Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[ProVobis]

Not at all, merely a different set of challenges facing the Church in a different society. It needs to apply the same immutable truths set forth in 1914, 1814, 1714…via a new language and with a fresh pastoral approach.

What new language? The Church has since the early centuries been arguably recognized as the moral leader of the world. And has had plenty of challenges, witness all the martyrs and saints produced. True, atheism has spread, divorce has been made too easy, etc. but I don’t think it’s a pastoral approach at all to start being a follower of what the world thinks should be. Who sets the moral code here?

 

[Vouthon]

What new language? The Church has since the early centuries been arguably recognized as the moral leader of the world. And has had plenty of challenges, witness all the martyrs and saints produced. I don’t think it’s a pastoral approach at all to start being a follower of what the world thinks should be.

It isn’t about “following” what the world thinks. It is about being sensitive to and listening to the concerns, needs, hopes and fears of the world and expressing yourself in language intelligible to the people of your age. Did not St. Paul say that for Jews he becomes as a Jew, for Gentiles, as a Gentile, so as to evangelize them?

If you do not believe that the church needs to renew its language then clearly you must reject the constitutions, decrees and declarations of Vatican II, for instance Gaudium et Spes above, which states exactly the same as I am stating to you?

 

[FollowChrist34]

With the push for frequent communion, I’m afraid the Church might have to do a 180 on such a push. But I’m with you.

I actually think this might be a good idea. Everybody (including me) always take communion. It is a bit of a joke. Perhaps the proper thing to do is to fix that, rather than expand it further. I hear that everyone going up is not the case everywhere, however. In some places, it’s the opposite. Now this kind of reform I can handle.

 

[ProVobis]

It isn’t about “following” what the world thinks. It is about being sensitive to and listening to the concerns, needs, hopes and fears of the world and expressing yourself in language intelligible to the people of your age. Did not St. Paul say that for Jews he becomes as a Jew, for Gentiles, as a Gentile, so as to evangelize them?

If you do not believe that the church needs to renew its language then clearly you must reject the constitutions, decrees and declarations of Vatican II, for instance Gaudium et Spes above, which states exactly the same as I am stating to you?

What’s that have to do with renouncing your moral leadership?

 

[Vouthon]

What’s that have to do with renouncing your moral leadership?

Did I ever claim such a thing? I find it rather rude to be putting words into my mouth

The Church, in terms of its teaching, will never renounce its moral leadership. I have never said, suggested nor even so much as intimated such a preposterous idea.

 

[ProVobis]

Did I ever claim such a thing? I find it rather rude to be putting words into my mouth

And you mine. Reread your own post about implying I disagree with Vatican II. I’m out of further discussions with you.

 

[Neofight]

And you mine. Reread your own post about implying I disagree with Vatican II. I’m out of further discussions with you.

Settle down guys…don’t let your humility (or lack of) get in the way of productive dialogue for the rest of us!

Peace!

 

[Vouthon]

Settle down guys…don’t let your humility get in the way of productive dialogue for the rest of us!

Peace!

My apologies

 

[Vouthon]

And you mine. Reread your own post about implying I disagree with Vatican II. I’m out of further discussions with you.

Well for my part I apologize for insinuating something that I shouldn’t.

My point was more mundane: the quotation above from Gaudium et Spes states: “Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask”…yet you upbraided my suggestion that the church can employ a “new language” sensitive to the ears of today’s audience?

I think it is excessively harsh to refrain from speaking to me in future because of one quibble. I am a human and a sinner after all.

Again, I apologize and I hope that if we do encounter each other again our dialogue can be more fruitful once we have refined our approaches.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes, I like you both, don’t fight! This whole thing is actually kind of fun, if you define “fun” loosely enough. I lose my temper too…

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, I like you both, don’t fight! This whole thing is actually kind of fun, if you define “fun” loosely enough. I lose my temper too…

All I can say is that I hope dearly that myself and ProVobis are not representative of the participants at the Synod I would hope there is far greater charity and ‘cool’ prevailing.

 

[JimG]

You are bringing a great point here Jim. However I have to mention that the idea of everybody going to communion tends to be a USA issue. I can tell that for Latin America and eurpe (particularly Spain, Portugal and Italy that I have personal experience) most people would not approach communion. When I took my husband to a mass in Latin America he was shocked over the fact that most people remain sorted and don’t approach comunion and that during the mass itself confessions were going on and the majority of people going to communion had came out of confession. Given that the pope is Argentinian and this is usually how it work on Argentina I am hopeful that the pope will emphasize on this topic.

Yes, that’s sort of how it was even in the U.S. when I was growing up. Many, perhaps most, did not go up for communion. And families who did, generally made it a practice to go to confession every Saturday afternoon.

At that time the Eucharistic fast was from midnight. It wasn’t as difficult as it sounds, since you were asleep at midnight, got up early, went to Mass, and then had breakfast. Still, that fast was a useful excuse to me a few times as a teenager, and I wasn’t the only one. I might deliberately break the fast by having a drink of water (yes water was included in the fast!). So if my mother asked why I didn’t go to communion I could truthfully say that I broke my fast, although the real reason was that I needed to go to confession first.

But in those days, since everyone was not going to communion anyway, the ushers did not let communicants out pew by pew. Everyone just got up at random and approached the communion rail if they wished to go to communion.

 

[Sirach2]

All I can say is that I hope dearly that myself and ProVobis are not representative of the participants at the Synod I would hope there is far greater charity and ‘cool’ prevailing.

Peace, Vouthon. I have observed many of your posts and always respected your thoughts and insights. In this instance, you have proved your character as a perfect gentleman, and it is apparent to all of us that your apology was unfortunately one-sided. Thank you for the witness.

 

[Megan7]

In a case like “Marimagi” or anyone else for that matter. What happens if she or someone else like her, applies for an annulment & the other spouse does not reply? So, they only have one side of the story, can they still grant an annulment?

How does a tribunal handle something like that? It seems sad that she was left with 3 children, and has not been able to obtain one. I do not know know if she has or not. Not that getting remarried makes it right. Just wondering how it all works.

Also, a lot of people quote the Bible regarding that you can get a divorce if there is adultery. But, I have a friend who was left with 3 children as well. The guy married someone else & has 2 children with the new spouse. Is the first wife left with no recourse?
Can she get an annulment, if he has vanished off the map…?

Thanks & God bless

 

[Ender]

I have a friend who was left with 3 children as well. The guy married someone else & has 2 children with the new spouse. Is the first wife left with no recourse? Can she get an annulment, if he has vanished off the map…?

Here’s an aspect of the problem that hasn’t been addressed: let’s suppose the marriage you describe above is annulled. This lets the first wife remarry…but doesn’t it also allow the husband to remarry?

It also seems that in this case the decision to grant the annulment is based not on the conditions existing at the time of the marriage but on subsequent behavior. This raises the very real possibility that the marriage when it was contracted met all necessary requirements to be considered valid. That may or may not be a problem, but again - what of the husband? It can hardly be true that an annulment frees the wife to remarry without also freeing the husband even though it was his caddish behavior that led to the destruction of the first marriage.

Ender

 

[Memaw]

This is the problem. If the second marriage is adultery then absolution cannot be given; it’s pretty much that simple. It seems the only way to admit to communion the divorced and remarried is to regularize the second marriage and deem it not adultery. If that does not happen, yet they are admitted to receive, then all the doctrines about confession and communion are undone.

Ender

They won’t be undone, count on it! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Teelynn]

Why are these Cardinals coming out like this.

I mean Burke and Kasper as well.

It’s like the Cardinals are campaigning or something. They should be keeping their discussions under wraps and demonstrate a sense of common thought and subjection to the Pope.

What the Cardinals are talking about is frankly none of the layman’s business IMO. We just need to know what they come up with and then assent to it- once the Pope gives the final word.

I am a real fan of centralized power in the papacy.

Yep, I think we all are, that is of course, unless he is putting the wrong spin on Doctrine, and then as foreign as it seems to some, we are not to obey.

 

[OraLabora]

I had an interesting discussion about this with a fellow oblate yesterday at dinner.

He said imagine this: you have a couple who are close friends to you and your spouse. But they divorce, and one of them remarries. You don’t approve of the choice for whatever reason.

You have a dinner party, you invite the friend and her hew husband, but you say “well you know, we don’t approve of your divorce and remarriage, so you can’t really sit at the table and have dinner with us, but you can sit over there in the corner, watch us eat, and listen to our conversation (where we might just, BTW, condemn your relationship)”.

Isn’t that how the divorced and remarried feel? We let them come in, listen to the Liturgy of the Word, we let them hear the homily (where their relationship just might be condemned), and then we let them watch us take communion. And we offer basically no sense of inclusion or even welcome, or accompaniment; I’ve heard painful stories of being ostracized, not being made to feel welcome in the parish, no support or even hostility from the priest.

Now if the person acted like a cad towards his ex-spouse, that’s one thing. But imagine a young woman abandoned with 3 young children so her husband could run off with his lover. She remarries, maybe has more children with her new husband, and her new husband acts as a model father to his stepchildren. She feels genuine regret over her loss and confesses for any shortcomings she feels she may have had that drove her first husband away.

We’re telling her she can’t come to the table unless she

1. leaves her second husband or
2. stops having conjugal relations with him
3. or has her first marriage annulled but until then, 1 or 2 apply (which may not be possible because the ex is untraceable/uncooperative).

because the fact that she continues to live and sleep with him shows that she is “unrepentant” and has “no contrition”.

Is this truly merciful towards her? Honestly some bishops who shall remain unnamed must have ice water running through their veins.

I’m sorry but give me a very big break. There needs to be a much better way of dealing with this pastorally.

I will say this though, I know of a man in this situation and he chooses to not receive communion. But he worships in a Cistercian abbey and guess what, he has close spiritual accompaniment from the monks who support him. He hasn’t been left out in the wild, as it were.

It’s time for the bishops to stop talking about doctrine (we all know what the doctrine is), including the conservative ones, and start proposing some loving ways of dealing with this pastorally. Whether it includes being invited to communion or not is one thing that can and should be debated (and we’ll have to assent to the result), but the status quo is simply unacceptable. I hear bishops saying that “no, we must instead focus on better teaching about marriage and preventing marriage breakdown”. Well yes, that’s a laudable goal. The problem is that you have thousands upon thousands of couples who need pastoral care now and whose souls are adrift because if inaction on the part of the Church hierarchy. God Bless Francis for recognizing that this is a serious issue that needs discussing.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Canon lawyer Ed Peters regarding John Allen’s article and more, here is an excerpt:

John Allen reports that two influential Italian cardinals, Coccopalmerio and Tettamanzi, have expressed support for permitting divorced-and-remarried Catholics access to holy Communion. Did they?

I ask this not rhetorically but sincerely because, in his report, Allen does not actually quote any statements by Tettamanzi (retired from Milan) about Communion (the only substantive assertions attributed to Tettamanzi are platitudes or irrelevant to the question) and Coccopalmerio (an important dicastery head), says everything but ‘divorced-and-remarried Catholics should be allowed access to holy Communion’. On a matter of such importance I think that important prelates’ exact words (even in translation) should be offered. If those words are direct, quote them, so that due response can be made; if they are ambiguous, quote them too, so that requests for clarity be made.

Of course, Allen the journalist might himself be faced with incomplete reports and/or badly rendered transcripts; besides, it is quite possible that neither man expressed himself clearly, relying more on tone or gesture to convey their positions. This seems especially likely in regard to Coccopalmerio whom Allen quotes in several passages that admittedly imply support for a dramatic change in praxis. But, call me a lawyer, I need to know what a man said before I can respond to what he meant.

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/ambiguity-does-not-serve-discussion-and-bad-logic-destroys-it/

 

[Vanny]

I haven’t had the chance to read through the entire thread, please forgive me, but perhaps Pope Francis also wants to address in the synod the realization that at least in the U.S. we have had no-fault divorce since the late 60’s or early 70’s in which one partner can get out of a marriage easier than they can a cell phone contract. I think we should abolish no-fault divorce but that’s another thread. Obviously divorce skyrocketed after that. To me that means there are a lot more people out there that did not want the divorce-wanted to stay married, but their spouse said bye bye, left and married another.
Or what about Protestants who since this period(1960’s) have been raised in churches which do allow for a 2nd marriage, and although all conservative Protestants realize that Jesus says “I hate divorce” and do see that marriage is for life, but whose pastors see the marriage as a 2nd chance as " it is better to marry than to burn" ?(Our Wels pastor saw my hubby as the "innocent or abandoned party although I realize it’s not that simple)
Is there a way that the annulment process could be streamlined for those of us who are considering converting to Catholicism but are intimidated by the annulment process(no I haven’t talked to a priest yet.) and yet still be faithful to doctrine? that is my hope.
(Hubby was married once before very young both protestants, had 4 children-not married in a church first wife left, married another, hubby is willing to admit blame for his part in marriage breakup…Hubby and I married a few years later in Lutheran church(he was Baptist) said vows both meant marriage for life, had and raised 2 boys, open to life practiced NFP last years of fertility and started looking at Catholic(or Orthodox) church long story)
The idea that former witnesses have to be contacted along with ex is what I find intimidating because I don’t know how they’ll respond and don’t know if it’s wise to dig up past hurts.
But I also realize that may be part of the penance involved.
My hubbys Catholic friend was surprised we would even need an annulment since we were never Catholic but I explained to him the the RCC starts from the assumption that all marriages are valid and goes from there