Key African prelate backs Communion for divorced, remarried

[_Abyssinia]

ROME — A key African participant in October’s looming Synod of Bishops on the family said Tuesday 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.

Archbishop Charles Palmer-Buckle of Accra, Ghana, said in a Crux interview that he supports allowing local bishops to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis, and also believes that’s the result Pope Francis wants from the October summit.

Palmer-Buckle, 64, is one of four executive officers for the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM), the continent-wide assembly of Catholic bishops in Africa who met Pope Francis last Saturday in Rome.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/02/11/key-african-prelate-backs-communion-for-divorced-remarried/

 

[_Abyssinia]

According to the following:

Archbishop Charles Palmer-Buckle of Ghana, to take another example, recently posted an online petition in advance of the synod from a coalition of cultural conservatives around the world on his archdiocesan Facebook page.

That “filial appeal” to Pope Francis calls on the pontiff to make a clear statement against changing the Communion ban for the divorced and civilly remarried, and against any softening of the Church’s position on homosexuality.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/02/03/forecast-2015-synod-of-bishops-will-be-just-as-stormy-as-last-time/

Why would he post a link to the filial appeal, if his view is that described in the Crux article I posted in post number 1?

 

[phil19034]

I don’t believe Crux can be trusted. Crux might be more dangerous than dissent National Catholic Reporter.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t believe Crux can be trusted. Crux might be more dangerous than dissent National Catholic Reporter.

I am bit skeptical of Crux generally as well, but they did an interview with the Cardinal and these must be his words.

 

[LongingSoul]

Pastors in Africa, he said, actually face a wide variety of marital situations, and some flexibility in dealing them would be helpful. He said the landscape includes not just conventional divorce, but also levirate marriage, under which a widow is required to marry her dead husband’s brother, and polygamy.

“I’ll tell you, the Church in Africa is not just saying ‘divorce, no’,” he said. “If we look at our own pastoral challenges, there must be room to listen and to see how we can pastorally accompany whoever wants to belong more and more to Christ.”

Palmer-Buckle described a case of a woman who’s been married to the same man for 35 years, raising children with him, even though he has one or two other wives.

“If I want to apply the law as is, I must tell her to quit the marriage,” he said. “But if I do that, she and her children are going to say, ‘The Church destroyed my family.’ As a bishop, I tell you, I have sleepless nights.”

In that context, he said, a bishop ought to be able to act like a doctor, looking at all the “medicines the Church has on the shelf,” and deciding which one works best for a given patient. He suggested that’s the outcome Pope Francis seems to desire.

“The truth of the matter is that the Holy Father is pushing towards that, when he talks about collegiality,” he said.

“The Holy Father has made it clear that the Church’s doctrine remains the perfection point, the point of arrival, but we are all wounded,” Palmer-Buckle said. “That’s why Christ came, for the sick, the wounded, [and] the needy.”

“If a person is wounded in marriage and is having difficulty, what do you do?” he said. “That’s what the Church is struggling with.”

Both my uncle and cousin are Priests here in Australia… one 50+ years and the other 25+ years and on reading the sentiments of Archbishop Palmer-Buckle, I can say that this same line of thinking has been pondered at diocese level for at least 30 years. Priests and bishops are struggling with something that seems like a thorn in the side of institution of marriage that needs to be addressed somehow, someway.

 

[phil19034]

I am bit skeptical of Crux generally as well, but they did an interview with the Cardinal and these must be his words.

By his words might be taken out of context in the new article.

It sounds to me that the Archbishop would be ok with allowing the Bishops to interview couples one-on-one (themselves) to determine if the sinful situation truly meets all 3 criterium required to be considered a mortal sin.

I imagine this would be fine for orthodox Bishops, but would most likely mean that while one bishop would say “no” another might say “yes”

I think the discipline around something like this would need to be pretty complex, in order to protect from scandal and sacrilege.

 

[LongingSoul]

By his words might be taken out of context in the new article.

It sounds to me that the Archbishop would be ok with allowing the Bishops to interview couples one-on-one (themselves) to determine if the sinful situation truly meets all 3 criterium required to be considered a mortal sin.

I imagine this would be fine for orthodox Bishops, but would most likely mean that while one bishop would say “no” another might say “yes”

I think the discipline around something like this would need to be pretty complex, in order to protect from scandal and sacrilege.

I know that in some earlier interview with Pope Francis that he had expressed a desire to have canon lawyers connected to every parish.

 

[otjm]

More grist for the mill, and the pot of porridge thickens…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Both my uncle and cousin are Priests here in Australia… one 50+ years and the other 25+ years and on reading the sentiments of Archbishop Palmer-Buckle, I can say that this same line of thinking has been pondered at diocese level for at least 30 years. Priests and bishops are struggling with something that seems like a thorn in the side of institution of marriage that needs to be addressed somehow, someway.

you quoted the above:

Palmer-Buckle described a case of a woman who’s been married to the same man for 35 years, raising children with him, even though he has one or two other wives.

“If I want to apply the law as is, I must tell her to quit the marriage,” he said. “But if I do that, she and her children are going to say, ‘The Church destroyed my family.’ As a bishop, I tell you, I have sleepless nights.”

Fundamental misunderstandings here, IMO.

FIRST: the Church does NOT tell her she must ‘quit the marriage’. The option is there, especially for those spouses who have had children, to live ‘as brother and sister’.

SECOND, just ‘who’ is ‘destroying’ this marriage? The Church? No. With respect, usually the people who go into these marriages either know that they are not valid in the eyes of God, or had the opportunity of knowing. It’s not as though for 2000 years Christians --nonCatholic Christians as well as Catholic Christians–lived in a happy state where they could divorce and remarry and go up for communion, and only NOW is there some kind of man-made ‘crackdown’. If these cases are between Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians, it’s part of the bitter fruit of the so-called Reformation whereby Christians became ensnared by so many man-made doctrines culminating in the 20th century ‘loosening’ of divorce laws’ which are purported to be ‘real Christian’ that they DO think they can marry and divorce and receive. The answer to that problem is not to kowtow to wrong doctrine, but to reinforce correct doctrine. If the cases are between Catholic Christians and nonChristians, once again, this is not a matter where we accommodate wrong doctrine as though it were ‘equal’ to correct doctrine.

I am sorry for those who marry, and divorce. (Before the stones get thrown at me, I’m one of them. I did not remarry, not even after I received a decree of nullity, although my ex-spouse did). Had I been lucky enough to ‘fall in love’ again, I would still have waited to pursue any kind of matrimonal relationship until/unless I received that decree. But because I trust Christ (and His Church) I didn’t expect the Church to accommodate itself to me and what my ‘needs’ might be, as though having suffered in a marriage ‘unfairly’ I was somehow being deprived of my ‘right’ to be married whenever I chose, even if in God’s eyes I was not free to do so.

Once again, I find the real trouble in society is that we simply do not trust God to ‘do right’ by us. If WE think that we NEED something, and God says ‘no’, well, we’ll do our best to find loopholes and ways to wiggle through, and finally,.we’ll just do as we please and expect God to forgive us because hey, after all, it’s just too HARD to follow His teachings and He should understand. IN fact, He’d better change those teachings like all the rest of the world has done, if He still wants to have followers. . .and sadly it seems some of His own bishops think that Christianity isn’t about having people follow Christ, but having Christ follow what the people need.

 

[otjm]

I know that in some earlier interview with Pope Francis that he had expressed a desire to have canon lawyers connected to every parish.

although it applies to civil attorneys and not Canon lawyers, there is an old adage:

One lawyer in town starves.

Two lawyers in town make a living.

Three lawyers in town get rich.

My contact with Canon lawyers has been relatively minimal, but I have watched two go at it publicly over the issue of whether or not Canon law requires permanent deacons to be permanently continent.

In the US, from what little I have observed of the issue, no one seems to be requiring it - meaning neither the local diocese nor Rome.

The gist of the discussion seemed to be that the law clearly indicates they must.

And my recollection is that someone from the appropriate dicastery said very simply, that Rome does not require it.

It would seem that one would be inadequate; I would presume there are not enough hours in the day, let alone the week, to be able to handle all the issue that should be handled.

 

[otjm]

you quoted the above:

Fundamental misunderstandings here, IMO.

FIRST: the Church does NOT tell her she must ‘quit the marriage’. The option is there, especially for those spouses who have had children, to live ‘as brother and sister’.

SECOND, just ‘who’ is ‘destroying’ this marriage? The Church? No. With respect, usually the people who go into these marriages either know that they are not valid in the eyes of God, or had the opportunity of knowing. It’s not as though for 2000 years Christians --nonCatholic Christians as well as Catholic Christians–lived in a happy state where they could divorce and remarry and go up for communion, and only NOW is there some kind of man-made ‘crackdown’. If these cases are between Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians, it’s part of the bitter fruit of the so-called Reformation whereby Christians became ensnared by so many man-made doctrines culminating in the 20th century ‘loosening’ of divorce laws’ which are purported to be ‘real Christian’ that they DO think they can marry and divorce and receive. The answer to that problem is not to kowtow to wrong doctrine, but to reinforce correct doctrine. If the cases are between Catholic Christians and nonChristians, once again, this is not a matter where we accommodate wrong doctrine as though it were ‘equal’ to correct doctrine.

I am sorry for those who marry, and divorce. (Before the stones get thrown at me, I’m one of them. I did not remarry, not even after I received a decree of nullity, although my ex-spouse did). Had I been lucky enough to ‘fall in love’ again, I would still have waited to pursue any kind of matrimonal relationship until/unless I received that decree. But because I trust Christ (and His Church) I didn’t expect the Church to accommodate itself to me and what my ‘needs’ might be, as though having suffered in a marriage ‘unfairly’ I was somehow being deprived of my ‘right’ to be married whenever I chose, even if in God’s eyes I was not free to do so.

Once again, I find the real trouble in society is that we simply do not trust God to ‘do right’ by us. If WE think that we NEED something, and God says ‘no’, well, we’ll do our best to find loopholes and ways to wiggle through, and finally,.we’ll just do as we please and expect God to forgive us because hey, after all, it’s just too HARD to follow His teachings and He should understand. IN fact, He’d better change those teachings like all the rest of the world has done, if He still wants to have followers. . .and sadly it seems some of His own bishops think that Christianity isn’t about having people follow Christ, but having Christ follow what the people need.

I first off do not suggest that we need to redefine doctrine.

However, not to make too fine point of it, you are giving a very Euro-centric comment about a culture which is radically different, not only from the current European/North American culture, but from the culture of 50 or 100 years ago. While we do not see much tribalism in either Europe or North America, it is a reality which first world individuals seem to think will be wiped out "if we just educate them {out of their obvious ignorance}]. On an unrelated example, America was shocked when we patted ourselves so thoroughly on the back over Egypt’s oncoming elections, only to find that the Muslim Brotherhood was elected. In America, we seem to think that democracy is a natural state of affairs and far superior to other forms of government, particularly dictatorships. This is but one example of how we, in Europe and North America, so totally misjudge other cultures.

So also, arising from a culture which had centuries before the time of Christ moved past, for example, polygamy, it is easy to slip into the same mindset that if we just teach them the doctrine, well, all is going to fall in place.

Thumping on the table while saying “This is the doctrine, by God, and that’s the end of the discussion” hasn’t provided an answer for the last 2000 years in what is often identified as third world countries.

I don’t expect the Church to change its doctrines; I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism in the 1950’s and firmly believe what I was taught is true.

But how we are going to apply doctrine in situations such as the Archbishop speaks of is so far above the pay grades of anyone in these forums that perhaps, instead of expounding in a Eurocentric manner, we need to speak less, pray much harder, and watch.

The Holy Spirit still guides the Church, and still protects the Church from error, a point that seems to be sorely unknown amongst those who have been having hissy fits over the synod. Perhaps some serious prayers to the Holy Spirit might be in order, rather than causing so much damage to so many electrons.

 

[Sirach2]

But how we are going to apply doctrine in situations such as the Archbishop speaks of is so far above the pay grades of anyone in these forums that perhaps, instead of expounding in a Eurocentric manner, we need to speak less, pray much harder, and watch.

The Holy Spirit still guides the Church, and still protects the Church from error, a point that seems to be sorely unknown amongst those who have been having hissy fits over the synod. Perhaps some serious prayers to the Holy Spirit might be in order, rather than causing so much damage to so many electrons.

:clapping:

 

[_Abyssinia]

I first off do not suggest that we need to redefine doctrine.

However, not to make too fine point of it, you are giving a very Euro-centric comment about a culture which is radically different, not only from the current European/North American culture, but from the culture of 50 or 100 years ago. While we do not see much tribalism in either Europe or North America, it is a reality which first world individuals seem to think will be wiped out "if we just educate them {out of their obvious ignorance}]. On an unrelated example, America was shocked when we patted ourselves so thoroughly on the back over Egypt’s oncoming elections, only to find that the Muslim Brotherhood was elected. In America, we seem to think that democracy is a natural state of affairs and far superior to other forms of government, particularly dictatorships. This is but one example of how we, in Europe and North America, so totally misjudge other cultures.

So also, arising from a culture which had centuries before the time of Christ moved past, for example, polygamy, it is easy to slip into the same mindset that if we just teach them the doctrine, well, all is going to fall in place.

Thumping on the table while saying “This is the doctrine, by God, and that’s the end of the discussion” hasn’t provided an answer for the last 2000 years in what is often identified as third world countries.

I don’t expect the Church to change its doctrines; I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism in the 1950’s and firmly believe what I was taught is true.

But how we are going to apply doctrine in situations such as the Archbishop speaks of is so far above the pay grades of anyone in these forums that perhaps, instead of expounding in a Eurocentric manner, we need to speak less, pray much harder, and watch.

The Holy Spirit still guides the Church, and still protects the Church from error, a point that seems to be sorely unknown amongst those who have been having hissy fits over the synod. Perhaps some serious prayers to the Holy Spirit might be in order, rather than causing so much damage to so many electrons.

It is interesting you bring up polygamy, since Cardinal Napier has voiced questions regarding Communion in regards to people in those situations if the Communion rule is changed:

youtube.com/watch?v=U12-JT_pwKI

 

[OraLabora]

:clapping:

Amen x2

The other thing we need to do is LISTEN with the ear of our hearts… to what these other cultures are saying is their daily realities.

Even our own culture is changing so rapidly, and we’ve become so unchurched, that trying to these folks back without meeting them where they are isn’t likely to work.

I also firmly believe in the Catechism… and doctrine… but pastoral wisdom is something sorely lacking in many cases.

 

[JimG]

By his words might be taken out of context in the new article.

It sounds to me that the Archbishop would be ok with allowing the Bishops to interview couples one-on-one (themselves) to determine if the sinful situation truly meets all 3 criterium required to be considered a mortal sin.

I imagine this would be fine for orthodox Bishops, but would most likely mean that while one bishop would say “no” another might say “yes”

I think the discipline around something like this would need to be pretty complex, in order to protect from scandal and sacrilege.

It seems to me that determining whether there is culpability for mortal sin is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not someone is still married to a former spouse. If a bishop, rather than a tribunal, wants make that decision on a one on one basis, fine, but then let him issue a decree of nullity if that is his decision.

 

[ProVobis]

So also, arising from a culture which had centuries before the time of Christ moved past, for example, polygamy, it is easy to slip into the same mindset that if we just teach them the doctrine, well, all is going to fall in place.

Thumping on the table while saying “This is the doctrine, by God, and that’s the end of the discussion” hasn’t provided an answer for the last 2000 years in what is often identified as third world countries.

I don’t expect the Church to change its doctrines; I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism in the 1950’s and firmly believe what I was taught is true.

I think I see your point. But that’s because we seem to think everyone, including polygamists, still needs to be converted to the doctrines of the Church in order to be saved. That’s not what Vatican II says, nor the Baltimore Catechism for that matter.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I first off do not suggest that we need to redefine doctrine.

However, not to make too fine point of it, you are giving a very Euro-centric comment about a culture. . .

Oh kay. So labeling a remark or series of remarks and ‘boxing it up’, implying that the maker is ‘ignorant’ and following the same kind of view that ‘hasn’t worked’ in millennia, and needs to be more educated about other cultures, is supposed to help fuel a discussion HOW?

But how we are going to apply doctrine in situations such as the Archbishop speaks of is so far above the pay grades of anyone in these forums that perhaps, instead of expounding in a Eurocentric manner, we need to speak less, pray much harder, and watch.

Because apparently my opinion is to be set aside (see above), and thus I’m obviously not praying enough, and watching the situation has been SO successful in the last 2000 years.

The Holy Spirit still guides the Church, and still protects the Church from error, a point that seems to be sorely unknown amongst those who have been having hissy fits over the synod. Perhaps some serious prayers to the Holy Spirit might be in order, rather than causing so much damage to so many electrons.

Maybe it’s a both-and here. Maybe, just maybe, people who are discussing in an INTERNET FORUM have ALREADY been praying to the Holy Spirit, already KNOW that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and are simply discussing a situation instead of having ‘hissy fits’. Again, labels are so convenient to use because it shuts discussion right down. Once you’ve put a person firmly in his or her WRONG “box”, that person has nothing more to contribute.

 

[phil19034]

It seems to me that determining whether there is culpability for mortal sin is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not someone is still married to a former spouse. If a bishop, rather than a tribunal, wants make that decision on a one on one basis, fine, but then let him issue a decree of nullity if that is his decision.

Not a bad idea

 

[Pulvis]

Maybe I am missing something, but did not these same cultures exist in the time of the Apostles? Did not the mid 1500 Jesuits not encounter very primative cultures and still suceed in advancing the faith? Why now, in the 21st century are we unable to understamd and live according to the perinial teaching of Holy Mother Church? Have we evolved? Or devolved? Are the teachings more difficult today than they were in 50 ad? 1300 ad? 1900? I just do not understand.

 

[Sirach2]

Maybe I am missing something, but did not these same cultures exist in the time of the Apostles? Are the teachings more difficult today than they were in 50 ad? 1300 ad? 1900? I just do not understand.

Pulvis, today’s culture is very ungodly in many ways compared even to 50-75 years ago. Remember in Gone with the Wind when the audience gasped as Gable said “I don’t give a damn!” F words are now rampant. This is a tiny example, but the rampant divorces, children born out of wedlock, single parent homes, abortions, drug culture, are things we never envisioned or dealt with in prior ages. These must be addressed pastorally in today’s society, and are critically important.