L
Lormar
Guest
The odious Arroya?
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’ve only ever seen the one interview he did with Cardinal Kasper, but took an instant dislike to his attitude and tactics. He should have just done a monologue about his opinion of Cardinal Kaspers ideas rather than go through the facade of an interview.
K
KSU
Guest
Thomas, your method of debating me is to put words in my mouth and then ask me to explain them.
Back in my post #43 I twice requested you to quote me, not put words in my mouth and say I’m being uncharitable. All I got back from you is crickets.
Now you are at it again. Please don’t waste my time.
S
sarah_j
Guest
LongingSoul, yesterday when you responded to a post of mine you said you
hadn’t read Cardinal Kasper’s proposals except for what you’d just read in the article
I had posted.
On what grounds are you supporting his ideas so strongly ?
Cardinal Burke is not to be so flippantly dismissed ; he’s an expert in Canon Law,
for one thing. And he is certainly to be respected for his service to the Church.
Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, 66, is troubled by the negative campaign that has been waged against him. Ordained a bishop by Pope John Paul II in 1995, the respected expert in canon law was called to Rome by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 as prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura before being appointed cardinal in 2010.
ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-responds-to-recent-criticisms/
H
HCTC
Guest
I think that this is an especially good description of the problem. It is my observation that this situation is at least as difficult for the children of divorced parents as it is for their parents. Even with a Catholic education, these children frequently become non-practicing. They may be slow to marry; some never marry. Often in their teenaged years, parents are unable to guide these children who, as a result, become at-risk for drug use and promiscuity.
If the Church’s intention were to visit "the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations, " refusing communion to their parents would be the way to go about it. I am not saying that it is the Church’s intention to harm these children. I don’t believe that it is. Yet, in my humble opinion, that is what is happening. The children of divorced Catholics are leaving the Church and their children are not being raised in the Church. Whole generations are being lost. It is sad.
I think that this situation is a problem not only for the families directly involved but for every Catholic, and there needs to be a remedy. If the remedy can’t be making communion available to all parents, then it needs to be something else that counters the damage these Catholic families (and the Church) are experiencing.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I haven’t seen the in depth of Cardinal Kasper theological reasoning and I’m not sure if that has ever been printed anywhere. That, I imagine is what is talked about in the synod groups.
The factors that do hold weight for me are that I know that this particular situation has been raised repeatedly by Priests and Bishops in many countries… obviously Germany, but definitely in Australia and other parts of Europe and America… for at least 30 years. The bottom line is that it presents as an unhealed wound in the community of the Church. The issue was never with all divorced/remarrieds across the board. It was with that particular group in this situation who have had a conversion of faith and now practice and participate fully in Catholic family life. All but in the area of the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion. It happens not infrequently, that a persons faith grows rapidly due to the second (invalid) marriage and the family life. Marriage and family life are often a school for faith and makes clear to a person the real meaning of deep, important tenets of faith that prior were obscure. What seems difficult for a lot of priests (and frankly I find it hard too) is the idea that there can be no repentence or healing without the breakup of normal conjugal life. It is a choice between that and permanent exclusion from the sacraments. Knowing how much I value the Eucharist as the food of everlasting life and the medicine for my sins… I feel for those who are excluded permanently from that. It’s like sitting down to a wonderful meal and having to see starving people outside dying for crumbs.
The other fact that influences my defense of Cardinal Kaspers role, is that Pope Francis invited him to make his contribution on this issue. I think Pope Francis is very orthodox, very genuine and holy and listens to Gods call through his long years of Ignatian contemplation. If this were a closed subject with nowhere else to go, he would not have invited the discussion of it.
The next thing and its a thing that has become more evident through the forum, is that there is a strong force for silencing the normal processes that keep the Church healthy and thriving. My impression is that it arises out of the weakness of belief in Jesus guarantee that the Church will never err in her teachings on faith and morals. People are so afraid of allowing the idea of ‘ideas’ into the discussion of theology and teaching. They tend to see everything as heresy unless it perfectly reflects the wording of the Catechism from the moment it is uttered. This is what I think Pope Francis means by having Apostolic courage. Who wants people to just follow along blindly never really living the theology of Church teaching in their hearts? Abortion is a classic example of how stunted the conversation is. Appealing constantly to only one aspect of the act we find horrific isn’t making a dent in peoples understanding. Why does life have dignity? Why does an institution of killing affect all of us as much as the woman going through abortion? These are important philosophical aspects that are warranted not just by divine law, but natural law. It’s those conversations that stir questions in others who’ve only delved into the shallow level of a womans rights and not human rights.
Anyway, these are the reasons why I defend the role of Cardinal Kasper in the synod as invited by Pope Francis.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I agree. Some sort of remedy for the situation is required… if not Communion… something significantly healing for the situation.
C
Colorad007
Guest
When somebody precedes an ostensibly heretical proposition with something about the Holy Spirit blowing this or that way, you can be sure that it definitely is not the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is God, not some pathetic windsock invoked to justify crackpot theology.
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
Yep. I was just pointing out that one need not confuse the refusal to accept something that is being promoted as shutting out the Holy Spirit. There are many Bishops who will quietly discern during the Synod, and come away saying the same thing they went believing - that communion for divorced and remarried Catholics is not possible. That doesn’t mean they were being obstinant, but quite the contrary - the Holy Spirit guided them as well.
Using the Holy Spirit as a cop out for what is currently moving your heart today seems to Pentecostal and Charismatic to an extreme for me.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Did I put those words from your post #43 in your mouth, KSU? I did not cite your name in my reply which was a general comment not meant for any particular person. There is ambiguity about the meaning of “second marriage”, and I explained why I think so. If you did not care to discuss the issue, fine, but discussion of ideas relevant to the synod is not unorthodoxy.
“Now you are at it again? Please don’t waste my time.” Did I put those worlds in your mouth too? Again, my reply did not cite your name, and it was meant as a comment in response to the quote you provided. In view of the fact you did use the quote from Archbishop Muller, I simply asked a relevant question. The quote I provided from ‘Dei Verbum’ was only meant in response to what Archbishop Muller was quoted as saying. There was no intent to upset you, and if it did it I am sorry. Discussion and argument is fine, but I have no wish to engage in a dispute. It is why I did not earlier respond to your comment #43.
J
JimG
Guest
Indeed the sins of the divorce culture do end up being visited upon the children and grandchildren down to subsequent generations. That is not the fault of Church doctrine but of divorce, and divorce culture, which has continued now for several generations.
Children should have a right to grow up with a mother and a father in a family which is committed to each other. But children are invisible in the divorce culture.
Ultimately, the solution has to be restoring the sanctity and permanence of marriage. It will not help to reject Jesus’ teaching on the permanence of marriage.
This little essay made an impression on me:
The Invisible Child
J
JimG
Guest
I have to ask—why is communion the overarching issue here? Are couples in second marriages not at all concerned about the validity of their marriages, but only about receiving communion?
My wife had an aunt in precisely this situation. She was in a second and presumptively non valid marriage. She refrained from communion for decades because she respected the Church teaching on marriage while not wishing to deny her husband. She was a valued member of her parish, a good friend of the pastor, and a well known Catholic member of the local community. When her husband became impotent due to age and infirmity, she went to confession and began receiving communion again. No one ever thought of her as anything other than Catholic. For couples in this situation, does communion solve everything? Does it make the second marriage valid in their eyes?
My wife had an aunt in precisely this situation. She was in a second and presumptively non valid marriage. She refrained from communion for decades because she respected the Church teaching on marriage while not wishing to deny her husband. She was a valued member of her parish, a good friend of the pastor, and a well known Catholic member of the local community. When her husband became impotent due to age and infirmity, she went to confession and began receiving communion again. No one ever thought of her as anything other than Catholic. For couples in this situation, does communion solve everything? Does it make the second marriage valid in their eyes?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
My mother was good friends with a lady with almost the exact story except her husband died and she was able to go to confession during that week and receive for the first time in decades.
The difference between these examples and more modern examples is peoples state of faith. When our parents and a little bit into the baby boomers gen, were raised within the Catholic context, Catholic culture was a significant factor in forming faith. There were things that Catholics accepted in the deepest part of the being through ‘inculturation’ not just through intellectually processing rules. That syrup of culture that bound us in accepting rules even in disobedience, no longer exists.
Pope Benedict raised that issue of sacraments celebrated without faith…
*“Those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various bishops’ conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.” *
What happens to these people who don’t identify with the traditional impediments and lack of form, but have gone through the marriage sacrament barren of faith? They miss that warm ember of faith inculcated by the environment, that aids us to suffer the consequences of ours and other sins. That great aid is a real thing and it’s missing.
My thinking is that if Pope Benedict who is recognised as a very good orthodox theologian, can ask the question and say that it must be studied further…then it can’t be that dangerous for the synod theologians to do so.
The other thing that I thought might be of theological value to the issue was the gospel for last Sunday at the beginning of the synod. The Pharisees were asking about Moses granting divorces in his time and Jesus explained that God granted man that temporary allowance because of his ‘hardness of heart’ in that age. In a way, that was a pastoral application that actually supported the true meaning of marriage. In time, the existence of that allowance exposing a problem in the faith of man, mended the tear making the concept of divorce, no longer helpful to Gods plan for marriage. It was like a patch on a tyre that helps you get your car to the mechanic for replacement. A pastoral solution.
That was just a thought that crossed my mind with regards to addressing the puncture in Catholic marriage that could help us get to a place of renewal.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I will hazard a guess and say a significant part of this has been an unwillingness by many, for whatever reasons, to endure what up to now has been the marriage tribunal process. Given the statistical reality that a very high percentage of these Catholics would be granted an annullment, it otherwise seems inexplicable.
K
KSU
Guest
Originally Posted by KSU
The Cardinal was speaking to orthodox Catholics who know what he means by a “second marriage.”
The Cardinal was speaking to orthodox Catholics who know what he means by a “second marriage.”
L
LongingSoul
Guest
From my amateur people observing over my 50 odd years, I think there is another aspect.
A lot of people feel they did have a valid marriage based on the fact they were in love and bonded and surrendered to each other on the marriage day. But as I tell my daughter, people who are having a sexual relationship before marriage are experiencing a natural bonding that is meant for the period after godly discernment and commitment to marriage. God meant the true faithful discernment of marriage to be within a chaste courtship. The intense bonding or sexual intimacy can be mistaken for true love, when it may just be the natural hormonal/chemical activity generated for the post sacrament surrender.
That’s my theory of why people don’t try for annulment anyway.
K
KSU
Guest
LS, in this thread you have been stating the case for your side very well and you melt hearts. You should be a writer, but, please, not about the OP’s issue–your admirable compassion is understandable and commendable, but it blinds you just a little to the horrific but just consequences of sin.
All humanity should tremble at those consequences, but sin is so damn powerful and we are so weak that all of us gamble with disobedience from time to time. Even a third of the angels did.
Is modern man, like the ancient Jews, too hardhearted to be chaste?Too besieged with filth from Hollywood, New York, Europe and even legal porn in commercial advertising 24/7 to be chaste?
Thomas is on to something; he reminded us that Pope Francis helped alleviate the problem you are so compassionate about by means of the new annulment process. I will take that a giant step further and predict that your Liberal friends in Chanceries around the world will use the new process to in effect usher-in a mini “pastoral solution” akin to that which God allowed the Jews.
I don’t like it, but, hey, God promised infallibility to Francis, not me. So, I’ll just learn to live with it even though I fear a lot of innocent people will pay the price of finding their valid marriages “annulled” because of the acts of their philandering/strumpet spouses who fall in lust at the office and want annulments. Let’s pray I’m wrong and that Liberal prelates will use the new rules responsibly.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Thanks for that gracious compliment about my writing, KSU.LS, in this thread you have been stating the case for your side very well and you melt hearts. You should be a writer, but, please, not about the OP’s issue–your admirable compassion is understandable and commendable, but it blinds you just a little to the horrific but just consequences of sin.
All humanity should tremble at those consequences, but sin is so damn powerful and we are so weak that all of us gamble with disobedience from time to time. Even a third of the angels did.
Is modern man, like the ancient Jews, too hardhearted to be chaste?Too besieged with filth from Hollywood, New York, Europe and even legal porn in commercial advertising 24/7 to be chaste?
Thomas is on to something; he reminded us that Pope Francis helped alleviate the problem you are so compassionate about by means of the new annulment process. I will take that a giant step further and predict that your Liberal friends in Chanceries around the world will use the new process to in effect usher-in a mini “pastoral solution” akin to that which God allowed the Jews.
I don’t like it, but, hey, God promised infallibility to Francis, not me. So, I’ll just learn to live with it even though I fear a lot of innocent people will pay the price of finding their valid marriages “annulled” because of the acts of their philandering/strumpet spouses who fall in lust at the office and want annulments. Let’s pray I’m wrong and that Liberal prelates will use the new rules responsibly.
I do know that there is such a thing as false mercy and I know that it is destructive. As Pope Francis said to be wary of in his closing speech of the synod …
"The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”
That is one of the extremes in perspective. I don’t think that either ‘side’ in the Church is in and of itself wrong. The way is to function like a healthy married couple. A tender mother and a firm father (or the other way round) that work together to bring out the best in the child. I honestly believe that was why many Vatican II reforms were distorted. One side objected and set about setting themselves apart by trying to recreate the past. The other side without the guidance of orthodoxy, ran with the secular trends. Two parents competing for the child. Hopefully Pope Francis can knock this out of the Church with his great way of hitting the nerve!
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I did not change your words, KSU. My reply was a general comment that mentioned no one in particular. You mistakenly assumed it was in reference to only your comment.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
(You need to clear up some space in your private message box).
If a Catholic attempts a marriage “outside the Church”, then yes, the notion of “annulment” does not apply to that union. In the law of the Church, they are **not **in a presumptively valid marriage. “Not considered married at all” might be taking it a bit too far–they are, in fact, married according to civil law. But, again, as far as Church’s legal system is concerned, they are not married.
Mortal sin: to be living as a married couple while not actually married is clearly contrary to the law of God and is gravely sinful. Whether or not such sin is imputable to a given person is a separate question. For example, there are lots of people who are baptized Catholic as infants but never practice the faith. They grow up and marry whomever … out in Vegas, or wherever. Through no fault of their own, they might not have any idea that they are not considered married by the Church.
Dan
- Status