What route did you take?Im feeling a loss for sure.i didnt want to be the one to take this route, but after being ignored, this became the result. Perhaps there is a larger lesson to be learned about what happens when the Church āignoresāā¦? Perhaps this synod is a detailed evaluation of that -and how the world reacts to feeling āleft behindā.
Nice citationāthere will always been good people who are upset when others get away with things they couldnāt.Im talking about the route of āfindingā a way to legalize a second marriageā¦ And then actually posting it, knowing what turmoil it could possibly create.What route did you take?
Iām confusedā¦
Itās about examining a phenomenon that is begging to be examined. These educated and holy theologians know how that works. No one person on their own can have the ultimate answer, but in working together ie. through synodalityā¦ a way may be revealed that hasnāt been realised yet. Itās impossible to know what the ultimate result will be yet, but it is certainly not a case of one persons solution verses another persons solution and whoever has the strongest argument, wins.
Remember we are talking about educated, experienced and holy theologians putting forward proposals and ideas. They surely arenāt acting on their libidos? They are seeing a thing within the communities of Catholic faithful that seems to be a dark shadow over a natural light. Itās not just a fancy whim that someone has hadā¦ it is a real thing. Even a holy thing. We are told by Jesus that we can know the holy by their āfruitsā and there are families that are thriving in love and holiness and faithful practice shackled only by a failed first marriage. That begs some examination for what the fruits of their marriage is indicating to us. Is it a sign of the spiritual validity of their new marriage and the spiritual invalidity of the first marriage? Perhaps on current technicalities, the flaw canāt be seen but with deeper theological examination that flaw may come to light.So we are left with figuring out what āGod Wantsā? Ok well, he was pretty clear about that when he elevated marriage to a sacrament.Now, the problem I see here is one that plaugues modern Catholics and Christians of all sort. How do we know what God wants? Well, for too many it just becomes āwhat do I think God wantsā And it is not at all funny how that seems to coincide to a libido on so many occasions.
IIRC, Paul VI assembled moral theologians to discuss ABC. But even after two votes in favor of ABC and Populorum Progressio to boot, the Pope condemned ABC.
Not only that but the politics of that vote also seem to be at play here. While The Canadian Bishops made a mistake, they obviously had their own beliefs about ABC. Here too we see regional loyalties playing a big part of what is going on. I always have wondered when people say āsoon we will have an African Popeā What that would look like. I think someday we will see it. Perhaps in our lifetimes. Germany is a major player in the politics of the subject, from BXVI to Kasper, to the other Bishops. And I donāt think it is a coincidence that the Church in Germany is struggling with some very basic principles. And some very real political and economic issues.
But isnāt that a good indicator or how safe synodality is? Through that process the theological objections to contraception were much clearer. The Anglicans had created a confusion about what constituted the evil of contraception by permitting it under certain circumstances. They made it seem like the evil was in not just the end, but the intentions and circumstances. The Church was able to definitively state through the process of theological discussions that the act itself is intrinsically evil. The circumstances and intentions have no bearing on its morality. That confusion still manifests today in Protestantism and in some misguided Catholics when they say that NFP can be used contraceptively. It canāt. That is just the residual confusion of Protestant theology of contraception.
I would say it all depends on your expectations. I think those remarried Catholics who were encouraged with the discussions have their lives mostly laid out for themselves. However will they accept a ruling against them in the end, even if the Church allows them things other than communion?
Good points.
It is true by definition. The church has always held that if the first marriage was valid then the second one is adulterous.
The first marriage may have been a mistake, but it is the second one that is adulterous. What Cardinal Kasper is trying to do is change the nature of the sin involved in a second marriage. He would redefine it to be the failure of the first - which was a one time event that may be absolved - rather than what it is today, which is the ongoing sin of adultery. Since the adulterous relations continue, that sin cannot be absolved, and unless grave sins are absolved one may not receive communion.
How is this to be done without either ignoring or reversing the doctrines involved? Which of these doctrines would you recommend doing away with?
You are forgetting that the church allows the remarriage to stay in tact, especially for the sake of children conceived in that union, with one stipulation only ā¦ abstain from sex. If that is done, they are lawfully permitted to receive communion. No ifs or ands.
Ignoring the truth can hardly be beneficial to anyone.
If adultery is intrinsically evil then so is having two wives. Nor is it exactly clear how one could possibly be sacramentally married to two wives, or how this would be significantly different than bigamy.
Of course; thatās the situation we have today. This restriction, however, is apparently seen as too onerous, and the debate is about how to eliminate it.
Repentance must include contrition, and contrition must include the intention not to repeat the sin.
Iāll ask again: which of the five teachings I just listed in post 901 needs to be reversed to allow communion for those who divorced and remarried and who continue having sexual relations? No more fuzziness about the āheartā, spiritual bonds, covenants, etc. Some specific teaching would have to change. Pick one.
What sin must they not repeat? Must they separate? No. The Church does not require that. Again, you are judging that they are unrepentant by repeating the sin of having sex. How do you know this?
The sin at issue is adultery. It is not remarriage.
It isnāt necessary to judge anyone. You yourself recognized the condition necessary for someone who has remarried to receive communion.the church allows the remarriage to stay in tact, especially for the sake of children conceived in that union, with one stipulation only ā¦ abstain from sex.
Of course we are, otherwise whereās the issue?
What case is there to plead? People who discontinue sexual relations may receive now. This whole kerfuffle only makes sense if a change has been suggestedā¦and that change would be to allow those who do intend to have sex to also receive communion.
No, but this isnāt the point either. I donāt think you really understand what it is that Cardinal Kasper is proposing.
Well, no it doesnāt do that. I was led to believe that God judges us all seperately and not one against the other. I would be afraid to be judged against so many people that I wonāt try to name any as an example.
Well, the Church gives us examples. The saints. The reason this is revealed to us is to help us to achieve heaven. God judges fairly and justly.
Cardinal Kasper was asked to present a case for the synod by Pope Francis. He advocates on behalf of the very real human suffering in this situation and suggests a possible solution. Cardinal Burke and others advocate for their heartfelt love of tradition and suggest no discussion is even needed on the subject. Like even the amateur highschool debate processā¦ two voices representing different sensibilities and perspectives on the issue. Somewhere within the various perspectives of these theologians and holy men, either a new way could be revealed to address the conundrum if the Holy Spirit wishesā¦ or some deeper understanding of the tradition will emerge and as we know, sometimes deeper understanding is all that is needed to be the salve on a weeping sore.