P
ProVobis
Guest
Cohabiting is scandalous as well.
- Status
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
But this is a major topic and it’s not just the MSM, but Catholic news services as well.
If the Pope has made up his mind according to the Spanish Bishop, why is the subject still on the table for discussion ?
Jim
P
PietroPaolo
Guest
Why wouldn’t it be? People, including “Catholic news services,” still talk about condoms and women priests - both of which are settled issues. There are those who want to either a) change the Church’s teachings and can’t get it through their heads that it will never, can never happen and who b) are happy to create enough confusion among the rank and file that most Catholics just ignore their Church’s teaching (like with contraception). Besides, it makes splashy headlines and gets people to read the news, so why would people stop talking about it just because Francis says it ain’t gonna happen?
M
McCall1981
Guest
to all of these!
T
Tigg
Guest
Wanna bet that a blow by blow account will be leaked and misrepresented even in the Catholic news media? The official apostolic doc won’t come out until 2015, but by then it most likely will be no surprise to anyone.
T
Tigg
Guest
What act of love could possibly trump love of the Eucharist and only your decision to place Christ second in your life would lead to non-participation of the Sacrament.
M
McCall1981
Guest
Exactly.
Plus, this Synod is supposed to produce the working document for next year’s Synod, and it seems like we would get that at least in the first half of 2015.
P
ProVobis
Guest
For one thing, it’s got to be translated CORRECTLY into several hundred vernaculars.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I really doubt the first part. I don’t think Jesus conceived of himself as some sort of social services person. Rather, what he said is true and is not historically contingent.
I don’t think you can reliably say, “I think that in most cases where a divorce occurs, there is probably sufficient cause to grant an annulment.” It is an opinion and assumes the invalidity of putative sacramental marriages, which is always wrong to do. We can never assume that marriages are non-sacramental. I mean, really, what substantial connection does civil divorce have to ecclesiastical annulment? There is no substantial connection; just the Church requires the former before the latter to prevent scandal and to ensure the welfare of the parties involved. Marriages must be proven to be invalid, otherwise the sacrament is worth nothing. It’s dirt, some sort of dumb construct the Church made up to “hurt women” or something–wait, we’ll hear it–if marriages are not assumed to be valid. I won’t respect marriage if we assume marriages are not valid just because someone “feels” their marriage is invalid–why should I? Marriage at that point isn’t worth the dirt on my shoe. Why should I ever believe anyone is “really” married if that’s true? Marriage ceases to exist for all intents and purposes at that point. If we don’t assume the validity of marriages, then the logical outcome of all this is: Nobody should get married.
The point is that people in a marriage are no more equipped to “annul” their own marriages than a plaintiff and defendant are equipped to adjudicate a murder case between them.
What you are proposing would be a disastrous case of subjective feelings somehow on their own validating an objective reality: this is always false.
What’s so interesting is that this is false on its face! Sacramental marriage is an objective reality: either it exists or it does not. Subjectivity, while it may play a part in determining whether the conditions necessary for an objective act have occured, does not make for objectivity. It’s a contradiction in terms to say that two married people can legitimately “decide” that their marriage is non-sacramental: they are far too invested in obtaining such an outcome (usually) that it would be a joke to believe whatever “outcome” they decide on. They are utterly incapable of determining this in a reasonably sure way by themselves. It would be wonderfully unmerciful and unjust–the reason being that it would be a lie–to allow this to happen. If two people say, “We have determined that we were never married in the Church,” I will say, “I don’t believe your determination, I don’t respect it, and I won’t acknowledge it.”
You say later:
You’re 100% right. A declaration of nullity is not a dogmatic definition. If the parties involved lie–either of commission or omission–then the declaration can be 100% wrong. BUT, at that point, it’s no longer any fault of the Church’s, it’s no longer any fault of the canon lawyers: it’s the fault of whoever lied to the Church, and they have certainly sinned for it. But lying doesn’t contradict the fundamental validity and integrity of the annulment process. It’s a defect on the part of one or both of the involved parties and at that point is with them.
S
Scottgun
Guest
This is good news because the media was really spinning the “BOHICA faithful Catholics!” narrative.
B
Brendan
Guest
That is correct, which is precisely WHY the Church insists on such a thorough process, so that the facts of the matter may be seen with the clearest possible light.
It is only when the due diligence is done can the Church make the most accurate assessment of the validity of the marriage.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
I thought the issue was people who are living with a non-spouse in a second civil marriage, have reverted/converted, but find it challenging to leave due to some constraint–e.g children. This would assume no intimacy was involved any longer between the two people. Then possibly there could be some public penance to try and avoid scandal.
Isn’t that what the Synod will be discussing? I thought that’s what Cardinal Kasper was addressing. He is a “good theologian” after all. Obviously the Church can’t let people obstinately living in sin receive the Eucharist. Scandalous. I mean if there was still some intimacy between the two people…then it’s clearly not acceptable.
Isn’t that what the Synod will be discussing? I thought that’s what Cardinal Kasper was addressing. He is a “good theologian” after all. Obviously the Church can’t let people obstinately living in sin receive the Eucharist. Scandalous. I mean if there was still some intimacy between the two people…then it’s clearly not acceptable.
P
Pavlo
Guest
It is a hard call but in the mean time we should pray for the pope to be lead by Jesus
S
sttcatherinefan
Guest
Actually, Kasper is addressing letting people in second marriages who are continuing to have sex with each other to receive Communion on an individual basis. (This is happening now already BTW with the approval of priests.) Kasper stated in an interview he gave to America Magazine, I believe, that it is unrealistic to expect most couples in second marriages to refrain from sex.
Pope Francis is a cipher and has a tendency to be interpreted by each side how they want to interpret it. Kasper is pretty sure that Francis supports him and this Spanish bishop who is very conservative is sure that Francis supports him. I tend to think that Francis is playing his cards close to the chest but he does want something done about it. Francis also tends to use grand gestures to convey what he wants without changing the rules. But they sure change pastoral practices and the way that priests are expected to conduct their ministry.
My belief is that the compromise will be a sped up annulment process that looks similar to the ecclesiastical divorcees in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I don’t think it is a bad idea for it to be conducted mainly with the parish priest meeting with the couple or with another priest, deacon, or even lay spiritual minister trained by the dioceses to conduct the interviews and initiate the process with subsequent interviews at the dioceses level. There are really clear cut cases that don’t need a drawn out trial - John and Jane Doe married in their early twenties and got divorced eighteen months later. I also think the presumption should be that the marriage wasn’t sacramental because it fell apart.
The huge drawback is that the process might be unevenly applied. Liberal priests will continue to do what they were already doing and their liberal bishops will back them up. Conservative priests will continue to be stingy about this backed up by their conservative bishops. Perhaps Francis will symbolically do something to ensure that the new process is applied liberally like conducting a few final interviews himself in his capacity as Bishop of Rome or celebrating the convalidations of couples who received annulments under the new process.
Pope Francis is a cipher and has a tendency to be interpreted by each side how they want to interpret it. Kasper is pretty sure that Francis supports him and this Spanish bishop who is very conservative is sure that Francis supports him. I tend to think that Francis is playing his cards close to the chest but he does want something done about it. Francis also tends to use grand gestures to convey what he wants without changing the rules. But they sure change pastoral practices and the way that priests are expected to conduct their ministry.
My belief is that the compromise will be a sped up annulment process that looks similar to the ecclesiastical divorcees in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I don’t think it is a bad idea for it to be conducted mainly with the parish priest meeting with the couple or with another priest, deacon, or even lay spiritual minister trained by the dioceses to conduct the interviews and initiate the process with subsequent interviews at the dioceses level. There are really clear cut cases that don’t need a drawn out trial - John and Jane Doe married in their early twenties and got divorced eighteen months later. I also think the presumption should be that the marriage wasn’t sacramental because it fell apart.
The huge drawback is that the process might be unevenly applied. Liberal priests will continue to do what they were already doing and their liberal bishops will back them up. Conservative priests will continue to be stingy about this backed up by their conservative bishops. Perhaps Francis will symbolically do something to ensure that the new process is applied liberally like conducting a few final interviews himself in his capacity as Bishop of Rome or celebrating the convalidations of couples who received annulments under the new process.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Could be but in my mind it would still be undermining the sacrament of Matrimony. It shouldn’t be a joyous occasion when the graces of that sacrament are withdrawn/nullified.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
But they’re not married! My gosh. These are not marriages. At that point, like I said, the sacrament is trash and means nothing. Having your cake and eating it too.
S
sttcatherinefan
Guest
Wow… Gosh non married people have sex who would have thought. What horror! Perhaps if that happens married women wil begin divorcing their abusive husbands. Wow how awful. Men slapping around women is their right… duh.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I’m sorry, I don’t see your point. When did I ever say I don’t think non-married people have sex? It’s prerequisite to my above post to assume that they do. But relationships such as you addressed are not marriages and it cheapens and existentially obliterates the sacrament to say that they are.
Why is this so theoretically hard? Why can’t marriage just have a definition and let’s stick to it? I understand that life is messy–no, I haven’t had the unfortunate experience of having a spouse divorce me, but I see that reality in people I know–but that can not contradict objective reality.
Mercy, yes. Lying and engineering a sacrament–of all things!–to fit our desires, no. I just watched Mother Angelica on one of her old episodes addressing a question from a woman who was said that three of her five children were living with partners in long-term relationships but were refusing to get married. Mother Angelica said that we don’t have to beat people over the head with the truth every time we see them, but we are morally obligated to tell the truth clearly and unambiguously when necessary to give witness to it.
How is this substantially any different from any other sin? Why are people talking about giving “divorced” and “remarried” people Communion yet not also talking about saying it’s okay to commit XYZ other sin and still receive Communion? Why is this such a “privileged” sin? If they can commit their sin and not have to deal with it in the way that it demands by God and logic to be dealt with, then by God, I want to do whatever I want to do and still receive Communion, too!
In fact I might just head over to Cafe Press and make a t-shirt design that says “MERCY YES, LYING NO!”
This is a sacrament and we don’t have the authority as humans to mess around with the fundamental substance of it such as saying, “It’s okay to pretend you’re not married to someone with whom you are in fact putatively married and pretend to get married to someone else.”
No. That is the epitome of unjustice and unmercifulness.
M
McCall1981
Guest
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Do you have a source for that?
- Status