Synod. The Proposal of a “Third Way”

[ProVobis]

The parents may not have the right to a sexual union, but the children sure as heck have the right to a stable family life with mom and dad present, and together.

Once a child is conceived, his or her rights supersede the pleasures the parents want to pursue. Things don’t always fit into the perfect family situation as parents split and/or form new relationships, or go back to their old ones. Civil courts always do what’s best for the child in their judgements. The Church has no choice but to follow court’s decisions on this.

I think you’re talking about a remarriage where the valid marriage resulted in no children but the divorced individual now with his new partner parents a child. No one isn’t saying the child can’t live with both his parents. But at the same time, his parents’ state can’t be glorified either. From the Church’s standpoint their relationship is not stable unless they follow the prescribed protocol.

 

[ProVobis]

… since Sandro Magister is an ultra conservative Catholic

“…you put a label on something, and it saves you the trouble of thinking…”

• Francis Cardinal George

 

[sttcatherinefan]

“…you put a label on something, and it saves you the trouble of thinking…”

• Francis Cardinal George

I don’t mean to speak ill of the dead, but Cardinal George certainly enjoyed labeling people.

 

[LongingSoul]

Even a murderer would stop having to commit murder. Even an extramarital couple would stop having to commit adultery.

The murderer has created a situation which simply can’t be rectified and in the types of situation of people who’ve come to faith after they’ve remarried and created a family, there is a state of affairs that can’t be rectified without the destruction of a family. The requirement of the Church that the couple live a life as brother and sister or live a life without the sacraments has been and may continue to be the only solution available… but in reality, it is a solution that seems like unfinished business. It’ll continue to be tested for some sort of theological light because it is the Priests who minister to the faithful at the parish level that are calling for the theological re examination of the issue.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, but one can claim it’s more manifested than some of the other “habitual” sin per canon law #915 “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

It would be interesting to see if they wish to revise this bit of Canon Law to permit some kind of special reconciliation.

That Canon paragraph is referring to holy communion but Fr Michelet is specifically talking about broadening the definition of reconciliation as per the rite of the early Church. That allows for sacramental grace to be at work in a persons life to help them with their conversion rather then be struggling on their own merit to reach a point where they are even allowed to enter into the confessional.

 

[LongingSoul]

How so, if there IS a natural or sacramental marriage, there is no bar to the sexual union.

If there is not a natural or sacramental marriage, then there is no right to the sexual union, and therefore nothing is being denied that a party would have a claim to.

The Church talks of regularising a marriage which has been legally undertaken rather than refer to them as adulterers who aren’t married at all. The language used is part of the Popes mission to help people come to faith.

 

[LongingSoul]

If it ends with permitting the people to receive Communion without demanding a life of complete celibacy (and yes demanding that remarried couples live together without sex is only something a celibate elderly man could come up with), then it is exactly what Kasper is suggesting. However, since Sandro Magister is an ultra conservative Catholic who is favored by forces trying to undermine Pope Francis, I don’t think that is what he is suggesting. Having to officially wear sack cloth (or a Scarlet D) for one’s life doesn’t strike me as any different from what happens now.

I don’t know much about Sandro Magister but I think its good form to actually report on ideas being put forward by Church theologians as a way forward in understanding. That’s what the Pope really wants to happen. He wants both sides of extremism to stop their undermining tactics so that actual theological work can be done for greater light on the wound that this issue is for the body of the Church.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

I don’t know much about Sandro Magister but I think its good form to actually report on ideas being put forward by Church theologians as a way forward in understanding. That’s what the Pope really wants to happen. He wants both sides of extremism to stop their undermining tactics so that actual theological work can be done for greater light on the wound that this issue is for the body of the Church.

Sandro Magister is the one who wrote the hit job on Monsignor Ricca (i.e. the situation that led to Who am I to judge?) and he is definitely working for some disgruntled Curia members. I think that Burke regularly leaks information to him for instance. (I suspect Burke was the one who leaked word about his demotion to Magister to garner sympathy.) Magister along with Antonio Socci is a favorite of Rorate Caeli (if you want to read extreme right discussions.) I’d take anything he writes with a huge grain of salt because it is meant to undermine Pope Francis and his reforms, including any opening on communion for remarried divorcees.

 

[Colorad007]

The Church talks of regularising a marriage which has been legally undertaken rather than refer to them as adulterers who aren’t married at all. The language used is part of the Popes mission to help people come to faith.

Good grief. It isn’t a marriage. Referring to it as such is simply obscurantism and obscurantism is a pretty shallow form of evangelization, indeed, it isn’t one at all. Second “marriages” can’t be regularized if the first spouse is living and their marriage was valid. We can do all of the canonical and linguistic calisthenics you like, but the bottom-line reality is that it really is adultery that is being committed, and far be it from believers to play games with such a grievous moral failing.

 

[Colorad007]

The murderer has created a situation which simply can’t be rectified and in the types of situation of people who’ve come to faith after they’ve remarried and created a family, there is a state of affairs that can’t be rectified without the destruction of a family. The requirement of the Church that the couple live a life as brother and sister or live a life without the sacraments has been and may continue to be the only solution available… but in reality, it is a solution that seems like unfinished business. It’ll continue to be tested for some sort of theological light because it is the Priests who minister to the faithful at the parish level that are calling for the theological re examination of the issue.

The issue has been tested and tested for what you call “theological light.” There isn’t any. And so instead of dithering on settled theological questions it seems far more valuable to work at strengthening the institution of marriage and working to help couples in crisis. If the Church is a field.hospital–and she is–then a good lot of us deserve to be sued for malpractice for trying to fill gunshot wounds with lead rather than actually doing the hard and courageous work of really binding wounds. Canon law isn’t the answer to the problems raised by synod, or at least it is secondary to the real answer, which is conversion. This is what Pope Francis is about.

Conversion isn’t something hip pastoralism or creative legal sophistry can accomplish. Conversion involves giving the entirety of one’s life to Jesus. If a person is unprepared to do that then they are unable to enter into communion with the body of Christ–not because the Church is the possession of the perfect, but because our Lord and Savior has called us home and we have nowhere else to go.

 

[SonOfMan]

The murderer has created a situation which simply can’t be rectified

Receiving absolution isnt about rectifying a situation, its about firmly resolving not to commit the same sins again.

 

[ProVobis]

That Canon paragraph is referring to holy communion but Fr Michelet is specifically talking about broadening the definition of reconciliation as per the rite of the early Church. That allows for sacramental grace to be at work in a persons life to help them with their conversion rather then be struggling on their own merit to reach a point where they are even allowed to enter into the confessional.

It’s an interesting concept but how many can understand it even in English?

 

[OraLabora]

Once a child is conceived, his or her rights supersede the pleasures the parents want to pursue. Things don’t always fit into the perfect family situation as parents split and/or form new relationships, or go back to their old ones. Civil courts always do what’s best for the child in their judgements. The Church has no choice but to follow court’s decisions on this.

I think you’re talking about a remarriage where the valid marriage resulted in no children but the divorced individual now with his new partner parents a child. No one isn’t saying the child can’t live with both his parents. But at the same time, his parents’ state can’t be glorified either. From the Church’s standpoint their relationship is not stable unless they follow the prescribed protocol.

Conversion is a life-long process as monastics will tell you. These are circumstances where one party might not be Catholic being told by the Catholic party that their sex life must come to an end. I’m realistic about human nature and how well that will go over.

Unlike just being told to make a spiritual communion, at least this process would appear to offer the couple accompaniment on their conversion journey. Monks achieve deep conversion because they are accompanied and give each other mutual support.

A process of accompaniment that includes sacramental grace while the couple work out the process of annulment (if possible) seems a lot more realistic, human and charitable than just telling them to make a spiritual communion with no other support than that.

This idea is at least one that should be on the table for discussion, with the opposing sides in the debate at least declaring a truce that it may be seriously considered.

 

[Ender]

The murderer has created a situation which simply can’t be rectified …

A murderer can go to confession and be absolved of his sin (if not exempted from his punishment) if he firmly intends not to repeat the sin, that is, if he is truly penitent.

…in the types of situation of people who’ve come to faith after they’ve remarried and created a family, there is a state of affairs that can’t be rectified without the destruction of a family.

A person who is divorced and remarried faces the same demands as any other sinner: he must show contrition. That is, he must have the intention of not repeating the sin, which is this case is sexual relations with someone other than the (first) spouse. So long as he is sexually active he cannot be forgiven and without absolution cannot receive.

The requirement of the Church that the couple live a life as brother and sister or live a life without the sacraments has been and may continue to be the only solution available… but in reality, it is a solution that seems like unfinished business.

It is certain that people in irregular relationships are barred from receiving the Eucharist, but it isn’t clear that such people are barred from all of the sacraments.

It’ll continue to be tested for some sort of theological light because it is the Priests who minister to the faithful at the parish level that are calling for the theological re examination of the issue.

What “issue”? How best to minister to such individuals? Yes. Whether they should be allowed to receive communion? No.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

I admit I was extremely angry when I first read this. Now that I’ve simmered down, I’d like to say this: it is one thing to hide behind the skirt of doctrine, but we need to realize that very real lives and practical considerations are involved in these situations. One is children. The union may be “illicit” doctrinally, but the reality is that there are very real lives involved, in particular children.

The parents may not have the right to a sexual union, but the children sure as heck have the right to a stable family life with mom and dad present, and together. My own father was taken away from me by a stroke when I was 12; I know what being brought up by an impoverished single mother was like. We had no control over the situation. But I will say we have no right destabilizing the family life of children and risking pushing them into situations where the parents are split, with all the problems that entails.

It is why it is so critical to find a pastoral solution to this impasse. It isn’t just for the adults, but it’s to avoid perpetuating broken homes, children shuttling between parents, etc. The doctrine sets the reference point, but we always must be mindful of the real lives and situations involved and merciful especially towards the children and their need for stability and both parents. The children could care less about the licitness of their parents’ sexual union but they sure as heck care that when they come home from school, they have both a mother and father waiting for them at home and involved in their lives.

We need to be mindful of this and realize that people must be met where they are and propose workable solutions to them that preserve the family union and don’t destabilize it. Two wrongs, quite simply, don’t make a right.

I agree it is very sad when the innocent are harmed and unfortunate that man and wife do have the capability to stabilize or destroy their relationship and their own families. But that is simply the power and consequence of disobedience and rebellion and hardly the fault of the Church! The world we live in is a result of Adam’s sin. The reality and practical solution of which you speak still remains within the domain of choices, although it will require sacrifice not readily embraced by the unrepentent.

 

[McCall1981]

That Canon paragraph is referring to holy communion but Fr Michelet is specifically talking about broadening the definition of reconciliation as per the rite of the early Church. That allows for sacramental grace to be at work in a persons life to help them with their conversion rather then be struggling on their own merit to reach a point where they are even allowed to enter into the confessional.

As I said earlier, on the surface of it at least, this proposal seems orthodox as far as not giving communion to the remarried. If it was actually enacted, don’t you think the liberal/pro-Kasper side would see it as basically giving the same old thing a fancy name without really changing anything?

As much as I deeply disagree with Stcatherinefan on, well, virtually everything, I do think his/her response that this “doesn’t strike me as any different from what happens now.” would probably be pretty indicative of the liberal response.

Good grief. It isn’t a marriage. Referring to it as such is simply obscurantism and obscurantism is a pretty shallow form of evangelization, indeed, it isn’t one at all. Second “marriages” can’t be regularized if the first spouse is living and their marriage was valid. We can do all of the canonical and linguistic calisthenics you like, but the bottom-line reality is that it really is adultery that is being committed, and far be it from believers to play games with such a grievous moral failing.

The issue has been tested and tested for what you call “theological light.” There isn’t any. And so instead of dithering on settled theological questions it seems far more valuable to work at strengthening the institution of marriage and working to help couples in crisis. If the Church is a field.hospital–and she is–then a good lot of us deserve to be sued for malpractice for trying to fill gunshot wounds with lead rather than actually doing the hard and courageous work of really binding wounds. Canon law isn’t the answer to the problems raised by synod, or at least it is secondary to the real answer, which is conversion. This is what Pope Francis is about.

Conversion isn’t something hip pastoralism or creative legal sophistry can accomplish. Conversion involves giving the entirety of one’s life to Jesus. If a person is unprepared to do that then they are unable to enter into communion with the body of Christ–not because the Church is the possession of the perfect, but because our Lord and Savior has called us home and we have nowhere else to go.

Great post

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t mean to speak ill of the dead, but Cardinal George certainly enjoyed labeling people.

That is news to me, I must say. It sure seems like the Chicago news media does much of the labeling, though.

 

[OraLabora]

The issue has been tested and tested for what you call “theological light.” There isn’t any. And so instead of dithering on settled theological questions it seems far more valuable to work at strengthening the institution of marriage and working to help couples in crisis. If the Church is a field.hospital–and she is–then a good lot of us deserve to be sued for malpractice for trying to fill gunshot wounds with lead rather than actually doing the hard and courageous work of really binding wounds. Canon law isn’t the answer to the problems raised by synod, or at least it is secondary to the real answer, which is conversion. This is what Pope Francis is about.

Conversion isn’t something hip pastoralism or creative legal sophistry can accomplish. Conversion involves giving the entirety of one’s life to Jesus. If a person is unprepared to do that then they are unable to enter into communion with the body of Christ–not because the Church is the possession of the perfect, but because our Lord and Savior has called us home and we have nowhere else to go.

Conversion though, isn’t instantaneous. It can be a life-long process often two steps forward, one step back, ups and downs, periods of doubt and acedia. The beginning may be easy when we’re on fire with the faith, but the comes the tough parts, dark nights, etc. in the case of a couple it is x2. Even harder if one party isn’t Catholic, and the other wants to return to the faith.

This why I think the Holy Father is so insistent on some kind of healing process for these situations and why he insists it be on the Synod’s agenda. It is a pity that some seem to be trying to undermine the Synod process. Hopefully this idea won’t be torpedoed right out of the starting gate.

 

[ProVobis]

A process of accompaniment that includes sacramental grace while the couple work out the process of annulment (if possible) seems a lot more realistic, human and charitable than just telling them to make a spiritual communion with no other support than that.

This idea is at least one that should be on the table for discussion, with the opposing sides in the debate at least declaring a truce that it may be seriously considered.

I don’t know, Ora. I’ve known D&R Catholics and it seems that these things can be worked out on their own. Eventually one or both need a priest to go visit them in the hospital or wherever and I’m sure nothing is denied in way of confession, last rites, etc.

 

[Colorad007]

Conversion is a life-long process as monastics will tell you. These are circumstances where one party might not be Catholic being told by the Catholic party that their sex life must come to an end. I’m realistic about human nature and how well that will go over.

Unlike just being told to make a spiritual communion, at least this process would appear to offer the couple accompaniment on their conversion journey. Monks achieve deep conversion because they are accompanied and give each other mutual support.

A process of accompaniment that includes sacramental grace while the couple work out the process of annulment (if possible) seems a lot more realistic, human and charitable than just telling them to make a spiritual communion with no other support than that.

This idea is at least one that should be on the table for discussion, with the opposing sides in the debate at least declaring a truce that it may be seriously considered.

I find this argument obscene. You are realistic about human nature but Vatican II, St. John Paul II, Pope.Benedict, the current prefect for the Congregation for the Divine Faith, and indeed Jesus Himself were not? All because you believe that people won’t just stop having sex with other despite it being abjectly immoral adulterous sex?

Come on.