On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[Thomas_White]

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

With all due respect, this is not remotely close to the example I have used. The wider comment I made concerning what the Gospols say about marriage and adultery was a separate comment and not the example. The example is that of a divorced and remarried Catholic etc., who in fact is not in the state of mortal sin but is presumed to be in such state. Perhaps only the married couple knows they are not committing adultery. What then is the basis of the presumption of objective mortal sin?

Is a similar presumption made with respect to Humanae Vitae? If not, why not? There is a vast amount of data indicating the encyclical has been widely ignored or rejected in the U.S.

 

[pnewton]

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

I understand. I wanted this clarified because the word “civil” means something different in common usage, but I suspect what you just confirmed.

With all due respect, this is not remotely close to the example I have used.

I am sorry for the confusion, but he was answering my question with this post, and I was just wanting a clearer definition of terms.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

I fully understand this is Church teaching. However, what is a presumption of an objective fact? Is it that marriage is the objective fact of the act of adultery? This cannot be the case when divorced and remarried Catholics etc., who are not committing adultery (which is the actual concern and the actual sin with respect to receiving the Eucharist) are permitted to receive the Eucharist. If marriage itself were really adultery in the eyes of the Church, do you think the Church would permit such a remarried couple to receive the Eucharist? Why is this so difficult to grasp?

 

[JimG]

With all due respect, this is not remotely close to the example I have used. The wider comment I made concerning what the Gospols say about marriage and adultery was a separate comment and not the example. The example is that of a divorced and remarried Catholic etc., who in fact is not in the state of mortal sin but is presumed to be in such state. Perhaps only the married couple knows they are not committing adultery. What then is the basis of the presumption of objective mortal sin?

Is a similar presumption made with respect to Humanae Vitae? If not, why not? There is a vast amount of data indicating the encyclical has been widely ignored or rejected in the U.S.

Perhaps only the couple knows that they are not committing adultery. That is possible.

The difference between that and contraception or masturbation or many other sins is that marriage is a public act, the vows are public and the remarriage is public.

Even if the couple is confident that they are not committing adultery (and I presume that they have thought through their reasons), still I think it would be wise to obtain concurrence of their confessor. And in the case of a presumably invalid second marriage, I would think that neither the couple in the private forum nor the Church in the public forum, can make a decision regarding communion without also having made a decision with regard to the validity of the first marriage.

 

[Thomas_White]

Perhaps only the couple knows that they are not committing adultery. That is possible.

The difference between that and contraception or masturbation or many other sins is that marriage is a public act, the vows are public and the remarriage is public.

Even if the couple is confident that they are not committing adultery (and I presume that they have thought through their reasons), still I think it would be wise to obtain concurrence of their confessor. And in the case of a presumably invalid second marriage, I would think that neither the couple in the private forum nor the Church in the public forum, can make a decision regarding communion without also having made a decision with regard to the validity of the first marriage.

There might be many reasons why the couple is not committing adultery. These could be medical reasons, advancing age, a marriage no longer meaningful or an overarching wish to return to the Eurcarist, for example. I don’t disagree that it would be good to discuss this with a confessor, but the question is pretty simple.

Scandal is also a perception and it concerns the same presumption, that of adultery. It is in the eyes of the beholder. Is the presumption of mortal sin, which in fact is a moral judgment, one for us to make? What of the divorced and remarried couple of the example who are not in the state of mortal sin? Perhaps they are scandalized by the presumption of others that they are in the state of mortal sin.

A decision of the validity of the first marriage is a judgment only for a marriage tribunal. It is not a requirement of the Church in the example. To understand this, one must get beyond the notion that the Church really views the second marriage as the sin of adultery.

 

[KSU]

This proposal to change dogma under the guise of merely changing discipline has been going on since at least 2013:

QUOTE In response, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, prefect of the CDF, published an article in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano saying that the practice of withholding Communion from those in a state of mortal sin would remain in place. This was followed by a letter to the German bishops ordering them to revisit their draft document.

The German bishops responded to this with more defiance, with Bishop Gebhard Fürst of Stuttgart saying in November they had voted to adopt the guidelines and expected them to be approved at their next plenary meeting in March 2014.

While Müller’s article, and a strongly worded letter to the German bishops, made it clear that such persons were objectively in a state of mortal sin that precludes them from receiving Communion, Kasper said the change in practice is imminent. The teaching, Muller said, is explicitly laid out in the Gospels when Christ said that divorce was only allowed to in the Mosaic Law out of the “hardness” of their hearts. END QUOTE lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-kasper-says-church-will-soon-give-communion-to-divorced-remarried

Last March, on the EWTN’s “The World Over,” Cardinal Raymond Burke told Raymond Arroyo that Cardinal Kasper’s proposal appeared to conflict with doctrine and canon law: “In my estimation as a canonist I do not think it is possible… I trust in coming days… the error of his approach will become ever clearer."

Based on what I hear, it can be assumed Kasper’s proposal in one form or another was still being pushed by liberals at the Synod today (Oct. 6).

Shortly before his resignation, Pope Benedict said a dominant misinterpretation of the council had “created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy.”

Liberals, it seems, are still feeding off that misinterpretation-- an imagined post-councilor Church which they themselves perpetrated. They hope Francis stands with them, but will be sorely disappointed. When that happens, will Liberals stand with Francis, or will we see a “smaller, purer Church” acting as a “creative minority,” the leaven in society, of which Pope Benedict spoke?

 

[LongingSoul]

This proposal to change dogma under the guise of merely changing discipline has been going on since at least 2013:

QUOTE In response, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, prefect of the CDF, published an article in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano saying that the practice of withholding Communion from those in a state of mortal sin would remain in place. This was followed by a letter to the German bishops ordering them to revisit their draft document.

The German bishops responded to this with more defiance, with Bishop Gebhard Fürst of Stuttgart saying in November they had voted to adopt the guidelines and expected them to be approved at their next plenary meeting in March 2014.

While Müller’s article, and a strongly worded letter to the German bishops, made it clear that such persons were objectively in a state of mortal sin that precludes them from receiving Communion, Kasper said the change in practice is imminent. The teaching, Muller said, is explicitly laid out in the Gospels when Christ said that divorce was only allowed to in the Mosaic Law out of the “hardness” of their hearts. END QUOTE lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-kasper-says-church-will-soon-give-communion-to-divorced-remarried

Last March, on the EWTN’s “The World Over,” Cardinal Raymond Burke told Raymond Arroyo that Cardinal Kasper’s proposal appeared to conflict with doctrine and canon law: “In my estimation as a canonist I do not think it is possible… I trust in coming days… the error of his approach will become ever clearer."

Based on what I hear, it can be assumed Kasper’s proposal in one form or another was still being pushed by liberals at the Synod today (Oct. 6).

Shortly before his resignation, Pope Benedict said a dominant misinterpretation of the council had “created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy.”

Liberals, it seems, are still feeding off that misinterpretation-- an imagined post-councilor Church which they themselves perpetrated. They hope Francis stands with them, but will be sorely disappointed. When that happens, will Liberals stand with Francis, or will we see a “smaller, purer Church” acting as a “creative minority,” the leaven in society, of which Pope Benedict spoke?

All just propaganda. Cardinal Kasper clearly said his contribution was not a ‘proposal’, they were ‘ideas’ and Pope Francis specifically asked him to present those ideas. If Cardinal Burke is such a great theologian, I imagine that he would have been invited to return to the synod to contribute but that isn’t the case.

One of the big problems with the implementation of Vatican II reforms and what we’re seeing today with the synod, is the hostile inflexibility of some who seek to close the discussion and refuse to contribute to the dynamic of ‘synod’. It’s so selfish in my opinion, and the cause of so many of the problems in the Church

 

[dans0622]

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

I don’t think I would ever put those words together in a sentence… Anyway, I seem to have somehow gotten into the middle of a discussion you are having with other people…

By the way, an English translation of the Cardinals comments is now available:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-cardinal-erdos-introductory-report-for-the-synod-on-the-family-67404/

Dan

 

[dans0622]

All just propaganda. Cardinal Kasper clearly said his contribution was not a ‘proposal’, they were ‘ideas’ and Pope Francis specifically asked him to present those ideas. If Cardinal Burke is such a great theologian, I imagine that he would have been invited to return to the synod to contribute but that isn’t the case.

One of the big problems with the implementation of Vatican II reforms and what we’re seeing today with the synod, is the hostile inflexibility of some who seek to close the discussion and refuse to contribute to the dynamic of ‘synod’. It’s so selfish in my opinion, and the cause of so many of the problems in the Church

He can call it an “idea” if he wants but he’s been … proposing it … for over 30 years.

Dan

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

All just propaganda. Cardinal Kasper clearly said his contribution was not a ‘proposal’, they were ‘ideas’ and Pope Francis specifically asked him to present those ideas. If Cardinal Burke is such a great theologian, I imagine that he would have been invited to return to the synod to contribute but that isn’t the case.

One of the big problems with the implementation of Vatican II reforms and what we’re seeing today with the synod, is the hostile inflexibility of some who seek to close the discussion and refuse to contribute to the dynamic of ‘synod’. It’s so selfish in my opinion, and the cause of so many of the problems in the Church

Again, how do arbitrarily determine when the Holy Spirit is guiding a Bishop and when they are being obstinant? You may have to accept that someone’s opposition is in fact the will of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JimG]

Again, how do arbitrarily determine when the Holy Spirit is guiding a Bishop and when they are being obstinant? You may have to accept that someone’s opposition is in fact the will of the Holy Spirit.

It may be the Holy Spirit’s way of preserving the Faith.

 

[Megan7]

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

Dans0622,

Thanks for your contribution on all of these threads:thumbsup:

Could you please clarify for me the following, if a Baptized Catholic & a Protestant were involved in a civil marriage, do they need an annulment, or are they not considered married at all?

From what you posted above, it seems like they are not married at all, right? So, if they stay in their civil union, they are in mortal sin & if they divorce, they do not need an annulment. Just want to make sure.

Thank you so much! God bless you

+PAX

 

[davidv]

I fully understand this is Church teaching. However, what is a presumption of an objective fact? Is it that marriage is the objective fact of the act of adultery? This cannot be the case when divorced and remarried Catholics etc., who are not committing adultery (which is the actual concern and the actual sin with respect to receiving the Eucharist) are permitted to receive the Eucharist. If marriage itself were really adultery in the eyes of the Church, do you think the Church would permit such a remarried couple to receive the Eucharist? Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Based on the following quote from the CCC, sexual infidelity is not the only way to commit adultery. This makes the bold statement above a contradiction. A remarried Catholic (without a declaration of nullity) is by definition committing adultery, whether sexually abstinent or not.

2384 *Divorce *is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

 

[pnewton]

Based on the following quote from the CCC, sexual infidelity is not the only way to commit adultery. This makes the bold statement above a contradiction. A remarried Catholic (without a declaration of nullity) is by definition committing adultery, whether sexually abstinent or not.

Your quote says it adds to the gravity (of divorce). It does not say that the abstinent remarried Catholic is committing adultery. As such a one may be allowed communion, I do not believe it true. To do so would say it is okay to receive communion in the state of adultery, which is not what I think you are saying.

 

[Thomas_White]

This proposal to change dogma under the guise of merely changing discipline has been going on since at least 2013:

QUOTE In response, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, prefect of the CDF, published an article in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano saying that the practice of withholding Communion from those in a state of mortal sin would remain in place. This was followed by a letter to the German bishops ordering them to revisit their draft document.

I have not seen where anyone here has even suggested that those in a state of moral sin should receive communion. Nor have I. Tell me how on a pastoral level the withholding of Communion for all those in a state of mortal sin could possibly be accomplished.

If we are to speak of changing dogma, let us look first at #8 of the Dogmatic Constitution ‘Dei Verbum’:

"8. And so the Apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in an unending succession of preachers until the end of time.

"This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.

“For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the end of time.” –Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation ‘Dei Verbum’, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965

This is Catholic dogma. What Pope Francis has called for during the synod is hardly a ‘liberal proposal’.

 

[pnewton]

All just propaganda. Cardinal Kasper clearly said his contribution was not a ‘proposal’, they were ‘ideas’ and Pope Francis specifically asked him to present those ideas.

I have read several different people that have remarked they do not see how Cardinal Kasper has reconciled his ideas within the bounds of orthodoxy. I would think that in order to engage in fruitful discourse, one would first have to have an understanding of his position, even if they do not agree with it.

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t think I would ever put those words together in a sentence… Anyway, I seem to have somehow gotten into the middle of a discussion you are having with other people…

By the way, an English translation of the Cardinals comments is now available:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-cardinal-erdos-introductory-report-for-the-synod-on-the-family-67404/

Dan

You could never question that a presumption is empirical fact? I guess I could. Anyway, thanks for the link.

 

[KSU]

All just propaganda. Cardinal Kasper clearly said his contribution was not a ‘proposal’,

**All one has to do to disprove that is go to Bing and enter “Cardinal Kasper’s proposal” **

One of the big problems with the implementation of Vatican II reforms and what we’re seeing today with the synod, is the hostile inflexibility of some who seek to close the discussion and refuse to contribute to the dynamic of ‘synod’. It’s so selfish in my opinion, and the cause of so many of the problems in the Church

Liberals never have the truth of Catholic teaching on their side. To cover up their embarrassment by it, they are reduced to casting insults such as homophobia or some other “hostile inflexibility” to change as the cause of problems in the Church. The truth is that orthodox Catholicism has never been and never will be the cause of problems in the Church because IT IS THE CHURCH. Those that stray from orthodoxy and want change (usually accommodation to various forms of immorality) are the cause of problems today-- contraception, abortion, homosexuality, lust for power and glory, and Socialism lead the parade.

 

[LongingSoul]

He can call it an “idea” if he wants but he’s been … proposing it … for over 30 years.

Dan

He represents a continuing question being asked in the Church for at least 30 years. I’ve told this before but my uncle is a long serving Priest here in Australia and I was aware of this conversation happening on the ground since at least 30 years ago. A lot of parish Priests who are completely orthodox in every way, find it hard to completely resolve the dilemma they experience with this situation. It’s a common theme ‘on the ground’ as I said. A couple who are practicing Catholic, participating in the life of the Church, raising their children through the Catholic schools etc… but are permanently barred from Holy Communion because of this situation… is a difficult problem for a Priest who has the food of everlasting life in his hands.

 

[LongingSoul]

I have read several different people that have remarked they do not see how Cardinal Kasper has reconciled his ideas within the bounds of orthodoxy. I would think that in order to engage in fruitful discourse, one would first have to have an understanding of his position, even if they do not agree with it.

Yes. What came across to me in that interview the Cardinal gave with the odious Arroya, was that he doesn’t have the answers, only the questions. He seems quite well aware of the process of the synod as a place to temper the raw product in the hands of lots of Cardinal/Bishop experts.