On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[pnewton]

I also think that Arroyo could have been more respectful towards Cardinal Kaspar in this interview.

Raymond Arroyo said, “It is a complicated proposal. As you start picking at it and looking at it, it almost dissolves in your hand.”

This is why I made my statement that this may be a Catholic show, but I would not call in journalism. But in all fairness, I feel that way about the majority of what is called journalism today.

 

[exnihilo]

Old ways? When has the Church allowed for easier annulments. I thought it used to be more of a rarity.

I wasn’t referring to the Church or annulments. I was addressing the claim society needs to innovate. I had in mind things like SS’M’, divorce and remarriage, and sexual libertinism.

 

[TARRAT]

Let us be clear. To be conservative is to be one who wants to conserve what is. To be liberal is to add to what is and change it. To be conservative the U.S. constitution one would interpret that one has the freedom “of” religion which is stated in the constitution. To be liberal is to take that same constutition and say that is means you have freedom “from” religion, which is not what the document says.

 

[dans0622]

Then is a civil marriage the same as a second marriage in that the parties are living in sin? Could a Catholic in a civil marriage get divorced an marry in the Church without having the civil marriage annulled? This seems complex.

Hello,

The Church’s position is: Catholics who contract a civil union (civil marriage) are not considered to be married. So, they are apparently engaging in either fornication or adultery.

“Annulment” doesn’t apply to those unions.

Dan

 

[Thomas_White]

By the very defintion

Since there is an objective definition (CCC 2380) the act can be objectively known to be adultery.

Yes, ‘adultery’ as defined in CCC 2380 could be objectively known but not as a presumption. The question is whether a second marraige of a divorced Catholic who has not obtained an annullment is in itself the act of adultery. That the marriage itself is adultery is said to be objectively known by the objective fact of the marriage. How is that?

 

[Thomas_White]

Hello,

The Church’s position is: Catholics who contract a civil union (civil marriage) are not considered to be married. So, they are apparently engaging in either fornication or adultery.

Dan

Is what is apparent an objective fact?

 

[Seamus_L]

Sounds like the synod is off to a more positive start than I envisioned, but I still expect we’re going to hear some heated oppostion from some of the German and Belgian Bishops.

 

[dans0622]

Is what is apparent an objective fact?

Hello,

It can be.

Dan

 

[Thomas_White]

Hello,

It can be.

Dan

It would necessarily be apparent to be an objective fact. The question is adultery.

 

[pnewton]

Hello,

The Church’s position is: Catholics who contract a civil union (civil marriage) are not considered to be married. So, they are apparently engaging in either fornication or adultery.

“Annulment” doesn’t apply to those unions.

Dan

I have a question. Does this also apply to Catholics who are married outside of the Church, without a dispensation by another Christian minister? Is that the canonical definition of “civil”, or does that one required an annulment.

 

[Thomas_White]

“But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” -Matthew 5:32

The teaching is that the person who puts away his wife (spouse?) makes her commit adultery. Where then is the guilt? This is the only reference to adultery in Matthew, Mark or Luke that refers to adultery on the part of the one ‘put away’, and the verse does not mention marriage of the one so put away as adultery. It would seem that ‘adultery’ means here an act in the way it is commonly defined and understood. In the passage, the husband who puts away his wife “maketh her to commit adultery”. There is no mention of her remarriage.

 

[clem456]

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.”

.

We could call these new ideas and innovations “continuous fruitfulness”. The Church is continuously fruitful.

However, the tree that bears good fruit does not exist without the seed. Fruit cannot be divorced from the seed that bore it.
If fruit is cut off from that seed, it is not the fruit of Christ, it is from some other seed.

So while we have new and innovative ways of communicating and adapting practices and disciplines, these cannot be divorced from what Christ and the Church reference “from the beginning”. The beginning is with us always. We do not live as if we have a discountinuity from what came before.

On this issue, Christ himself references what was revealed by God the Father “from the beginning”.

 

[JimG]

It would seem the question should be if they are not presumed to be in a state of mortal sin should they be denied the Eucharist. In any event, the reality is they are presently presumed to be in an objective state of mortal sin.

The difficulty of a marriage tribunal judging what is the equivalent of the superposition of a cat both alive and dead is one thing, but what of the denial of communion on the presumption that a divorced and civilly remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment is in the state of mortal sin when in fact he or she is not in a state of mortal sin?

Of course, one could make similar arguments for any objective sinful action including a couple cohabiting in lieu of marriage, a polygamist, or one having sex with his girlfriend, since no one can judge their interior state.

But to stick to the second marriage case: How does the person in the second marriage view the first marriage? Does he think it not valid, but not worth the trouble of going to a tribunal? Does he think it valid but terminated? Does he believe that marriage vows are permanent or not? A person in a second marriage with a presumptively valid first marriage must engage in some sort of cognitive dissonance in order to conclude that he is able to receive communion.

And if there were a third marriage without an annulment of the first two, would he still consider himself in a valid (third) marriage and able to receive communion? What is the line of thought here which enables him to disregard the prior marriage?

 

[Thomas_White]

A person in a second marriage with a presumptively valid first marriage must engage in some sort of cognitive dissonance in order to conclude that he is able to receive communion.

‘Must’ is a strong word. Where is the cognitive dissonance (psych major here) when the Church agrees such a person may receive the Eucharist?

 

[JimG]

‘Must’ is a strong word. Where is the cognitive dissonance (psych major here) when the Church agrees such a person may receive the Eucharist?

I think that if the Church told me that I was free to receive the Eucharist no matter the unconfessed sins on my soul, I would have major cognitive dissonance in approaching the altar! Perhaps a guilty conscience would be a better description. Perhaps the instruction would be that I must deaden my conscience!

So what is your proposal here? Shall all prior marriages be disregarded? Shall all prior marriages be presumed null by the fact of remarriage?

 

[Thomas_White]

I think that if the Church told me that I was free to receive the Eucharist no matter the unconfessed sins on my soul, I would have major cognitive dissonance in approaching the altar! Perhaps a guilty conscience would be a better description. Perhaps the instruction would be that I must deaden my conscience!

So what is your proposal here? Shall all prior marriages be disregarded? Shall all prior marriages be presumed null by the fact of remarriage?

It seems you are not grasping what I have said. The example is a person who is divorced and remarried, has not obtained an annullment, is not committing adultery and is receiving the Eucharist as the Church permits in such circumstances. The issue is then that as a result of the person having entered a second marriage, he or she is nevertheless perceived as being in the objective state of mortal by the objective fact of the second marriage.

I am not suggesting that a person who is in fact in the state of mortal sin should receive communion and realize as well as any other Catholic that doing so would only add a grave sin to the person’s soul. I am not suggesting any change concerning what is clearly wrong. So…well…consider your perception of what I said in earlier comments. It does not differ from what I am saying in this comment. I understand Church teaching and realize it will not change with respect to mortal sin. This isn’t even in question in what I have said.

 

[dans0622]

It would necessarily be apparent to be an objective fact. The question is adultery.

The fact of a civil union is an objective one. The fact of a civil divorce is as well. Those two acts may not have any consequences in the Church’s legal system but they are still objective facts.

Dan

 

[Thomas_White]

The fact of a civil union is an objective one. The fact of a civil divorce is as well. Those two acts may not have any consequences in the Church’s legal system but they are still objective facts.

Dan

Is the presumption of adultery knowledge of an objective fact of mortal sin?

 

[dans0622]

I have a question. Does this also apply to Catholics who are married outside of the Church, without a dispensation by another Christian minister? Is that the canonical definition of “civil”, or does that one required an annulment.

If a Catholic attempts a marriage but has no regard for the requirements of canonical form (which is what your scenario implies), then it is considered to be in the “civil union” category, even if some “Christian minister” was involved (there is an exception to this, regarding Orthodox priests…canon 1127…).

Dan

 

[JimG]

It seems you are not grasping what I have said. The example is a person who is divorced and remarried, has not obtained an annullment, is not committing adultery and is receiving the Eucharist as the Church permits in such circumstances. The issue is then that as a result of the person having entered a second marriage, he or she is nevertheless perceived as being in the objective state of mortal by the objective fact of the second marriage.

I am not suggesting that a person who is in fact in the state of mortal sin should receive communion and realize as well as any other Catholic that doing so would only add a grave sin to the person’s soul. I am not suggesting any change concerning what is clearly wrong. So…well…consider your perception of what I said in earlier comments. It does not differ from what I am saying in this comment. I understand Church teaching and realize it will not change with respect to mortal sin. This isn’t even in question in what I have said.

Yes, a person in an invalid second marriage would be presumed to be in an objective state of mortal sin by reason of adultery. If the Church nevertheless has permitted the person to receive the Eucharist in such a case, I presume the Church has reason to believe that no adultery is occurring, perhaps by reason of sexual abstinence. Nevertheless, it has been stated that even in such cases, such permission should not be granted if there is serious possibility of scandal being given.