Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

[Deltadeliquent]

I keep thinking about the quote"who am I to judge?" When speaking on homosexuality.
The quote was taken out of context and used to show that Francis is the pope of change, meaning change they way the media wants it.

I don’t think pope B. Would have ever said such a thing in context or not…
And I think St. John Paul The Great would have been media savy enough to know not to say such a thing, because he knew how they work.

I admit I have read little of what Francis has written, so take my comments with the grain of salt they deserve and I particularly look forward to the encyclical on the environment, a big concern for me.

I do think that the Church needs a renewal in spirit and evangelical work. The world needs to know what we teach and the real reasons behind it. Living up to the teachings in this world is hard, but I can tell you, that not doing so will impoverish your life unnecessarily. It’s not about power, or control, or imposing our views. If studied, our teachings are the result of logic and reason. No one seems to understand that.
The world needs to know this.

 

[TMC]

No, the pope called for the Synod on the Family; he did not instigate the call to reevaluate whether divorced and remarried people should receive communion for the simple reason that it is not possible.
It certainly will come up, and there might even be some marginal tweak, but those who have divorced and remarried without an annulment of the previous marriage will never be able to receive communion.
What do you think settled doctrine is if it is not written in stone? Do people really believe moral doctrines can be reversed?

Ender

Doctrine can and does evolve and change, yes. But that is not even what is being discussed. The discussion (or at least part of it) is about how the Church deals with divorced and remarried Catholics, not with changing the Church’s teaching on divorce. Those are very different things.

 

[Ender]

But God’s mercy can only be accessed through true *repentance *and that is the unpopular portion modern society leaves out.

This point seems completely lost on most of those calling it merciful to give communion to the divorced/remarried. It is a failure to understand the nature of mercy.On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth, especially in the face of the witness of the cross and resurrection of Christ.

In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness.

(7) c) It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution. (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Doctrine can and does evolve and change, yes.

Yes, doctrines can become more fleshed out; they cannot, however, be reversed.

The discussion (or at least part of it) is about how the Church deals with divorced and remarried Catholics, not with changing the Church’s teaching on divorce. Those are very different things.

Yes, they are different topics, and I agree that perhaps a large part of the discussion will be on the issue of dealing with divorced and remarried Catholics. It is after all a major problem. That, however, is not how the synod is being sold by the media, as Cardinal Burke has pointed out.*“the media has created a situation in which people expect that there are going to be these major changes which would, in fact, constitute a change in Church teaching, which is impossible.”
*The media campaign is not inadvertent and its results will be harmful.

Ender

 

[friardchips]

I keep thinking about the quote"who am I to judge?" When speaking on homosexuality.
The quote was taken out of context and used to show that Francis is the pope of change, meaning change they way the media wants it.

I don’t think pope B. Would have ever said such a thing in context or not…
And I think St. John Paul The Great would have been media savy enough to know not to say such a thing, because he knew how they work.

I admit I have read little of what Francis has written, so take my comments with the grain of salt they deserve and I particularly look forward to the encyclical on the environment, a big concern for me.

I do think that the Church needs a renewal in spirit and evangelical work. The world needs to know what we teach and the real reasons behind it. Living up to the teachings in this world is hard, but I can tell you, that not doing so will impoverish your life unnecessarily. It’s not about power, or control, or imposing our views. If studied, our teachings are the result of logic and reason. No one seems to understand that.
The world needs to know this.

Yes, he was talking about ‘not judging’. But I think it was good because it expressed a need to ‘not hate’ people. I always liked the things he said and never took them the wrong way. That is most likely a media-issue that brings this problem about - agreed. I have read something from him and it was as if the Holy Spirit Himself was talking. He wa exactly right and his head is well screwed with Holy Pope glue.

I like what you said in the last paragraph although if asked we should be able to answer, but then as Jesus told us, something to the effect of: don’t worry what you are to say…and spoke abut trusting in the Holy Spirit to give us what we need in each moment. I kind of think this is what Pope F does and I like it. I also think that Popes, as well as holding dear what we believe as essential realities of our faith and belief, also have to respond to the needs of the time. Each Pope was needed for his time and there was and is a time and a place for each in his own right.

 

[friardchips]

…‘screwed on with…’, not ‘screwed with…’, although the media try and screw up our heads so I wouldn’t blame him if it were.

 

[shelby_sun]

That is possible.

On the other hand, lets say that Cardinal Kasper’s suggestion is taken where a valid marriage ends in divorce, one of the spouses remarries they go to reconciliation and can now receive communion. If I have understood the Cardinal’s position he would treat the single act of contracting a new marriage as a single sinful act and all subsequent actions as acceptable. Reconciliation would involve absolution of attempting to contract marriage while their first spouse was alive.

How does the good Cardinal’s proposal allow for a “tweak” while still upholding the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage?

Here is the real problem. For every person that might leave if things are not changed, there are also those that will lose their faith if things do change. In providing tweaks for pastoral care you could lose tens of thousands who see church teachings as bedrock turning into shifting sand.

The other thing is that many that want things to change already ignore the church teachings on divorce and remarriage, contraception, homosexual unions, etc., but still receive the Eucharist anyway. So what does tweaking things do except maybe remove some of the guilt so they don’t feel so bad? On the other hand if you lose tens or even hundreds of thousands through a crisis of faith have you really improved the situation?

I find it funny that so many people would leave what they believe to be the One true Church, the only Church that can bring them salvation. Where will they go. Aren’t they the ones who save alp those who are not Catholic cannot be saved. So because you do not like or believe in this, you really must not believe the Holy Spirit work in the Church and that God is possible of anything at anytime, even change. Well, I guest I am going to being the Church no matter what is done. Do you know where you will go if there is a change or even a tweek. Must be worrisome?

 

[St_Francis]

Then what is the point of anyone even discussing it? It would seem if it was set in stone, no one would be setting up meetings to review it.

First of all, the Synod is about Marriage and the Family. It is a world-wide synod, not just US, so one of the topics will be polygamy–apparently how to handle it when a person “married” more than one person converts. Not generally a problem in the US.

Secondly, about the only people who are discussing the exact topic of somehow allowing people who are apparently still married to one person but consorting with another to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord are a few participants and the media, which is blowing up each comment made on the subject.

Posibilities for discussion in the Synod could be the influence of lack of catechesis on several topics on the rates of requests for annullments, as well as how pre-marital preparation should be handled. This certainly varies significantly among dioceses and even parished in the US; what is the situation world-wide?

If there are absolutely no amendments or even the slights "tweek"somewhere on this issue, I think you will see another wave of people leave the Church.

That will no doubt happen, as the result of the media’s, in their shameful (if only professionally) ignorance, raising the expectations of people.

You may recall an incident in which Christ taught “a hard teaching,” and many of His followers left Him, because He simply reiterated it rather than backing off. Can the Church do any less?

 

[shelby_sun]

First of all, the Synod is about Marriage and the Family. It is a world-wide synod, not just US, so one of the topics will be polygamy–apparently how to handle it when a person “married” more than one person converts. Not generally a problem in the US.

Secondly, about the only people who are discussing the exact topic of somehow allowing people who are apparently still married to one person but consorting with another to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord are a few participants and the media, which is blowing up each comment made on the subject.

Posibilities for discussion in the Synod could be the influence of lack of catechesis on several topics on the rates of requests for annullments, as well as how pre-marital preparation should be handled. This certainly varies significantly among dioceses and even parished in the US; what is the situation world-wide?

That will no doubt happen, as the result of the media’s, in their shameful (if only professionally) ignorance, raising the expectations of people.

You may recall an incident in which Christ taught “a hard teaching,” and many of His followers left Him, because He simply reiterated it rather than backing off. Can the Church do any less?

Well if the media is actually distorting what is going on then I would think The Vatican would want to clarify the truth. I would think that would be a high priority and need a team of people to do it one a daily basis. It is funny that no one questions the media when they like and agree with what the media is saying. I have no idea what we be discussed.

As for your last statement, that is what I fully expect to happen. If they do there will be some that feel like a carrot has been dangle in front of their face only to be snatched away. Many who do not agree with just continue to practice their faith as they always have. disagree with the Church on this point.

 

[St_Francis]

Well if the media is actually distorting what is going on then I would think The Vatican would want to clarify the truth. I would think that would be a high priority and need a team of people to do it one a daily basis. It is funny that no one questions the media when they like and agree with what the media is saying. I have no idea what we be discussed.

The problem is that those who say what is actually going on have their comments printed, if at all, on the lower half of the 28th page instead on on the front page above the fold.

As for your last statement, that is what I fully expect to happen. If they do there will be some that feel like a carrot has been dangle in front of their face only to be snatched away. Many who do not agree with just continue to practice their faith as they always have. disagree with the Church on this point.

Right, this way they can leave the Church and blame the *Church *rather than themselves. If there are people who will use this as an out, then so be it. Pope Benedict predicted that this would continue to happen–it’s been going on for 50 years already.

 

[Usige]

I find it funny that so many people would leave what they believe to be the One true Church, the only Church that can bring them salvation. Where will they go. Aren’t they the ones who save alp those who are not Catholic cannot be saved. So because you do not like or believe in this, you really must not believe the Holy Spirit work in the Church and that God is possible of anything at anytime, even change. Well, I guest I am going to being the Church no matter what is done. Do you know where you will go if there is a change or even a tweek. Must be worrisome?

I’m not worried because I never said I’d leave. I was simply pointing out that you think the Church must “do something” so that waves don’t leave, but seemed to laugh when I mention that the same change could also cause some to lose their faith. So one group leaving because they want/expect a change is serious, but another group that has remained faithful leaving is a matter to laugh at?

The whole point is pastoral changes must balance the impact to those they benefit as well as any that might be scandalized by those changes. Any changes would need to include a doctinally sound explination as to how Cardinal Kasper’s solution is not like Moses allowing his people to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. Not doing so could result in further pushing old school, orthodox Catholics away. What I have read from Cardinal Kasper does not show how one would preserve the teaching from Christ around remarriage being an act of adultery and one being in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. As it stands there would have to be a clarification on when remarriage is no longer adulterous or somehow reconciling 2000 years of teaching with a new pastoral approach.

Could things be changed? I guess anything is possible. Will there need to be very, very clear explinations to show continuity of teaching? Most assuredly.

 

[shelby_sun]

The problem is that those who say what is actually going on have their comments printed, if at all, on the lower half of the 28th page instead on on the front page above the fold.

Right, this way they can leave the Church and blame the *Church *rather than themselves. If there are people who will use this as an out, then so be it. Pope Benedict predicted that this would continue to happen–it’s been going on for 50 years already.

No one has the right to blame the Church, it is their choice. I can sit here and say i believe everything the Church teaches, but I simply cannot right now, Those that what to condemn me or say I am not a good Catholic can do so. Maybe someday God will help me believe differently. Yes this is going to continue to happen for all of time.

 

[shelby_sun]

I’m not worried because I never said I’d leave. I was simply pointing out that you think the Church must “do something” so that waves don’t leave, but seemed to laugh when I mention that the same change could also cause some to lose their faith. So one group leaving because they want/expect a change is serious, but another group that has remained faithful leaving is a matter to laugh at?

The whole point is pastoral changes must balance the impact to those they benefit as well as any that might be scandalized by those changes. Any changes would need to include a doctinally sound explination as to how Cardinal Kasper’s solution is not like Moses allowing his people to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. Not doing so could result in further pushing old school, orthodox Catholics away. What I have read from Cardinal Kasper does not show how one would preserve the teaching from Christ around remarriage being an act of adultery and one being in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. As it stands there would have to be a clarification on when remarriage is no longer adulterous or somehow reconciling 2000 years of teaching with a new pastoral approach.

Could things be changed? I guess anything is possible. Will there need to be very, very clear explinations to show continuity of teaching? Most assuredly.

No I did not say the Church needed to do something, in fact I said I don’t think the Church just because people want in to. The Church just needs to be ready for what might happen. If in fact someone high up in the Church brought this subject up again knowing the teachings cannot change, it was a big mistake.

This is mot want benefits the most people, it is about what they truly feel is morally right. Most Catholic today receive communion as a sinner and not in the state of grace. These day people go to confession must less, and we are sinners everyday. That doesn’t mean they are not doing their best to do God’s work and be better people on a daily basis.

 

[Ender]

I was simply pointing out that you think the Church must “do something” so that waves don’t leave, but seemed to laugh when I mention that the same change could also cause some to lose their faith. So one group leaving because they want/expect a change is serious, but another group that has remained faithful leaving is a matter to laugh at?

It is wrong to suggest there is no significant difference between the two groups you identify above, or that somehow changing or not changing the “rules” are two sides of the same coin. Nor is it accurate to claim both groups contain faithful Catholics who will be equally hurt by whatever action is taken.

It may well be true that divorced/remarried parishioners are equally or even more faithful in all other issues, but the problem is caused because they are demonstrably unfaithful in regard to marriage, and what is being requested is that that unfaithfulness be ignored. Those who remarry contrary to the church’s teaching on this matter have already decided that church doctrines are matters of choice and that they are free to believe what they will.

If the church were to now reverse her position on communion for the divorced/remarried then it would be the church herself who was proclaiming that her doctrines are simply arbitrary rules she can pronounce or reverse at will. There is a fundamental difference between choosing to accommodate those who have rejected church doctrine and keeping faith with those who have not.

Ender

 

[friardchips]

Well, Gods mercy does outweigh His justice and it is good that this is highlighted as we live in the time of understanding to a greater extent about mercy rather than punishment. But the rest of your post is quite true in that this is what society has come to believe: a kind of thumb in the mouth, Goo-goo ga-ga, grab-me-the-bib, me me, existence.

I put this badly in an earlier post. To correct: God’s mercy does not ‘outweigh’ His justice - nonsensical wording used as an attempt to emphasise His abounding mercy.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Being in the middle of this muddle myself, I have a suggestion…
I wonder if one thing the Church could do is to begin to claim jurisdiction ONLY over Catholics.

I am married civically to a man who is not Catholic or even religious in any way shape or form. Never has been. Yet, in order to get my marriage co validated, his first marriage has to be looked at. This means, that in some way, he comes under the Church’s control. I wonder how many are in this situation.

If the Church decided to rule, and be concerned with, only on the Catholic party’s status, would this help the situation any? It still upholds the Catholic teaching, still insists on me abiding by Church teaching, yet let’s those with no Interest in The Church, or those of other traditions off the Catholic hook. They would have to deal with their previous marriages as their tradition, and laws practice:
So if I am found free to marry by the Church, as I am the Catholic party and my husband is legally free to marry by secular law, we can be married in the Church. As it is now, both of us have to be free to marry by Cathoilc Church standards.

Maybe there aren’t enough people in this situation to make a difference. If there are, it would streamline the annulment process without diluting the basic teaching that marriage is forever, and that Catholics have to be in a state of grace to receive the sacraments.
Again, this is not about punishment, but about being in an appropriate spiritual state for communion. The non Catholic party is already in an inappropriate spiritual state and cannot receive the sacraments.

I do understand why they do look at a non Catholics status. But not doing so might be a way forward on this issue.

Just a thought.

 

[Usige]

Being in the middle of this muddle myself, I have a suggestion…
I wonder if one thing the Church could do is to begin to claim jurisdiction ONLY over Catholics.

I am married civically to a man who is not Catholic or even religious in any way shape or form. Never has been. Yet, in order to get my marriage co validated, his first marriage has to be looked at. This means, that in some way, he comes under the Church’s control. I wonder how many are in this situation.

If the Church decided to rule, and be concerned with, only on the Catholic party’s status, would this help the situation any? It still upholds the Catholic teaching, still insists on me abiding by Church teaching, yet let’s those with no Interest in The Church, or those of other traditions off the Catholic hook. They would have to deal with their previous marriages as their tradition, and laws practice:
So if I am found free to marry by the Church, as I am the Catholic party and my husband is legally free to marry by secular law, we can be married in the Church. As it is now, both of us have to be free to marry by Cathoilc Church standards.

Maybe there aren’t enough people in this situation to make a difference. If there are, it would streamline the annulment process without diluting the basic teaching that marriage is forever, and that Catholics have to be in a state of grace to receive the sacraments.
Again, this is not about punishment, but about being in an appropriate spiritual state for communion. The non Catholic party is already in an inappropriate spiritual state and cannot receive the sacraments.

I do understand why they do look at a non Catholics status. But not doing so might be a way forward on this issue.

Just a thought.

The issue is that the prohibition against divorce is not a Catholic rule, but is divine in nature. Since marriage is a divine institution all mankind is bound regardless if they acknowledge it or not. The Church simply has no authority to dispense a valid marriages simply because one party didn’t ask to be involved with Her.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Isn’t that like saying I have to pray facing Mecca because all people should do so according to Islam, and islam is the only true faith?

If a non Catholic went to mass, he would not be expected, nor invited to communion. Nor would a non baptized person. Unless you are part of the club, the sacraments don’t apply to you. They would be good for you, and you ought to join the club so you can have them, but unless you do join, you are not under any obligation to partake.

I understand the issue, but I don’t think one faith can impose its briefs and regulations on a non member any more than one country can impose its laws on those who are not citizens. How would you like it if everyone in the world had to file US tax returns, just because all US citizens are required to.
And it would go some way to streamlining the remarriage issue without hurting the teachings of the Church one whit. It would allow at least some Catholics to come into full communion. But it’s probably a small number.

 

[Ender]

Isn’t that like saying I have to pray facing Mecca because all people should do so according to Islam, and islam is the only true faith?

No. The issue is not about what people believe about marriage but about what marriage is. As Usige just said, marriage is not a Catholic construct but a divine one and marriages outside of the church are still valid.

If a non Catholic went to mass, he would not be expected, nor invited to communion. Nor would a non baptized person. Unless you are part of the club, the sacraments don’t apply to you. They would be good for you, and you ought to join the club so you can have them, but unless you do join, you are not under any obligation to partake.

Since you want a Catholic marriage you have to accept the conditions that come with it. The church does not view a marriage of the wife as something separate from that of the husband. The doctrines apply to the marriage, and to both individuals involved.

I understand the issue, but I don’t think one faith can impose its briefs and regulations on a non member …

It imposes nothing, and a marriage cannot be half valid. Either you and your spouse meet the requirements for a Catholic wedding or you don’t, but if you want a Catholic wedding it isn’t clear how you can validly object to its conditions.

Ender

 

[Deltadeliquent]

I can have a Catholic wedding. I’m not objecting to anything. I’m not talking about myself., actually, because I will be able to be convalidated. I know this.
I just thought that if this small population were to be eliminated from the regulations it might free up space, time and energy for others. Streamlining.

But if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work.