep exchange of views on the matter,” he said protracted discussion at the highest levels has bred confusion.

“This has gone on now for several months and I see that in the media there’s the expectation that there’s going to be some change in the church’s teaching,” Cardinal Burke said. “I hear from bishops and priests that many people are coming to them and insisting that they can now receive the sacraments because they interpret that somehow the church has already changed her teaching. And that isn’t healthy.”

The October 2014 synod is not supposed to reach definitive conclusions but prepare the agenda for a larger world synod a year later, which will make recommendations to the pope. Yet, Cardinal Burke voiced hopes that church leaders would conclude their debate on the Communion question during the first phase of the process.

“What I would hope would happen at (the 2014 synod) is that this issue be clarified and it be off the table,” he said.

Pope Francis is the “first teacher of the faith,” who is expected to author an apostolic exhortation based on the two synods, but he “wanted to call the presidents of conferences of bishops from around the world to hear their thinking, and if he hears from them that there is no point in further discussion of the matter and it should be taken off the table, that would be a wonderful thing,” the cardinal said."

 

[dans0622]

…Does Cardinal Kasper make clear that the only circumstance in which divorced and remarried Catholics may receive Communion is that in which they live celibate lives, do not give public scandal - i.e. they live with people, their children or family, who can attest they live celibate lives - and have a grave reason for living under the same roof, that is, the fact they have young children who need both parents?

If the Cardinal does not say this then what is he saying? …

Hello,

No, he is not saying that. Refer to the link to the video I posted earlier. He does not think a person in a “second marriage” necessarily commits adultery if/when he engages in marital relations.

Dan

 

[McCall1981]

Here is an excellent (IMO) essay on this subject from from Dr. Peters at the blog In the Light of the Law:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/what-to-know-before-asserting-that-a-typical-annulment-makes-no-sense/

What to know before asserting that a typical annulment ‘makes no sense’

September 30, 2014

Misunderstanding—sometimes seasoned with plain ignorance—about canon law, annulments, and tribunal work is common among Catholics and pervasive among non-Catholics. What is unnerving to see, however, in the wake of Cdl. Kasper’s call for holy Communion to be administered to those living in “public and permanent adultery” (CCC 2384), is how high up in Church life such problems apparently reach.

In his latest remarks on annulments, Kasper says: “There are situations in which annulments are possible. But take the case of a couple with ten years of marriage, with kids, which in the first years [was] a happy marriage, but for different reasons fails. This marriage was a reality and to say that it was canonically null makes no sense.”

Taking the cardinal’s words at face value, he flatly rejects (for it “makes no sense”) declaring null any putative (a term Kasper does not use, but which I will discuss below) marriage if it seemed happy for a time, produced children, and lasted ten years. Let’s look at these factors.

Though some these days are put off when canon law is quoted in correction of canonical errors, nevertheless, a legal principle from the thirteenth century is important here: Non firmatur tractu temporis quod de iure ab initio non subsistit, or, “What is null at the start does not become valid with the passage of time.” Regula Iuris XVIII (1298).

The passage of one day, one year, ten years or thirty since the wedding does not make a null marriage valid, and one need only glance at, say, Canons 1156-1160 to see this principle being honored in modern marriage law. Indeed, the Roman Rota often rules for nullity regarding putative marriages that lasted far in excess of ten years. Does Kasper think those Rota decisions “make no sense”? Furthermore—though it never occurred to anyone that a couple’s having children is proof that they are married and so no pithy phrase is available to refute the claim—the Roman Rota often finds null putative marriages that produced many children. Does Kasper think those decisions “make no sense”?

That leaves, then, only Kasper’s objection to annulments for couples whose marriages seemed “happy” for a few years. At this point, Kasper’s unawareness, or avoidance, of the notion of “putative marriage” prejudices his formulation of the problem.

Long story made short, a putative marriage is a union that, once entered into in good faith (by at least one party), looked like a real marriage (1983 CIC 1061 § 3). Used this way, the term “putative marriage” describes the vast majority of “marriages” that are later proven to have been null and helps one avoid mis-thinking that declaring a “marriage” null does something to a marriage as opposed to finding out something about a union. It’s a fine point, to be sure, but failing to avert to it, as Kasper consistently fails to avert to it, prejudices the formulation of this debate.

Notice, every time Kasper describes the union above, he calls it a “marriage”. Thus Kasper’s audience is set up to react negatively when, per the prelate’s description, a marriage that was happy, a marriage that produced children, a marriage that last ten years, is found null, for indeed, as Kasper’s audience rightly senses, a “marriage” can never be found null! What he does not alert them to, though, is the possibility that a putative marriage could be found null.

I realize, of course, that using technical vocabulary can be practically and pastorally cumbersome. In horse-shoes and in daily life, “close-enough” is usually good enough. Nevertheless, in contested matters of major significance, those who seek to influence public understanding of issues and public policy in regard to those issues need at least occasionally to acknowledge that some things are more complex than their phrasing seems to admit.

 

[McCall1981]

What do you all think of this?

Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press (who is a big supporter of Card Burke and is a Jesuit) had this to say:

“I see so much good coming out of this that I suspect, as a fellow Jesuit, that maybe the Holy Father shrewdly tried to stir up a hornet’s nest in order to get some attention,” said the Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of Ignatius Press, which has published several books responding to Kasper.”

religionnews.com/2014/10/02/pope-francis-vatican-synod/

I don’t think I actually agree with him, but it’s an intetesting thought and I’d love to know what others think about it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I pray that the Lord’s will be done on this.

If the Holy Spirit inspires the Cardinals to ease the prohibition against remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion, so be it, praise God.

If the Holy Spirit inspires the Cardinals not to male any changes, so be it, praise God.

My prayer is that the Cardinals come up with a process for such couples to find their way back to full communion in the Church, which makes the process more welcoming, and more pastoral than it is today.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I recall the story in Luke 7: 38-50 where Jesus was invited into the home of the Pharisee and the sinful woman went in and with tears washed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair.

Did Jesus tell the woman she was a sinner and she should not approach him ?

So, I see a similar thing when a Catholic who’s first marriage failed and later remarried, who then comes to the Church, repents and with a desire to grow closer to Jesus. Should the Church turn them away from receiving Jesus ?

I doubt Jesus would turn such people away.

Jim

 

[Colorad007]

I recall the story in Luke 7: 38-50 where Jesus was invited into the home of the Pharisee and the sinful woman went in and with tears washed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair.

Did Jesus tell the woman she was a sinner and she should not approach him ?

So, I see a similar thing when a Catholic who’s first marriage failed and later remarried, who then comes to the Church, repents and with a desire to grow closer to Jesus. Should the Church turn them away from receiving Jesus ?

I doubt Jesus would turn such people away.

Jim

Come on, Jim. You know that repentance requires firm purpose of amendment. The person who comes to our Lord expecting full communion without real repentance is hardly demonstrating the kind of authentic, life-changing faith that our Lord asks–no, requires-of us. Those people should be encouraged to keep following Christ. But at some point we have to be compassionate enough to tell them that they are missing the point of following Him if they’re putting anything before following Jesus with everything they’ve got.

 

[FollowChrist34]

What do you all think of this?

Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press (who is a big supporter of Card Burke and is a Jesuit) had this to say:

“I see so much good coming out of this that I suspect, as a fellow Jesuit, that maybe the Holy Father shrewdly tried to stir up a hornet’s nest in order to get some attention,” said the Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of Ignatius Press, which has published several books responding to Kasper.”

religionnews.com/2014/10/02/pope-francis-vatican-synod/

I don’t think I actually agree with him, but it’s an intetesting thought and I’d love to know what others think about it.

I don’t mind the open debate simply because we all know that there are differences in opinion in the Church - look at CAF. It’s silly not to think these divisions don’t go all the way to the top. And I agree that debate is healthy. From what I hear about 85% of the bishops oppose Cardinal Kasper, so that should be taken into account. And I don’t think we really know where Pope Francis stands. But I take it seriously - I mean I think there could be fall out - this isn’t just a game that you win or lose. It’s fundamentally about the truth of Catholic doctrine and, in my opinion, an attempt to undermine it. People’s intellects, emotions and faith are involved here. I hope the Pope understands that too! And I don’t know if he is that wily to “plan” this uproar; I honestly can’t figure out what he is doing. I think he just wants to get a better sense of how the Church should present itself in terms of evangelization, and specifically, protect the family in this modern age. But the fur is flying, no question. I think the tone of this article slants pro Kasper, ever so slightly. One thing I’ll say to the good, you’re always at your best at defending something when you get a lot of practice and challenge doing it!

 

[Sirach2]

Come on, Jim. You know that repentance requires firm purpose of amendment. The person who comes to our Lord expecting full communion **without real repentance **is hardly demonstrating the kind of authentic, life-changing faith that our Lord asks–no, requires-of us. Those people should be encouraged to keep following Christ.

And pray tell, what you consider as evidence of a repentant heart and firm purpose of amendment, in your humble opinion? Leave the spouse and family? Remain in the present commitment and covenant of love, and try one’s best to follow the requirement of abstinence so they can receive the sacraments? Something else? What does a “lack of real repentance” look like? BTW, Jim was not talking about a lack of it, but on the contrary — a true repentance.

Let’s listen earnestly to St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 7:21-24
Were you a slave when you were called? Each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

If God loves them enough to grant them the grace to repent of the failures that contributed to their divorce, and calls them to Himself, how do you understand God’s desire for them? Or St. Paul’s? Or the Church’s? No need to answer publicly … I am just giving you food for thought. Do you believe God doesn’t love divorced people enough to want their salvation and a loving relationship with Himself?

 

[Colorad007]

And pray tell, what you consider as evidence of a repentant heart and firm purpose of amendment, in your humble opinion? Leave the spouse and family? Remain in the present commitment and covenant of love, and try one’s best to follow the requirement of abstinence so they can receive the sacraments? Something else? What does a “lack of real repentance” look like? BTW, Jim was not talking about a lack of it, but on the contrary — a true repentance.

Let’s listen earnestly to St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 7:21-24
Were you a slave when you were called? Each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

If God loves them enough to grant them the grace to repent of the failures that contributed to their divorce, and calls them to Himself, how do you understand God’s desire for them? Or St. Paul’s? Or the Church’s? No need to answer publicly … I am just giving you food for thought. Do you believe God doesn’t love divorced people enough to want their salvation and a loving relationship with Himself?

You’re insistence on the possibility of such couples living as brother and sister is unnecessary. That is clearly what the Church teaches, and anybody in a second union without an annulment can today make a good confession and resolve to live as brother and sister–and receive Holy Communion as soon as possible. That isn’t even in question.

What is in question is the divorced and remarried person who is sexually active within the second union. The Church teaches very clearly that such a union is adulterous, so the way you demonstrate repentance is turning away from that adultery. If possible, then they may live celibate and remain in that union. But to suggest that it is possible to truly repent of the sin of adultery with every intention of remaining sexually active in a second union is an absolute denial of very basic Catholic penitential theology.

 

[Colorad007]

All Cardinals, who are Princes of the Church, have valuable insights for the Church to consider- be they a Burke, a Kasper, or any other Cardinal.

After this meeting we will have a more authoritative answer as to how the Church will approach the questions which they choose to tackle.

I don’t like to read about conflict between Cardinals, and I especially don’t like to read about layman jumping onto bandwagons.

Trust and let the Church lead. We are not Orthodox with a less hierarchical governmental structure and that is a strength we possess.

The only people with valuable theological insight are cardinals? Every baptized believer is a priest, prophet, and king. The Church is not just a bunch of men in lace and scarlet robes. We are the Church and you are called to preach the Gospel, too.

A lot of “progressives” take that reality to attempt to subvert Church teaching because, as one dissident group calls itself, “We Are Church.” But insofar as you are preaching the truth, the authentic Gospel of Christ, you are absolutely the Church. As Cardinal Burke suggests, when people are not telling the truth, it is up to you to stand up and tell the truth clearly, charitably, and unapologetically. He isn’t just talking about cardinals and bishops, either. He is talking about you, and if you’re leaving it up to the pope or this cardinal or that cardinal to preach the Gospel, to tell the truth, you aren’t taking your personal apostolate seriously enough.

 

[McCall1981]

I don’t mind the open debate simply because we all know that there are differences in opinion in the Church - look at CAF. It’s silly not to think these divisions don’t go all the way to the top. And I agree that debate is healthy. ** From what I hear about 85% of the bishops oppose Cardinal Kasper, so that should be taken into account.** And I don’t think we really know where Pope Francis stands. But I take it seriously - I mean I think there could be fall out - this isn’t just a game that you win or lose. It’s fundamentally about the truth of Catholic doctrine and, in my opinion, an attempt to undermine it. People’s intellects, emotions and faith are involved here. I hope the Pope understands that too! And I don’t know if he is that wily to “plan” this uproar; I honestly can’t figure out what he is doing. I think he just wants to get a better sense of how the Church should present itself in terms of evangelization, and specifically, protect the family in this modern age. But the fur is flying, no question. I think the tone of this article slants pro Kasper, ever so slightly. One thing I’ll say to the good, you’re always at your best at defending something when you get a lot of practice and challenge doing it!

Yeah, I’ve kept pretty close track of the Cardinals that have spoken publically on this issue and this number is about right.

 

[Sirach2]

One further thought, Colorado …

As evidence that this couple is truly repentant, goes to confession, resolves to live in sexual abstinence, but falls on occasion, can you assure me that evidence means they will NEVER fall into temptation and have conjugal relations? Never repent when this happens, and strive again to live their resolve?

Those who are first to cast the stone will also go to confession* themselves*, be sincerely repentant at that moment, yet commit that same sin again at some future date - guaranteed! Otherwise, why do we have confession? For instance, they repent of missing mass on Sunday out of pure negligence or preference for a sports event, but does that mean they will NEVER miss mass again … EVER?

Just as the Church has done throughout the ages – She will develop an understanding of its application without changing Her doctrine, just as was done with respect to other important doctrines. Keep the faith!

 

[Sirach2]

As I consider the volume of very biased pro-Burke sympathizers in this thread, and the lack of fruitful dialogue in many posts that serve only to bait me into unprofitable arguments, I believe my purpose in beginning it has been served.

Carry on. I am unsubscribing.

 

[Ender]

The Vatican confirmed that the call was indeed made. Try google. I’m not here to defend every post I make and get in to a document war, as I stated previously. It just happened that the person’s wording was better than any I might have chosen. That’s all.

The point Burke was making was not that the call was not made but that the pope would use such a mechanism to make a point about church doctrine. His challenge was not to the pope but to those who suggested his call signaled a doctrinal change. That was what he found “absurd.” Again, contrary to the characterization of the article’s author, Burke’s comment was hardly an attack on the pope.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And pray tell, what you consider as evidence of a repentant heart and firm purpose of amendment, in your humble opinion?.. Remain in the present commitment and covenant of love, and try one’s best to follow the requirement of abstinence so they can receive the sacraments?

Yes, at a minimum abstinence is a requirement, just as it is with the unmarried. Beyond that, however, is the possibility of scandal so the fact that they have privately committed themselves to continence may still not allow them to publicly receive communion. Privately, yes, publicly, perhaps not.

Do you believe God doesn’t love divorced people enough to want their salvation and a loving relationship with Himself?

I’m quite sure he loves murderers and thieves as well and wants their salvation too, just as we can be equally sure that the rules for the absolution of sins will remain unchanged.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So, I see a similar thing when a Catholic who’s first marriage failed and later remarried, who then comes to the Church, repents and with a desire to grow closer to Jesus. Should the Church turn them away from receiving Jesus ?

I doubt Jesus would turn such people away.

In order for such individuals to receive communion some aspect of the current doctrines would have to change. Which one of these do you suggest is faulty and should be amended?

1. Divorcing the first spouse and entering a second marriage is adultery.
2. Adultery is a grave sin.
3. An individual in a condition of grave sin may not receive communion.
4. A person may be absolved of sin only through the sacrament of penance.
5. Penance consists of contrition, confession, and satisfaction.
6. Contrition includes the intention not to repeat the same sin.

Just exactly which of these teachings is faulty and needs adjustment, if not outright repudiation? If none of these teachings is changed then it is pretty obvious that those who are divorced and remarried cannot receive communion (unless they have committed themselves to abstinence).In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil… (JPII)
Ender

 

[JRRTFAN]

Let’s be frank. His Eminence, Cardinal Kasper, is a German. In Germany churches are funded by the government. One checks a block on one’s taxes: Lutheran / Catholic in order to direct where he wants the money to go. There are so many divorced and remarried that have defected to Lutheranism because of this issue that the Catholic church is having funding problems. That’s the reason his Eminence hides behind “pastoral love” to create heretical dogma. He needs the money!

The fact of the matter is the European bishops have put the barque on the rocks chasing after secular acceptance and now they don’t know what to do. Wait til judgment day, then they really won’t know what to do.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Come on, Jim. You know that repentance requires firm purpose of amendment. The person who comes to our Lord expecting full communion without real repentance is hardly demonstrating the kind of authentic, life-changing faith that our Lord asks–no, requires-of us.

You don’t know if a person doesn’t have real repentance or not.

This is why as I stated earlier, they require pastoral guidance.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In order for such individuals to receive communion some aspect of the current doctrines would have to change. Which one of these do you suggest is faulty and should be amended?

1. Divorcing the first spouse and entering a second marriage is adultery.
2. Adultery is a grave sin.
3. An individual in a condition of grave sin may not receive communion.
4. A person may be absolved of sin only through the sacrament of penance.
5. Penance consists of contrition, confession, and satisfaction.
6. Contrition includes the intention not to repeat the same sin.

Just exactly which of these teachings is faulty and needs adjustment, if not outright repudiation? If none of these teachings is changed then it is pretty obvious that those who are divorced and remarried cannot receive communion (unless they have committed themselves to abstinence).In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil… (JPII)
Ender

It’s only adultery if in fact the first marriage was valid.

As Pope Benedict XVI stated, lack of faith at the time the marriage took place can make a marriage null and should be taken into account by tribunals reviewing annulment applications.

Fact is, many young couples got married in the Church, not with faith, but for other reasons, such as pressure from the parents, or because it was more beautiful than having a JP do it.

So, when such a marriage falls apart and one ends up in a real marriage where the two seek to come into full union with the Church, not for the sake of religion, but because they have faith in Jesus Christ and want to grow closer to him, they are not committing adultery. Their relationship is disordered with respect to how the Church views a valid marriage, but with pastoral compassion, they should have a path back to the Church without going through a board of strangers, but a pastor who will take the couple’s word as being sincere and honest.

Jim