On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[JimG]

Almost everyone knows what the Cardinal means, he was speaking to orthodox Catholics who know what he means by a so-called “second marriage”, or almost everyone that is?

It is touching, it is, these charitable replies to a comment trying to provide a response to the OP’s question: “How will the more liberal bishops respond”?

Anyway, I was wondering how y’all would know a person in a so-called “second marriage”, as understood by almost everyone (well, almost everyone), is in the objective state of mortal sin by that fact alone?

I don’t think anyone can know whether someone else is in an objective state of mortal sin. What one can know is that if a person is in a second marriage without the first one having been declared null, then one of those marriages must be invalid. Both cannot be valid, and the first one entered into is presumed valid unless declared null.

So the person is either living in a de facto adulterous relationship or not. If “not,” the uncertainty can only be resolved by a marriage tribunal.

 

[LongingSoul]

One of the points of Church teaching regarding the divorced/remarrieds that I find uncomfortable, is the actual stipulation that if a couple is living in a second legal union, has children that they are raising in the Church and practice Catholicism in every other way… abstains from sexual intercourse, that communion is permitted them.

That to my mind, is doing more harm than good and a requirement that doesn’t have a natural law basis. I think that should have been left to the realm of pastoral solution according the the circumstances of the couple… than been officially allowed.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...dNiuxGMV8LxIqaaGAeexSqLDxm-cnoBqq3De2Xee3GPsE

I actually had a shirt made with that meme. I wear it during the “holiday time” it is my favorite shirt…

 

[KSU]

Almost everyone knows what the Cardinal means, he was speaking to orthodox Catholics who know what he means by a so-called “second marriage”, or almost everyone that is?

**Please give me the quote where I said everyone but you knows what he meant. **

It is touching, it is, these charitable replies to a comment trying to provide a response to the OP’s question: “How will the more liberal bishops respond”?

I say again, quote me.

Anyway, I was wondering how y’all would know a person in a so-called “second marriage”, as understood by everyone (well, almost everyone), is in the objective state of mortal sin by that fact alone?

Just like the Pharisees, we can ask Jesus:
usccb.org/bible/mk/10:02

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t think anyone can know whether someone else is in an objective state of mortal sin. What one can know is that if a person is in a second marriage without the first one having been declared null, then one of those marriages must be invalid. Both cannot be valid, and the first one entered into is presumed valid unless declared null.

So the person is either living in a de facto adulterous relationship or not. If “not,” the uncertainty can only be resolved by a marriage tribunal.

Yes, that is correct. A divorced Catholic who is in a “second” marriage and has not obtained an annullment is not truly by that fact alone in the objective state of mortal sin. It is a presumption. This differs from the presumption of innocense in criminal law before any facts are known and is the opposite presumption of guilt before any facts are known.

I would suggest this might be a consideration that liberal bishops could consider. There is the question of the moral judgment of another person.

 

[Thomas_White]

KSU:
Relax. I never said you did.

 

[Art321]

No new ideas???!!!
That’s not good.
Our society will die without innovations and new ideas!

I think this pope is very much about hearing what everyone has to say and coming up with “new ideas”.
Last week, he himself told the United Nations:

"Reform and adaptation to the times is always necessary in the pursuit of the ultimate goal.”

.

I seem to be hearing the same thing constantly. As I had a conversation a while back, I was told a simple statement “Those that do not change eventually die out”. Of course, I do know that he was advocating for the change of the teachings of the Faith.

As you quote Pope Francis and as some use these type of statements, I have to agree with this statement but not in the way that people would think. Throughout the ages, the Church has faced many obstacles and as such as adapted to engage in these obstacles. From my knowledge, the Catholic Faith has never changed at all, yet the way it has always been brought forth to the people has been different from time to time. At times, it was the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas that proclaimed the Truth through theology and philosophy while at other times it was the likes of St. Francis of Assisi who proclaimed Christ through his actions with the poor.

As such, our encounter with modern times is not as different as many people would like to believe. There are many obstacles to the Faith today that are very much the same as they were in the early eras of the Church except they have asserted themselves quite differently. For our benefit, we have modern technology that can help us proclaim the Catholic Faith to every single fallen away Catholic. Bishop Robert Barron is awesome on this front!

 

[JimG]

Yes, that is correct. A divorced Catholic who is in a “second” marriage and has not obtained an annullment is not truly by that fact alone in the objective state of mortal sin. It is a presumption. This differs from the presumption of innocense in criminal law before any facts are known and is the opposite presumption of guilt before any facts are known.

I would suggest this might be a consideration that liberal bishops could consider. There is the question of the moral judgment of another person.

Yes, they are not presumed to be in a state of mortal sin. They are presumed to be in an invalid marriage. The question becomes, should one in a presumptively invalid marriage be considered free to receive the Eucharist?

It seems to me that if they do consider themselves free to receive the Eucharist, they must also by that fact presume their first marriage to be invalid. That’s a pretty broad short circuiting of the tribunal process, effectively delegating decision authority to one of the spouses involved. It would have in practice the same effect as no fault divorce. Either party might decide, at some point after the vows were recited, that the marriage was in fact null and thus they were free to marry again. The tribunal process could be replaced by a simple statement signed by one of the parties decreeing that the marriage is null. Is this where we are headed?

 

[HCTC]

Remember it was Gilliam that used those terms not the Synod or us. God Bless, Memaw

It was not Gilliam using the boxing terms. They actually began in the headline for the commentary:

On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

And the headline reflected an allegory within the piece:

"One thing seems clear, however, from Monday’s opening act: If Erdő’s way of framing the discussion is any indication, the camp concerned with upholding tradition doesn’t simply plan to counter-punch this time around.

Instead, Erdő landed the first blow himself. Now, it remains to be seen whether the “apostolic courage” to which Francis exhorted the prelates on Monday translates into a similar fighting spirit among other participants over the next three weeks."

In my humble opinion, it is an unfortunate use of that literary device and not really appropriate for a meeting of bishops hoping for guidance from the Holy Spirit as they dialogue about such consequential matters.

 

[sarah_j]

One of the points of Church teaching regarding the divorced/remarrieds that I find uncomfortable, is the actual stipulation that if a couple is living in a second legal union, has children that they are raising in the Church and practice Catholicism in every other way… abstains from sexual intercourse, that communion is permitted them.

That to my mind, is doing more harm than good and a requirement that doesn’t have a natural law basis. I think that should have been left to the realm of pastoral solution according the the circumstances of the couple… than been officially allowed.

There’s an article on the home page of Catholic Answers today which discusses
that exact situation. What are you referring to when you say
“That …is doing more harm than good.” ? Not sure what you’re referring to there.

*"…the pastoral prescription for persons in invalid marriages who wish to receive the Eucharist, but for practical reasons (such as care of children) can’t separate from one another, has been for them to “live as brother and sister”—sharing a common life but not a common bed. By committing to chastity and receiving sacramental absolution, they remove that insuperable barrier to full communion with Christ and the Church that ongoing, unrepentant adultery poses.

The Kasper proposal does not include such a requirement. In his interview with Commonweal, Cardinal Kasper suggested that living as brother and sister would be “heroic” and thus not required for all Christians. But avoiding serious sin, however difficult it may be, is not strictly heroic—meaning something above and beyond what all Christians are called to do. (For example, deliberately submitting to martyrdom.) To do good and avoid evil is the fundamental moral commandment, and it applies to everyone.

Indeed, I think it’s a great gesture of mercy on the part of the Church that, when circumstances require it and there is no chance of scandal, couples in invalid unions may continue to live together, raise children, keep a checkbook, carry on as spouses in every other way, and still be fully participant Catholics, so long as they promise to live chastely (which every Catholic must do, anyway). This solution does justice to the ties they have built with each other and to the outstanding reality that one or both of them nonetheless remains bound in marriage to another person." *

catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/its-the-adultery-stupid

 

[Cider]

Remember it was Gilliam that used those terms not the Synod or us. God Bless, Memaw

No it was the title of the article which apparently some people didn’t even read.

 

[Megan7]

My hat is off to Cardinal Erdo for what he said…

If I am not mistaken, CRUX is supposed to be extremely liberal, so I normally never read anything on their site. But, this article seems quite interesting Thank you!

I am with SEAMUS, DREAMER & ** CASILDA **God Bless Cardinal Erdo!

“God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. No innovations, no new ideas…”

I have to keep praying my daily Holy Rosary & devotions for the Synod!



+PAX

 

[LongingSoul]

There’s an article on the home page of Catholic Answers today which discusses
that exact situation. What are you referring to when you say
“That …is doing more harm than good.” ? Not sure what you’re referring to there.

*"…the pastoral prescription for persons in invalid marriages who wish to receive the Eucharist, but for practical reasons (such as care of children) can’t separate from one another, has been for them to “live as brother and sister”—sharing a common life but not a common bed. By committing to chastity and receiving sacramental absolution, they remove that insuperable barrier to full communion with Christ and the Church that ongoing, unrepentant adultery poses.

The Kasper proposal does not include such a requirement. In his interview with Commonweal, Cardinal Kasper suggested that living as brother and sister would be “heroic” and thus not required for all Christians. But avoiding serious sin, however difficult it may be, is not strictly heroic—meaning something above and beyond what all Christians are called to do. (For example, deliberately submitting to martyrdom.) To do good and avoid evil is the fundamental moral commandment, and it applies to everyone.

Indeed, I think it’s a great gesture of mercy on the part of the Church that, when circumstances require it and there is no chance of scandal, couples in invalid unions may continue to live together, raise children, keep a checkbook, carry on as spouses in every other way, and still be fully participant Catholics, so long as they promise to live chastely (which every Catholic must do, anyway). This solution does justice to the ties they have built with each other and to the outstanding reality that one or both of them nonetheless remains bound in marriage to another person."*

catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/its-the-adultery-stupid

I haven’t read Cardinal Kaspers full reasoning other than what this article is quoting, but I do agree with that part of what he says. By saying ‘it does more harm than good’ I mean that unless a couple, who’ve obviously had weak or no faith already, suddenly develop the spiritual fortitude to adopt a celibate co-existence, the requirement is going to be damaging to the family unit. It would either mean an active suppressing of the natural affections and emotions that brought them together in the first place, which I don’t think is supportable in our nature and represents a permanent state of occasion of sin… or it could lead people to adopt an attitude of fall into sin… confess before Mass… fall into sin… confess before Mass. Habitual sin is one of the most soul destroying conditions to the serious penitent. What one wants is to remove every stumbling block and temptation that seduces you to sin so as to break the habit.

The only benefit I can see from having it officially recognised in general teaching that divorced/remarried can receive Communion if they are celibate inside their marriage… is that it stops the nosy Nelly’s and gossipy Gails from speculating about them as they proceed up the Communion line.

I also feel that it stalls the healthy exploration into solving this painful situation with something more edifying for the couples. People don’t want to live in limbo for the entirety of their lives. There are some situations where an unfixable act of intrinsic evil can be repented of without having to be fixed. For example, a man who’s had a vasectomy as a contraceptive measure or a women who’s had her tubes tied for that reason. For the rest of their lives their conjugal union is the result of contraception… however the sin can be repented of and forgiven without having to resolve the situation or remain abstinent for the rest of their lives.

 

[JackVk]

I’m taking the Shaun of the Dead approach to this Synod:

1.Get in the car
2. Pick up mum
3. Kill Philip (Sorry Philip)
4. Go and get Elizabeth
5. Head for the Winchester
6. Grab a pint and wait for all of this to blow over.

Who’s with me?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m taking the Shaun of the Dead approach to this Synod:

1.Get in the car
2. Pick up mum
3. Kill Philip (Sorry Philip)
4. Go and get Elizabeth
5. Head for the Winchester
6. Grab a pint and wait for all of this to blow over.

Who’s with me?

That is exactly how I handled the Pope’s trip here to the US. ANd now I am in a holding pattern until this hullabaloo is over…

 

[adrift]

The very title of this article should give us pause before accepting anything said in it. No one struck anyone.

Seriously?
It could mean to strike physically, but it is not it’s only meaning.
Strike has various meaning not just to hit someone. It also means- to take a course, or to raise a flag. etc. It’s use in the title could mean to make a beginning or to engage in (a battle) : fight.

 

[Mongo]

In the article, the Cardinal is quoted as saying the Church does not recognize a second marriage but also says a second marriage is in “objective truth” sinful. What second marriage? How is it the “objective truth” that a second marriage is both sinful and isn’t, as he correctly states the Church provides?

Is this unambiguous? These are only questions that arose while reading the article.

Read the paragraphs again. It says the ‘objective truth’ is that living in a second Union is a sin when the church regards the first marriage as valid. It doesn’t say second marriage. There may be ambiguity in the use of the phrase ‘first marriage’, but it doesn’t mean that the Church recognizes a second Union.

 

[Thomas_White]

Read the paragraphs again. It says the ‘objective truth’ is that living in a second Union is a sin when the church regards the first marriage as valid. It doesn’t say second marriage. There may be ambiguity in the use of the phrase ‘first marriage’, but it doesn’t mean that the Church recognizes a second Union.

What is the objective sin in living in a second union?

 

[Mongo]

No new ideas???!!!
That’s not good.
Our society will die without innovations and new ideas!

I think this pope is very much about hearing what everyone has to say and coming up with “new ideas”.
Last week, he himself told the United Nations:

"Reform and adaptation to the times is always necessary in the pursuit of the ultimate goal.”

.

Reform without change is fine. It is necessary to remain who you are. The Church can’t change its doctrine, although there may be ways in which it changes how it lives out that doctrine. Gay marriage and divorce can never be accepted as catholic doctrine. But maybe the way we deal with gay people or with divorced people can change.

 

[Mongo]

What is the objective sin in living in a second union?

Adultery. The first marriage is still valid and is inviolable.