On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[pnewton]

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 ?

I would like to say that while I do not support his ideas, though I do not oppose them, the grounds on which I understand them is the nature of the relationship between God and Man. Through the Church teaching on the final judgment, invincible ignorance, the role of conscience and the importance of intent in understanding the gravity of sin, it is clear that it is personal sin (subjective sin), not the objective actions that damages our relationship with God. We cannot accidentally, or innocently, sin. Therefore, the argument could be made that the criteria to approaching the altar of God should be subjective, not objective, and this is why I believe the idea that “people remarried without an annulment cannot receive communion” is a practical application of doctrine, not doctrine.

Thus, I see the current practice to be practical, pastoral, if you will. I do not think it should be lightly abandoned, and why I do not support the more progressive ideas floating out there. But I do understand them. I fear a change from the focus on the procedure could lead to abuse.

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.
%between%

This is true. But as an exercise of reciprocity, and to avoid hypocrisy, I would like to point out that the exact same is true of Cardinal Kasper. I have seen far more “flippant” dismissal of him than I have Cardinal Burke.

 

[sarah_j]

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.

If someone chooses to leave the Church because they aren't allowed to

receive the sacraments that is* their* (poorly - made) choice. A person
who divorces and remarries outside the Church can still be a member of
the Church and is expected to raise his children as Catholic. He is only
restricted from receiving the sacraments.
Why should the Church be the entity which should change ?
Let the person who is living contrary to the Church change. If they’re
unwilling to do that, let them accept the consequences.

Think, too, of the legitimate spouse and children (if any) of the first marriage. Consider how you
would feel if your husband left you and the children you have together and took up with another
woman …and it appeared that the Church seemed to honor his second marriage when there was
no annullment of your marriage?
Consider the scandal that would cause. Not only to the first family, but to others in the Parish.
It’s true that no one knows the state of another’s soul. But the Church does consider “giving scandal”
as a serious problem.
In that situation, allowing the remarried spouse to receive Communion might well shake the faith
of the actual wife and children. If one can’t seek justice … as well as mercy… from
the Church you can imagine how all the teachings of the Church might be undermined in their
eyes.

These decision are best left in the hands of the tribunals on annulment.
The situations are too complex and the consequences too serious to be put
in the hands of parish priests.

I think it’s a false sense of compassion which leads us to want to bend
the rules for sinners. I tend to do that, too…but it’s something we have to guard against.

Jesus ate with sinners, but he didn’t tell them their sins were okay.
He told them “go and sin no more”.

 

[pnewton]

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

Another example is that non-Catholics who marry in their faith tradition to a Catholic may be without sin. Their faith tells them it is a valid marriage, but canon law, by which they are not bound except in this one case, tells them it is a civil marriage.

I do not envy you your job.

 

[pnewton]

Jesus ate with sinners, but he didn’t tell them their sins were okay.
He told them “go and sin no more”.

This pops up all the time. Let me point out this time, that Jesus did not discontinue his relationship with them when they continued to sin, regardless of the amount of sin, or the gravity of sin. His standard of forgiveness was seventy times seven, and extended all the way up denial by his closest disciple. I see in this synod an attempt to follow this very example of Jesus, both in boundless mercy, and careful to avoid the false compassion that you wrote so well about. Your points are important considerations.

 

[dans0622]

…
This is true. But as an exercise of reciprocity, and to avoid hypocrisy, I would like to point out that the exact same is true of Cardinal Kasper. I have seen far more “flippant” dismissal of him than I have Cardinal Burke.

It is a little-known fact that Cardinal Kasper was a “member” of the Signatura while Cardinal Burke was prefect…until Kasper turned 80 in 2013.

Not really related to anything but…

Dan

 

[sarah_j]

This pops up all the time. Let me point out this time, that Jesus did not discontinue his relationship with them when they continued to sin, regardless of the amount of sin, or the gravity of sin. His standard of forgiveness was seventy times seven, and extended all the way up denial by his closest disciple. I see in this synod an attempt to follow this very example of Jesus, both in boundless mercy, and careful to avoid the false compassion that you wrote so well about. Your points are important considerations.

thanks, pnewton.
Remember that, just like Jesus, the Church does* not*
discontinue its relationship with those who it deems
to be in an improper state to receive the sacraments.
It’s a misunderstanding on the part of lots of people that because someone isn’t
allowed to go to Communion that they are somehow being shunned by the Church.
The Church doesn’t shun anyone…not the divorced, or gays, or any other sinners.

I think pastoral efforts to reach out to the divorced and remarried and to gays
would be well spent in making the position of the Church clear… so they’d know
that they are welcomed in the Church and can participate in it to the greatest
degree allowed by Church cannon.
It would be a mercy to make it clear to people exactly what they must do
in order to be in full communion with the Church.
I think it’s the duty of the priests and bishops to do that.

 

[Thomas_White]

In 2010 the U.S., with 6% of worldwide Catholics, accounted for 60% of all annullments granted worldwide, and it is reported that about 90% of U.S. marriage cases heard by a marriage tribunal are granted–though I don’t know this reported percentage as a fact. But what is certain is that the number of annullments granted by marriage tribunals has skyrocketed from a few hundred in the late 1960’s to a peak of as many as 70,000 in later years. While an appeal to preserve the indissoulabilty of marriage is certainly good, it would nevertheless seem something has already gone askew. At least a few Vatican officials have estimated that if presented to a marriage tribunal, nearly half of all Catholic marriages today would be judged null and void. What would this really mean? It was mentioned as one of the concerns of the Church prior to the synod and as one reason for the calling of the extraordinary session.

What is the Church to do given the contemporary social and cultural climate? I don’t presume to know, but perhaps the synod could have accepted the reality and attempted to address this legitimate concern. It does not now seem to me this is likely, and it doesn’t seem likely that the granting of even more marriage annullments could solve the problem either. There is a larger problem, I believe, and the question of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment receiving Communion is only one aspect of it. There is the further fact that there is a vast amount of data indicating that the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae has been widely rejected or ignored by a very significant number of U.S. Catholic for the past half century. I just believe a problem already exists and to not attempt to address it is problematic.

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t think that the conservatives will be able to keep the progressive agenda from being implemented, though. Why would the Pope even call for a synod unless he wants to change Church teaching though changing ‘pastoral practices,’ which includes giving communion to the divorced and remarried, among other things?

I think that there should be more support for those who are in an irregular marriage, or other irregular situations, but giving communion to the divorced and remarried goes against Church teaching. So-called pastoral practice has to match Church teaching. the two cannot be contradictory.

But since Church teaching on the subject has not effectively been upheld since the Second Vatican Council, we can see how it’s not such a stretch to think that the progressives will win. I think they will. The Catholic Church will essentially become like the Episcopalians (Anglicans), with the exception of having women ordained to the priesthood (that will probably come later).

Just my opinion.

 

[JimG]

In 2010 the U.S., with 6% of worldwide Catholics, accounted for 60% of all annullments granted worldwide, and it is reported that about 90% of U.S. marriage cases heard by a marriage tribunal are granted–though I don’t know this reported percentage as a fact. But what is certain is that the number of annullments granted by marriage tribunals has skyrocketed from a few hundred in the late 1960’s to a peak of as many as 70,000 in later years. While an appeal to preserve the indissoulabilty of marriage is certainly good, it would nevertheless seem something has already gone askew. At least a few Vatican officials have estimated that if presented to a marriage tribunal, nearly half of all Catholic marriages today would be judged null and void. What would this really mean? It was mentioned as one of the concerns of the Church prior to the synod and as one reason for the calling of the extraordinary session.

What is the Church to do given the contemporary social and cultural climate? I don’t presume to know, but perhaps the synod could have accepted the reality and attempted to address this legitimate concern. It does not now seem to me this is likely, and it doesn’t seem likely that the granting of even more marriage annullments could solve the problem either. There is a larger problem, I believe, and the question of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment receiving Communion is only one aspect of it. There is the further fact that there is a vast amount of data indicating that the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae has been widely rejected or ignored by a very significant number of U.S. Catholic for the past half century. I just believe a problem already exists and to not attempt to address it is problematic.

Yes, the explosion in the numbers of annulments follows from an acceptance of the divorce culture, which implicitly rejects the permanence of marriage. And it was the rejection of Humanae Vitae which directly led to the divorce culture by separating the procreative aspect of marriage from the unitive. Contraception un-linked children from marriage, making marriage just an agreement between adults, with children as potential adjuncts who could be litigated later, should the couple break up. Children now had no expectation of a permanent home and family. They could be moved around at will like pawns in a chess game. Not only that, contraception actually unlinked permanent love from marriage by making it all about physical sex, often premarital, and not about commitment, let alone permanence.

The rejection of Humanae Vitae enabled the sexual revolution and the ills that followed.

 

[LongingSoul]

If someone chooses to leave the Church because they aren’t allowed to
receive the sacraments that is* their* (poorly - made) choice. A person
who divorces and remarries outside the Church can still be a member of
the Church and is expected to raise his children as Catholic. He is only
restricted from receiving the sacraments.
Why should the Church be the entity which should change ?
Let the person who is living contrary to the Church change. If they’re
unwilling to do that, let them accept the consequences.

I thought that pnewton gave a good explanation of where Cardinal Kasper is coming from in post #158.

There are certain aspects of the situation of these practicing Catholic divorced/remarrieds that inspires deeper contemplation for myself anyway. For example, they are invited and encouraged to be part of Church life as fully as possible even though their situation is objectively sinful. ie. they are considered to be adulterous. However, while they may be encouraged to have their first union tested for nullity…they are not actively encouraged to separate or become celibate. Practically speaking, the way of the Church is to encourage people to stop sinning and this is through the invitation to the sacrament of reconciliation and Eucharist. But the way of the Church with these couples is to hold them in a different category that is a kind of limbo. A place where we don’t know the exact fate of their souls. It’s obvious that we as yet don’t know the full scope of this situation. It was similar with Limbo of Infants. It was a place of holding them safe until we could know what God wanted us to know about the little souls.

The couple themselves having experienced the conversion of faith that has drawn them to the Church, don’t experience a sense of the gravity of adultery in their union that other adulterous people in conversion might. In the married life and in the family life, there is some experience of legitimacy in the eyes of God. What does that mean?

Think, too, of the legitimate spouse and children (if any) of the first marriage. Consider how you
would feel if your husband left you and the children you have together and took up with another
woman …and it appeared that the Church seemed to honor his second marriage when there was
no annullment of your marriage?
Consider the scandal that would cause. Not only to the first family, but to others in the Parish.
It’s true that no one knows the state of another’s soul. But the Church does consider “giving scandal”
as a serious problem.
In that situation, allowing the remarried spouse to receive Communion might well shake the faith
of the actual wife and children. If one can’t seek justice … as well as mercy… from
the Church you can imagine how all the teachings of the Church might be undermined in their
eyes.

That kind of breakdown of marriage is definitely one of the worst experiences for a left spouse. The thing is though, that the Church isn’t there to punish and reward people, she is there to heal through truth. The rules and practices are like medicine and treatment for the wounds of sin, not to be the judge dispensing punishments. The hope and faith we have in the Church is that all will experience some healing by her doctrines and their application.

I think it’s a false sense of compassion which leads us to want to bend
the rules for sinners. I tend to do that, too…but it’s something we have to guard against.

.

By the same token the Church has been striving to bring out the mercy of Christ in her mission especially since Vatican II. Pope St JohnXIII in his opening speech said…

"At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun.

The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations."

 

[Denise1957]

The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations."[/INDENT]

What exactly is ‘severity’ anyway? Is it considered severe to insist that Catholics adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church? Did our Lord Jesus Christ expect too much of Christians when he said “NO!” to divorce? If the teachings of the Church seem severe, then it goes back to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was also “severe” in what He taught regarding divorce. Was He wrong? Many seem to think so. Our Lord’s view of divorce did not exactly meet with approval in His day anymore than it meets with approval now. Catholicism is not an easy road to follow, and it was never meant to be as such.

How easily we forget all of the martyrs who died (and continue to die today in the Middle East) rather than denounce their Catholic faith.

 

[pnewton]

What exactly is ‘severity’ anyway? Is it considered severe to insist that Catholics adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church? Did our Lord Jesus Christ expect too much of Christians when he said “NO!” to divorce?

This is true, but this exact same thing could be said about mistreating the stranger, the hungry, or those in prison. In fact he went much further with those examples saying, “Depart from me!” Was this severe? Is it asking too much? Of course not. Yet does this mean that those who do not tend the sick or visit prisons should be denied communion because they are denied Heaven in this teaching? No. And no, it is not expecting too much of Catholics to adhere to the Church’s teaching on divorce, abortion, immigration, social justice, sexual morality, etc.

 

[Alan55]

Yes, the explosion in the numbers of annulments follows from an acceptance of the divorce culture, which implicitly rejects the permanence of marriage. And it was the rejection of Humanae Vitae which directly led to the divorce culture by separating the procreative aspect of marriage from the unitive. Contraception un-linked children from marriage, making marriage just an agreement between adults, with children as potential adjuncts who could be litigated later, should the couple break up. Children now had no expectation of a permanent home and family. They could be moved around at will like pawns in a chess game. Not only that, contraception actually unlinked permanent love from marriage by making it all about physical sex, often premarital, and not about commitment, let alone permanence.

The rejection of Humanae Vitae enabled the sexual revolution and the ills that followed.

The sexual revolution was enabled by the discovery of effective means for preventing births, namely the birth control pills. Even Pope Pius in 1951 acknowledged that it was morally neutral for Catholic families to limit their family size. The Pill gave Catholic families a safe, effective and convenient means to do. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI decided to reject the advice of the majority of cardinals, bishops and lay people on the Papal Commission and teach that artificial contraception was immoral – even though he also taught that limiting family size was not only a right but also a responsibility for Catholics under the right circumstances.

I’d be interested in any objective evidence you could provide that demonstrates that artificial contraception caused divorce rates to increase. There were many other changes in society that are more likely suspects, although neither of us is an expert in the matter.

 

[Denise1957]

The sexual revolution was enabled by the discovery of effective means for preventing births, namely the birth control pills. Even Pope Pius in 1951 acknowledged that it was morally neutral for Catholic families to limit their family size. The Pill gave Catholic families a safe, effective and convenient means to do. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI decided to reject the advice of the majority of cardinals, bishops and lay people on the Papal Commission and teach that artificial contraception was immoral – even though he also taught that limiting family size was not only a right but also a responsibility for Catholics under the right circumstances.

.

Did pope Pius in 1951 say that artificial contraception was a legitimate means to limit the family size?

 

[Denise1957]

This is true, but this exact same thing could be said about mistreating the stranger, the hungry, or those in prison. In fact he went much further with those examples saying, “Depart from me!” Was this severe? Is it asking too much? Of course not. Yet does this mean that those who do not tend the sick or visit prisons should be denied communion because they are denied Heaven in this teaching? No. And no, it is not expecting too much of Catholics to adhere to the Church’s teaching on divorce, abortion, immigration, social justice, sexual morality, etc.

The main issue that I was addressing was the issue of divorce. Do you believe that Our Lord was wrong to condemn divorce?

 

[dans0622]

What exactly is ‘severity’ anyway? …

Hello,

Harshness. I think “anathema sit” is pretty severe (cf. the Council of Trent, Vatican I). The way Bl. Pius IX’s pontificate dealt with matters can sometimes seem “severe” (Syllabus of errors and the “condemned propositions”). St. Pius X’s dealings with “modernism” are another example of severity.

“That is (you are) condemned” = severe. “This is the way of life” = not severe.

I wouldn’t mind a few “anathema sits” every now and then. It seems there would be a time and place for it, occasionally. But it’s pretty clear that the Church is far from that sort of pronouncement these days. It’s more “this is right” than “that is wrong.”

Dan

 

[KSU]

What exactly is ‘severity’ anyway? Is it considered severe to insist that Catholics adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church? Did our Lord Jesus Christ expect too much of Christians when he said “NO!” to divorce? If the teachings of the Church seem severe, then it goes back to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was also “severe” in what He taught regarding divorce. Was He wrong? Many seem to think so. Our Lord’s view of divorce did not exactly meet with approval in His day anymore than it meets with approval now. Catholicism is not an easy road to follow, and it was never meant to be as such.

How easily we forget all of the martyrs who died (and continue to die today in the Middle East) rather than denounce their Catholic faith.

Exactly! Lord help me, but I can’t follow what Pope John XXIII was talking about in his speech, viz:
"At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun.
“The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.”

I do know, however, that the Liberals in the Church (primarily Socialists and homosexuals) and their allies in the despicable, Catholic-hating media, during and after the Council, took full advantage of that good man’s compassion and ambiguity. Everything–especially teaching–quickly went to hell in a hand basket. The years since the Council were horrible years for faithful Catholics, especially parents like me who had to protect our children from the garbage being spewed by a portion of our own clergy and Religious gone wild.

God saved His Bride (what did you expect?) by sending Her JP II and B XVI to begin righting the ship, but unimaginable damage had been done.Thomas, in his post #164 regarding marriage, gave us some frightening stats, which are just the tip of the iceberg. I agree with Thomas:
“There is a larger problem, I believe, and the question of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment receiving Communion is only one aspect of it. There is the further fact that there is a vast amount of data indicating that the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae has been widely rejected or ignored by a very significant number of U.S. Catholic for the past half century. I just believe a problem already exists and to not attempt to address it is problematic.”

So, here we are watching Francis attempting to continue the job begun by JP II and B XVI by a new tactic–firming up the all-important Catholic concept of the family. That is the right tactic, but as Thomas pointed out, there are many aspects of the problem still remaining to address. We have a lot of praying to do.

 

[Denise1957]

Hello,

Harshness. I think “anathema sit” is pretty severe (cf. the Council of Trent, Vatican I). The way Bl. Pius IX’s pontificate dealt with matters can sometimes seem “severe” (Syllabus of errors and the “condemned propositions”). St. Pius X’s dealings with “modernism” are another example of severity.

“That is (you are) condemned” = severe. “This is the way of life” = not severe.

I wouldn’t mind a few “anathema sits” every now and then. It seems there would be a time and place for it, occasionally. But it’s pretty clear that the Church is far from that sort of pronouncement these days. It’s more “this is right” than “that is wrong.”

Dan

So…has the “anathema sit” been used in the Church to deal with those Catholics who are divorced and remarried? Please explain. I don’t recall sever seeing that this has been the case.

 

[LongingSoul]

What exactly is ‘severity’ anyway? Is it considered severe to insist that Catholics adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church? Did our Lord Jesus Christ expect too much of Christians when he said “NO!” to divorce? If the teachings of the Church seem severe, then it goes back to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was also “severe” in what He taught regarding divorce. Was He wrong? Many seem to think so. Our Lord’s view of divorce did not exactly meet with approval in His day anymore than it meets with approval now. Catholicism is not an easy road to follow, and it was never meant to be as such.

How easily we forget all of the martyrs who died (and continue to die today in the Middle East) rather than denounce their Catholic faith.

The teachings of Jesus aren’t being referred to as ‘severe’… it is the way that the Church imparted those teachings that was severe. Think of a parent who is very severe in teaching a child compared to one who does so with tenderness. I don’t know if the 1957 in your name is birth year, but if so you’ll remember the severity of a few of the nuns and brothers in imparting knowledge!

Divorce*** is*** an offense to the indissolubility of marriage. That’s a fact but we are able to understand and feel compassion about the realities that surround it now. When I was young, a woman was expected to stay with a husband who may occasionally hit her or drink all his money away. Today, the Church is much less ardent about the evil of divorce when ministering to such a woman.

 

[dans0622]

So…has the “anathema sit” been used in the Church to deal with those Catholics who are divorced and remarried? Please explain. I don’t recall sever seeing that this has been the case.

I was trying to answer your question “what is severity” in general. … No, I don’t think there is any statement whereby a “divorced and remarried” person was anathematized for that reason.

That being said, the Council of Trent had a few things to say about the topic of marriage, in Session 24, complete with anathemas. For example:

Can. 2. If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema.

Can. 7. If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another, let him be anathema.

Dan