Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[dans0622]

… This kind of rigidity in application of doctrine makes as much a mockery of the doctrine as the Pharisees made of The Law.

Hello,

I’m totally in agreement with Familiaris consortio, n. 84, and wish that it would be put into practice in every applicable situation. Is there anything wrong with this?

Dan

 

[OraLabora]

Hello,

I’m totally in agreement with Familiaris consortio, n. 84, and wish that it would be put into practice in every applicable situation. Is there anything wrong with this?

Dan

Yes, IMHO in certain circumstances.

 

[Ender]

But the message of mercy needs to be heard…

I have questioned the application of mercy in this situation before but no one has yet responded. What does it mean to be merciful here? Do you mean the suspension of doctrine in some cases? If not, what do you mean? How would you apply it? There is nothing wrong with the call to be merciful, but without an explanation of exactly what it means in this case it is not very meaningful.

…and the nonsense of a one-size-fits-all pastoral approach exposed.

Again, this is too vague. Are you suggesting that doctrines apply conditionally, and that sometimes they may be ignored?

Ender

 

[OraLabora]

I have questioned the application of mercy in this situation before but no one has yet responded. What does it mean to be merciful here? Do you mean the suspension of doctrine in some cases? If not, what do you mean? How would you apply it? There is nothing wrong with the call to be merciful, but without an explanation of exactly what it means in this case it is not very meaningful.
Again, this is too vague. Are you suggesting that doctrines apply conditionally, and that sometimes they may be ignored?

Ender

No, the doctrine doesn’t change. There was a thread on gradualism that explained how it might work, basically that the sacraments be permitted to those repentant of their mistakes and willing to take concrete and gradual steps to grow in holiness and conform to Church teaching. Another possibility is a simpler annulment process. Or a combination.

The gradualist approach is already being used discretely by some clergy.

The Holy Father also suggested the Orthodox approach. The whole point of this aspect of the synod was to explore possibilities. It’s above our pay grade as it were, but since these are ideas already pondered by the Synod, we can discuss them.

 

[Seraphim73]

There is no flaw in the One True Church established by Jesus Christ

There certainly has to be some flaw if it can’t allow some remarried people to Communion without the whole thing collapsing.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Good luck with getting compliance with that. For me it would take years of training, and without Confession I’m not sure I could manage that.

Does that apply for all fornication and adultery. Can I go to communion without reconciliation and a resolve to stop if I cheat on my wife with my neighbor or a prostitute?

Does the fact that compliance with God’s will negagte God’s will?

This synod has scandalized many in he Church including me. I have experienced a crisis of faith because of it. It has caused me to consider leaving the Church, doubting the Church and disliking the Church. I have thought much less of some people that I used to respect in their faith and I have wondered in this time of family an marriage crisis how this is not harmful. Debating things that cannot be changed for the sake of debate gives hope to those who are against the dogma of the faith.

And can we just stop it with all the “Pharasee” name calling!

 

[OraLabora]

Does that apply for all fornication and adultery. Can I go to communion without reconciliation and a resolve to stop if I cheat on my wife with my neighbor or a prostitute?

Does the fact that compliance with God’s will negagte God’s will?

This synod has scandalized many in he Church including me. I have experienced a crisis of faith because of it. It has caused me to consider leaving the Church, doubting the Church and disliking the Church. I have thought much less of some people that I used to respect in their faith and I have wondered in this time of family an marriage crisis how this is not harmful. Debating things that cannot be changed for the sake of debate gives hope to those who are against the dogma of the faith.

And can we just stop it with all the “Pharasee” name calling!

Who said anything about no reconciliation?

Isn’t it a bit unfair to compare a longstanding monogamous if invalid marriage with frequenting prostitutes?

I propose a deal, I’ll stop comparing the situation to Pharisees if others stop unfairly comparing invalidly married couples to people who cheat on the spouses they currently live with. Perhaps objectively they’re the same but the subjective culpability is vastly different.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Incidentally, even if Management is wrong, in the case of Christ’s Body, we still need to obey and submit.

Wasn’t Moses leading the Israelites in the wrong direction in the desert?

Don’t we have to obey our parents even when they are fallible?

Weren’t the Apostles wrong in some of the ways they initially managed the Church?

Yes to all of the above. Yet it would be a mistake to leave in all of the situations because Management is mistaken.

Ok thanks. In this and your other post I think you’re saying if you sold cars and the management told you to sell one that you believed was troubling, you might find another sales position somewhere else if it affected your conscience too much to remain. But you look at religious faith differently.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I, too, urge Burdock to stick around.

Me too. The bishops have not spoken in a unified belief on these matters. Cardinals Kasper and Burke and others spoke in different voices so why not here? Pope Francis urges the faithful to follow his lead and open their hearts and be willing to listen to others with compassion. To meet them where they are. And he keeps saying to be prepared for God’s surprises. I can’t wait to see what he means by that and what surprises God has in store for the faithful! But it’s going to take more than Pope Francis to listen to win hearts. Rank and file Catholics need to listen. To meet folks where they are along their journeys. To respond gently and with compassion and understanding. An “I’m right and you’re wrong take it or leave it” approach doesn’t work.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok thanks. In this and your other post I think you’re saying if you sold cars and the management told you to sell one that you believed was troubling, you might find another sales position somewhere else if it affected your conscience too much to remain. But you look at religious faith differently.

I would never sell anything that was against my conscience, Sy. Religiously or vehicularly.

 

[PRmerger]

To respond gently and with compassion and understanding. An “I’m right and you’re wrong take it or leave it” approach doesn’t work.

The attitude we should have is: I respect you. I don’t respect your (wrong) views.

 

[weller2]

There cannot be any change in whether or not divorced/remarried and not annulled can receive communion.

The Church has taught me that Jesus said that if someone divorces and remarries, they are committing adultery.

Then the Church has taught you incorrectly, because what Jesus actually said was:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Note that:

(a) Jesus explicitly said that infidelity justifies divorce

(b) Jesus never said that the abandoned partner also commits adultery if they remarry

I feel badly for those that cannot receive but man cannot change the teachings of God. There have been some examples in this thread of people with cheating spouses that divorced and remarried and cannot now receive the Eucharist. I have no intimate knowledge of the procedure but it sounds as if that type of situation might qualify for an annulment. Please start the processes of an annulment. If you need help ask for it.

The core assumption behind the annulment is that the marriage has not been contracted validly in the first place. This essentially means that either (a) one of the partners has committed fraud and/or (b) the Church has failed to do the due dilligence to verify that they are fit to marry.

Thus, having your spouse cheat on you is definitely NOT a valid reason for annulment UNLESS you manage to demonstrate that they had such intention BEFORE the marriage was contracted (and therefore committed fraud). Of course this is not what usually happens. What usually happens is that people enter relationship without the intention to cheat and THEN get bored with their partner.

 

[PRmerger]

Then the Church has taught you incorrectly, because what Jesus actually said was:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Note that:

(a) Jesus explicitly said that infidelity justifies divorce

This is a misunderstanding of the text.

What you are proposing is that anyone who wants to divorce “licitly” just needs to go out and cheat on his wife, and then he’s good to go.

Clearly, that’s ridiculous.

 

[PRmerger]

The core assumption behind the annulment is that the marriage has not been contracted validly in the first place. This essentially means that either (a) one of the partners has committed fraud and/or (b) the Church has failed to do the due dilligence to verify that they are fit to marry.

Thus, having your spouse cheat on you is definitely NOT a valid reason for annulment UNLESS you manage to demonstrate that they had such intention BEFORE the marriage was contracted (and therefore committed fraud). Of course this is not what usually happens. What usually happens is that people enter relationship without the intention to cheat and THEN get bored with their partner.

This is correct.

 

[Sy_Noe]

This is a misunderstanding of the text.

What you are proposing is that anyone who wants to divorce “licitly” just needs to go out and cheat on his wife, and then he’s good to go.

Clearly, that’s ridiculous.

Or Jesus meant the spouse whose spouse cheated on them could divorce. You call it adding to Scripture. I call it using reason just as we add to Scripture that infants were in households and not immersed. Neither is ridiculous to me. But we already went around and around on that on another thread and since neither of us know for sure, we will just have to agree to disagree as to what we believe. But noted: Yes I know you believe you know because of your faith and what the CC (your management) teaches you.

 

[ProVobis]

I propose a deal, I’ll stop comparing the situation to Pharisees if others stop unfairly comparing invalidly married couples to people who cheat on the spouses they currently live with. Perhaps objectively they’re the same but the subjective culpability is vastly different.

Again, the issue isn’t one of culpability. It’s one of scandal. I know of certain individuals who have been asked by their bishop not to receive. The bishop didn’t make a judgement based on culpability of their legislative positions.

 

[weller2]

This is a misunderstanding of the text.

Then please explain why Jesus said

anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery

and not simply

anyone who divorces his wife, and marries another woman commits adultery.

What you are proposing is that anyone who wants to divorce “licitly” just needs to go out and cheat on his wife, and then he’s good to go.

First, if someone is cheating, then we can as well say that the relationship is no more, so why not simply formally recognize the new status quo?

Second, what you are ignoring is that the marriage is a CONTRACT. It is a contract sworn before God, but at the fundamental level, it is still a contract. What Jesus is saying is that if one party is violating the terms of contract then the other party is free to terminate the contract. But it does not have to, which is another important point: the power now shifts from the cheater to the cheated. If the cheater is merely bored and looking for some action on the side, then the mere threat of divorce will bring him/her in line; on the other hand, if the cheater intends to establish a new relationship, then the refusal to divorce will foil his/her plans. This is the same type of a power shift which happens when turning the other cheek.

Third, you are ignoring that Jesus’ comment was made in context of an environment which permitted at will divorce.

Fourth, you are ignoring that Jewish law punished (female) adultery by stoning. (NB - Jesus never challenged that law directly, instead he simply told everyone to mind their own business.) If a cheating wife can be killed, then giving her husband an option to divorce her instead looks like a merciful thing to do…

 

[ProVobis]

There certainly has to be some flaw if it can’t allow some remarried people to Communion without the whole thing collapsing.

Why don’t you throw in porn dealing, positioning for abortion expansion, and other scandalous states as well? Where’s the moral leadership if these are encouraged?

Excommunications against divorced individuals were lifted in 1970. Divorces only grew in number after that point. There’s your whole thing collapsing.

 

[One_point]

Indeed but consider the case of someone abandoned so her his or her spouse leaves the abandoned spouse with young children. (S)he remarries young to a new spouse who accepts the children, and is a good parent to them. Now the couple,perhaps one or both lapsed, want to return to the Church.

Perhaps you think it’s easy for them to just turn off their sexuality like a light switch. Illness is one thing, perhaps the illness also kills the libido. But two healthy people is another matter.

For the sake of argument though, let’s assume the couple want to live in complete continence, but find it very difficult. How do you propose to deal with this pastorally without the benefit of sacramental grace? Basically all they can do in Church life is sit in a pew, pray, and watch others access sacramental grace. They cannot even avail themselves of confession, a wonderful sacrament which when coupled to the Eucharist, allows one to grow in holiness. But our hypothetical couple won’t have any of that.

We are essentially saying make yourself well before entering the hospital, but you’re free to come in and watch others get well. But don’t expect any medicine because you’re a special class of patient.

This kind of rigidity in application of doctrine makes as much a mockery of the doctrine as the Pharisees made of The Law.

Understand what you are describing is different from what the poster complained of. He wants the church to ALLOW remarriage because the spouse is innocent. He is not talking about dealing pastorally with a situation that has already happened but to make the church to say, OK, if you are innocent you can get yourself husband no. 2 (or wife).

I empathize with that situation you describe of Catholics who are essentially orthodox they want to follow church, but are in a difficult situation they don’t know how to get out of. but I don’t know how to deal with it. I am happy I am not a Bishop or a Pope. Please refer to my thoughts on it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12429310#post12429310

Like I said. I don’t know what we can do. The real culprit is the church of the past 50 years. They abandoned Catholics to poor formation and the whims of the world.

I think mistakes the church made and still makes to contribute to this situation:

1. Easy baptisms. Yes I know it important to baptize babies. But if the parents are not evidently devout, children should not be baptized until they reach age of maturity where they can present themselves to church and receive proper formation. Many of these Catholics now in trouble have a baptism that was not accompanied by a true faith. So they are counted in the New Covenant when they were essentially worldlings until the day they searched for the church.
2. Bad formation of catholic faith. The training people get on church teaching, beliefs is poor.
3. No community support. Even if you know the catechism very well, without a strong community living in faith properly, most people fall away. Especially if priests are heretics.
4. No thorough preparation for marriage.

This is the reason we now have people who want to be in the Church but pst decisions prevent them. It was total betrayal for church of past 50 years to throw catholics under bus like this.

 

[dans0622]

Then please explain why Jesus said

anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery

and not simply

anyone who divorces his wife, and marries another woman commits adultery.
…

Hello,

As a matter of fact, He did say that. Mark 10:11-12: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

How we interpret the “exception clause” in St. Matthew’s gospel has to take into account this statement in St. Mark’s gospel, and vice versa.

Dan