Leading cardinal says reform heralds new era for the laity and divorcees

[J_Peterson]

Not the real point. The tribunals are a way for people to work with the Church, regardless of what the outcome will be. A outright lifting of the “ban” against remarrieds receiving communion may not really bring people closer to Christ or increase the value of a sacramental marriage.

I agree. It would be weird if they just did away with the teaching on divorce.

I read an article recently by a priest (can’t remember the source) who felt that the annulment process would be better handled by the parish priest, similar to the way it’s done in the Orthodox churches. What would be the issue with the Church doing it this way? Is the current legalistic process the only way to do it while keeping with Church teaching?

 

[Joe_5859]

I agree. It would be weird if they just did away with the teaching on divorce.

I read an article recently by a priest (can’t remember the source) who felt that the annulment process would be better handled by the parish priest, similar to the way it’s done in the Orthodox churches. What would be the issue with the Church doing it this way? Is the current legalistic process the only way to do it while keeping with Church teaching?

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters commented on the article you are remembering and highlighted some of the problems with what the priest was saying:

Reform of the annulment process should not mean dumping it, let alone abandoning Christ’s teaching on marriage

 

[J_Peterson]

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters commented on the article you are remembering and highlighted some of the problems with what the priest was saying:

Reform of the annulment process should not mean dumping it, let alone abandoning Christ’s teaching on marriage

Thank you for that (both the original link and the rebuttle). I’ll have to read it when I can concentrate more.

His ideas did seem very simple but I suspected they were too simple. I’ll accept whatever they come up with. I won’t be going though that process again anyway.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

True, but he must be prudent in choosing his words. I’m sure many of us (not only him) sympathize with at least some of these couples, who are often in difficult situations. However, as a prelate of the Church, it behooves him to be careful, especially since he’s being portrayed as a “top Vatican advisor”.

Same here. I wouldn’t panic: members of the hierarchy have said and done silly things in the past (Rembert Weakland, anyone?), and the Church has still endured.

I don’t think we can dismiss Cardinal Rodriguez as another Weakland. After all he is part of the select group of Cardinals hand-picked by Pope Francis to advise him on Church reform. We’ve been seeing signs pointing both to and away from the possibility of massive changes being made in this area of Church teaching and practice. I am confident that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church from formally teaching error in this regard, but short of that only time will tell how things will turn out. Meanwhile this period of uncertainty and speculation may prove to be the most damaging phase of the process, as people on both sides of the issue (and other aspects of renewal) build up expectations that may not come to pass, setting the stage for disappointment and dissent later for the “progressives” and creating an atmosphere of fear and alienation for the “conservatives”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I always get a touch of the crawlies when I learn of someone who received an annulment and remarried.

But then, it’s just a fact that people are so poorly catechized nowadays that they take much of their “morals” and concepts of marriage from the society of which they are apart.

And when the society trivilizes marriage so profoundly as to approve “marriage” between persons of the same sex, what does it mean to the rank and file Catholic who never heard any moral instruction other than “loving, caring and sharing”? What do they intend when they marry? Really, what do they? To what are they giving consent? Do they even know?

Hard for me to get too righteous about annulments, even though they always trouble me a bit.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ll accept whatever they come up with. I won’t be going though that process again anyway.

I agree with this. After all, Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to the Church, not to me.

 

[CutlerB]

While I have no problem with a Congregation for the Laity, as a German Catholic my loyalties lie with the Magisterium, the whole matter of Communion for the divorced and remarried being no exemption. However, this is the Cardinal’s opinion. I stand with Cardinal in spe Müller on these and quite a few other issues.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Not the real point. The tribunals are a way for people to work with the Church, regardless of what the outcome will be. A outright lifting of the “ban” against remarrieds receiving communion may not really bring people closer to Christ or increase the value of a sacramental marriage.

Ah, I thought you meant you didn’t want the tribunals to stop handing them out like candy.

I cannot fathom the concept of those who have divorce and remarried, with the first still considered valid, being allowed to receive communion as that would be accepting adultery as a nonmortal sin.

 

[ProVobis]

Ah, I thought you meant you didn’t want the tribunals to stop handing them out like candy.

I cannot fathom the concept of those who have divorce and remarried, with the first still considered valid, being allowed to receive communion as that would be accepting adultery as a nonmortal sin.

Not only that but promoting one sacrament (Eucharist) at the expense of another (Matrimony) would certainly appear to be a change of Church doctrine. The annulment process, even with its existing flaws, at least preserves the sacraments as Christ instituted them, if not made them stronger.

 

[J_Peterson]

Not only that but promoting one sacrament (Eucharist) at the expense of another (Matrimony) would certainly appear to be a change of Church doctrine. The annulment process, even with its existing flaws, at least preserves the sacraments as Christ instituted them, if not made them stronger.

That’s an excellent point.

I will say, from experience, that obedience with regards to abstaining from Eucharist has it’s own grace. It can be healing. In my case I have a way out of my predicament (when I get married) but I do feel bad for those that have thier annulment denied. Those are the rules though. It’s tough to argue against the teaching since Christ was so clear on divorce. I’d argue that, with the exception to how we are to treat the poor, he was clearest on this subject then most others.

 

[ProVobis]

I will say, from experience, that obedience with regards to abstaining from Eucharist has it’s own grace. It can be healing. In my case I have a way out of my predicament (when I get married) but I do feel bad for those that have thier annulment denied. Those are the rules though. It’s tough to argue against the teaching since Christ was so clear on divorce. I’d argue that, with the exception to how we are to treat the poor, he was clearest on this subject then most others.

Also good points.

But I think it’s important to note that even in denying an annulment it doesn’t mean the Church condemns one to Hell. Christ just doesn’t do that. As you say, there are graces bestowed in other ways, with Mass attendance being perhaps the most important one of them and a spiritual communion always being available to one.

 

[Peebo]

The church…through the guidance of the Holy Spirit will make the right decision as it has done so for 2000 years…our only speculation should be whether we as individuals will accept that decision…like it or not

 

[J_Peterson]

Also good points.

But I think it’s important to note that even in denying an annulment it doesn’t mean the Church condemns one to Hell. Christ just doesn’t do that. As you say, there are graces bestowed in other ways, with Mass attendance being perhaps the most important one of them and a spiritual communion always being available to one.

I think that’s one of the biggest misconceptions about the Church (well one of many anyway haha). That not only goes for the divorced/remarried but others that aren’t in communion for whatever reason. The Church has only ever offered me compassion, never condemnation. I wish more understood that.

It does put one in a dangerous situation but that’s between the individual and Christ.

 

[Cider]

What reform? I haven’t heard there was a reform. Although I have read Father Z’s takes on the Cardinal’s comments.

 

[McCall1981]

For those interested, here is Jimmy Akin’s take on the situation:

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/is-a-clash-brewing-between-two-cardinals-over-divorce-and-remarriage-12-thi

 

[Joe_5859]

For those interested, here is Jimmy Akin’s take on the situation:

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/is-a-clash-brewing-between-two-cardinals-over-divorce-and-remarriage-12-thi

Thanks for that. It’s good to see more of the context. Yes, I can see how it would come across as somewhat insulting towards Muller. I doubt that was Cardinal Rodriguez’s intent, though.

 

[Brendan]

It’d be simply tragic if fewer decrees of nullity were pronounced.

I would say that the opposite is True. If fewer decrees of nullity are pronounced, that would be that either fewer marriages are ending in divorce, or that more marriages had been blessed by Sacramental Graces. All of that sounds great to me

The Church will always be obligated to speak nothing other than the Truth. If a marriage was contracted validly, they there can be no decree of nullity. If the marriage was not contracted validly, it should be presumed so unless sufficient evidence for the Church to rule otherwise.

A civil marriage is either valid (naturally or Sacramentally) or it is not. The Church can only determine what IS and can state nothing otherwise.

 

[CrossofChrist]

For those interested, here is Jimmy Akin’s take on the situation:

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/is-a-clash-brewing-between-two-cardinals-over-divorce-and-remarriage-12-thi

I think this is a good summary.

Hopefully the good Cardinal can clarify his remarks. Because initially they seem condescending:

He made a general remark about German theology professors and them seeing things in black and white. Which is confusing since German theology professors are notoriously liberal and less black-and-white than the traditional Roman scholasticism common elsewhere. This can also be seen as an insult to Pope Benedict who as we all know is a great German theologian and former professor. I hope it wasn’t, but once again I’m skeptical since Pope Benedict criticized Caritas (Cardinal Rodriguez was and I think still is the head of Caritas) for not being Catholic enough, or to use Pope Francis’ terminology, as being too similar to an NGO. Not to mention the reasons mentioned in the above link.

I would greatly appreciate clarification.