US bishops try to calm anxiety over pope

[Sirach2]

Sirach2,

My apologies for getting heated with you.

I’d really appreciate it if we could go back to the point you were making earlier. If I understood you correctly, you were saying that Kasper’s proposal is actually not about giving communion to people living in a re-marriage, who also have a valid first marriage.

If this is true, please explain what the proposal is actually about.

There are only 5 chapters in Kasper’s book, and the first four are, IMO, a must-read for anyone in pre-Cana classes. So beautiful! I was extremely impressed, and felt that this is why Pope Francis had such joy in re-reading his message. Only one brief chapter (#5) addressed some possible “openings” (that is the correct word that he consistently used) that he was asked by Pope Francis to submit for consideration by those in the synod. Hence, the book is a record of that speech to the Consistory.

My take is that, just like any public chairperson who tries to stimulate good discussion, he presented various possibilities that may or may not ever reach a point of consensus or agreement. This was the conclusion of Chapter 5:

I hope that on the path of such discretio in the course of the synodal process, we find an answer so that we can credibly bear witness to the word of God in difficult situations as a message of fidelity, but equally as a message of mercy, life, and joy.

Unfortunately, Burke et al pressed the panic button and rushed through with 4 books to rebut his approximately 8-page presentation in Chapter 5 (the whole book is only 43 pages long, most of which are Chapters 1-4)… And everyone has been running in alarm-mode ever since.

My parish is presently doing the Discovering Christ series, and I am quite aware of what a facilitator’s job is. One ought not to accuse them of proposing anything other than various pros and cons to stimulate thought, hoping the group may explore both sides and come to a middle ground.

I have no personal basis in this, other than I believe it is extremely uncharitable to falsely paint him as an unfaithful Son of the Church. I usually champion underdogs. My position is that of “wait and see” and trust the Holy Spirit Who will not fail to bring forth God’s Holy Will. These kinds of arguments really disturb me, because they are futile in accomplishing anything but disunity and fear.

Have a lovely evening. Thanks for listening.

 

[McCall1981]

There are only 5 chapters in Kasper’s book, and the first four are, IMO, a must-read for anyone in pre-Cana classes. So beautiful! I was extremely impressed, and felt that this is why Pope Francis had such joy in re-reading his message. Only one brief chapter (#5) addressed some possible “openings” (that is the correct word that he consistently used) that he was asked by Pope Francis to submit for consideration by those in the synod. Hence, the book is a record of that speech to the Consistory.

My take is that, just like any public chairperson who tries to stimulate good discussion, he presented various possibilities that may or may not ever reach a point of consensus or agreement. This was the conclusion of Chapter 5:

I hope that on the path of such discretio in the course of the synodal process, we find an answer so that we can credibly bear witness to the word of God in difficult situations as a message of fidelity, but equally as a message of mercy, life, and joy.

Unfortunately, Burke et al pressed the panic button and rushed through with 4 books to rebut his approximately 10-page presentation. And everyone has been running in alarm-mode ever since.

My parish is presently doing the Discovering Christ series, and I am quite aware of what a facilitator’s job is. One ought not to accuse them of proposing anything other than various pros and cons to stimulate thought, hoping the group may explore both sides and come to a middle ground.

I have no personal basis in this, other than I believe it is extremely uncharitable to falsely paint him as an unfaithful Son of the Church. I usually champion underdogs. My position is that of “wait and see” and trust the Holy Spirit Who will not fail to bring forth God’s Holy Will. These kinds of arguments really disturb me, because they are futile in accomplishing anything but disunity and fear.

Have a lovely evening. Thanks for listening.

Thank you for this.

What I am asking though, is does he propose as a possible opening, the option to give communion to people living in a second marriage, while also having a valid previous marriage?

My understanding is that he does, and that he proposes that people in this situation could engage in a “penitential process” which would, at it’s conclusion, allow them to receive communion.

Is that correct?

 

[Peebo]

Fair enough.

But maybe it’s not so much whether Christ offered the Eucharist to Judas but rather should Judas, planning to betray Christ, have accepted it.

If Judas was aware of the true meaning of the Eucharist then no he should not have…either way he knew he was to betray Christ so again he should not have taken part in the Eucharist…similarly…if the church in the future was to find a way to offer the Eucharist to divorced / remarriedCatholics…should not those who oppose it then refrain from taking the Eucharist for they would by inference be refusing to accept that the decision was of the Holy Spirit…who Jesus said would guide his church

 

[Sirach2]

Thank you for this.

What I am asking though, is does he propose as a possible opening, the option to give communion to people living in a second marriage, while also having a valid previous marriage?

My understanding is that he does, and that he proposes that people in this situation could engage in a “penitential process” which would, at it’s conclusion, allow them to receive communion.

Is that correct?

I posted this in Apologetics, and it may answer your Q in part.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12466263&postcount=15

 

[McCall1981]

I posted this in Apologetics, and it may answer your Q in part.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12466263&postcount=15

So, having read this passage from his book, and the paragraph from the Synod document, what he proposes is a penitential path, whereby some remarried Catholics who cannot currently receive commion, would be admitted to communion. His justification seems to be that not doing so causes greater damage to the family, so this solution is the lesser of two evils.

The theological objection raised by the other Cardinals is that this proposal would violate the Church’s doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage (under this proposal, what happens to the first, valid marriage?), and on the necessity of being in a state of grace to receive communion (how is it that these people would not be in a state of sin given that they are with someone other than the spouse they are still validly married to?).

I have never seen Card Kasper, or anyone else, attempt to explain how this proposal could be consistent with Church doctrine on these points.

Are you aware of any explanation or justification?

 

[ProVobis]

If Judas was aware of the true meaning of the Eucharist then no he should not have…either way he knew he was to betray Christ so again he should not have taken part in the Eucharist…similarly…if the church in the future was to find a way to offer the Eucharist to divorced / remarriedCatholics…should not those who oppose it then refrain from taking the Eucharist for they would by inference be refusing to accept that the decision was of the Holy Spirit…who Jesus said would guide his church

You can use that argument, but again we don’t know whether it would be the permissive will of God or the positive will of God. Protestants believe the Holy Spirit guides them too. No offense, but I’d like to hear a theologian’s view of this rather than hearing what posters believe.

 

[MountainMan]

I have been getting a lot of my news about the Church and Pope Francis from ChurchMilitant.TV recently as well as from other Catholic sites that I trust. The Pope’s comments at the start and the end of the recent Synod left me encouraged that he is moving in the right direction, and I do believe (and WANT to believe) that he is. At the same time, howver, I read/hear that Cardinal Burke has been ‘demoted’ and Cardinal Wuerl ‘promoted’ to the Curia, and I have to wonder in which direction the Pope is going! On the one hand, his comments to the Synod suggest a ‘traditional’ bent, and on the other, his recent appointments suggest a more ‘moderate’ tone, which concerns me deeply. As a graduate of a Jesuit institution of higher education that has lost its Catholic focus, I have wondered from his election to the Papacy whether Francis would ‘right’ the ship, and I know was Ignatius intent for his order, or would lead it astray. That being said, I am optimistic that this Pope is determined to bring both the love of Christ to new heights in the Church and the world, and that he is also committed to maintaining the traditional teachings and doctrines that have been guiding the Church from its beginning. I would very much like to hear the thoughts of others about this.

 

[Sirach2]

I have never seen Card Kasper, or anyone else, attempt to explain how this proposal could be consistent with Church doctrine on these points.

Are you aware of any explanation or justification?

Did you observe that all of his comments are followed by question marks …??
Kasper asks **questions **but does not give answers. He presumes these will be answered in the synod. His role was to ask these to stimulate discussion and make sure that no stone was unturned for the participants to explore every possibility. He did not make demands or proposals, as his contemporaries have charged him with. OTOH, he has written, as I said, the most beautiful theology of marriage. I do pray they understand the malice of their slander, since it was, IMO, done with full knowledge.

Maybe I can take time to type it out and share some of it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I have been getting a lot of my news about the Church and Pope Francis from ChurchMilitant.TV recently as well as from other Catholic sites that I trust. The Pope’s comments at the start and the end of the recent Synod left me encouraged that he is moving in the right direction, and I do believe (and WANT to believe) that he is. At the same time, howver, I read/hear that Cardinal Burke has been ‘demoted’ and Cardinal Wuerl ‘promoted’ to the Curia, and I have to wonder in which direction the Pope is going! On the one hand, his comments to the Synod suggest a ‘traditional’ bent, and on the other, his recent appointments suggest a more ‘moderate’ tone, which concerns me deeply. As a graduate of a Jesuit institution of higher education that has lost its Catholic focus, I have wondered from his election to the Papacy whether Francis would ‘right’ the ship, and I know was Ignatius intent for his order, or would lead it astray. That being said, I am optimistic that this Pope is determined to bring both the love of Christ to new heights in the Church and the world, and that he is also committed to maintaining the traditional teachings and doctrines that have been guiding the Church from its beginning. I would very much like to hear the thoughts of others about this.

What concerns do you have about Cardinal Wuerl’s promotion? I only know of him thru watching Masses on TV at which he has been the celebrant. I never came away too concerned but I don’t know much about him other than he was centered in Washington DC.

What do you mean you wondered if Pope Francis would “right the ship”? Did the Church need “righted”? I have no confusion about the Holy Father. If the faithful believe he was called by Christ for this time, there must have been a need for his tone and message. I see him as calling on the faithful to humble themselves, to show mercy, to bring the love of Christ to the poor, to the marginalized throughout society. To welcome other sinners not with stones but with love and mercy. And while committed to Catholic doctrine and not asking Catholics to be silent on any, to nevertheless certainly broaden the dialogue beyond the couple of social issues that have been dominant for so long in Catholic discussions.

 

[McCall1981]

Did you observe that all of his comments are followed by question marks …??
Kasper asks **questions **but does not give answers. He presumes these will be answered in the synod. His role was to ask these to stimulate discussion and make sure that no stone was unturned for the participants to explore every possibility. He did not make demands or proposals, as his contemporaries have charged him with. OTOH, he has written, as I said, the most beautiful theology of marriage. I do pray they understand the malice of their slander, since it was, IMO, done with full knowledge.

Maybe I can take time to type it out and share some of it.

Ok, fair enough, if his intention was only to ask questions and thus stir debate.

But what emerged from the Synod, in the final document, is not just questions and discussion topics, but rather a concrete proposal to admit remarried Catholics to communion. The other Cardinals are saying this proposal is simply theologically impossible, which means that either an argument needs to be put forth to try and justify it, or else why are we still talking about it?

In other words, I think its clear that he has gone far beyond posing questions and starting conversations, and that he now supports concrete changes to Church practice that seemingly cannot be theologically reconciled with the teachings of the Church. I’m sure you can see why this is problematic.

A couple of days after the Synod, the CDF issued this “responsum” that addresses these issues we’re discussing. It was asked whether a Priest can grant absolution to a remarried Catholic, and the CDF said no, and explained why, also touching on the issue of communion:

hommenouveau.fr/1126/religion/peut-on-donner-l-absolution-a-un-divorce-remarie–.htm

[Responsum] To the Question of a French Priest: “Can a confessor grant absolution to a penitent who, having been religiously married, has contracted a second union following divorce?”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded on October 22, 2014:

"We cannot exclude a priori the remarried divorced faithful from a penitential process that would lead to a sacramental reconciliation with God and, therefore, also to Eucharistic communion. Pope John Paul II, in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (n. 84) envisaged such a possibility and detailed its conditions: ‘Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.’ (cf. also Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, n. 29)

The penitential process to be undertaken must take into consideration the following elements:

1 – Verify the validity of the religious marriage in the respect of truth, all the while avoiding giving the impression of a kind of ‘Catholic divorce’.

2 – See eventually if the persons, with the aid of grace, can separate from their new partners and reconcile with those from whom they had separated.

3 – Invite remarried divorced persons who, for serious reasons (for instance, children), cannot separate from their partner to live as ‘brother and sister’.

In any event, absolution cannot be granted if not under the condition of being assured of true contrition, that is, ‘a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future’ (Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, c. 4). In this line, a remarried divorcee cannot be validly absolved if he does not take the firm resolution of not ‘sinning for the future’ and therefore of abstaining from the acts proper to spouses, by doing in this sense all that is within his power."

 

[KSU]

" I do pray they understand the malice of their slander"

Now that is way out of line and should be retracted. Let’s not start that kind of talk here.

 

[KSU]

“What concerns do you have about Cardinal Wuerl’s promotion?”–Sy Noe

He is, IMHP, to the Left of Cardinal Kasper. You can Google it.

 

[LongingSoul]

" I do pray they understand the malice of their slander"

Now that is way out of line and should be retracted. Let’s not start that kind of talk here.

I also have a strong suspicion that the detraction’s amounted to ‘malicious slander’ ‘done with full knowledge’. The media for one group of rats, rides the edges of truth whilst claiming objectivity in reporting or ignorance.

Cardinal Kasper is a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. He was appointed to present his ideas in the spirit of synodality, by Pope Francis. Pope Francis is reported widely as a radiantly holy and good Pope even by the so called conservative Cardinals which means a great deal. Cardinal Kasper being presented as a dissenting liberal progressive is the biggest load of mischievous… no, malicious… muckraking imaginable.

Synodality, which is an approach greatly embraced by Pope Francis since taking the seat of Peter, involves honest brainstorming with the view to coming closer to the will of God and the callings of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with opposing agendas and political ‘proposals’. There is no thought of winners and losers in the political sense in synodality. It is a means of collecting the different perspectives of people in order to learn from each other and contribute to a rounded understanding of Gods will for the Church. Everyone’s a winner in synodality. It’s distressing and frustrating to have to try and counter these petty attacks against Cardinals of the Catholic Church and by extension, Pope Francis.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Guess I’ll be back tomorrow for the next thread on how suspicious are the ‘bent’ Cardinals of the Catholic Church trying to destroy the holier than holys that guard the faith against the bent Cardinals. sigh.

 

[KSU]

I also have a strong suspicion that the detraction’s amounted to ‘malicious slander’ ‘done with full knowledge’. The media for one group of rats, rides the edges of truth whilst claiming objectivity in reporting or ignorance.

Cardinal Kasper is a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. He was appointed to present his ideas in the spirit of synodality, by Pope Francis. Pope Francis is reported widely as a radiantly holy and good Pope even by the so called conservative Cardinals which means a great deal. Cardinal Kasper being presented as a dissenting liberal progressive is the biggest load of mischievous… no, malicious… muckraking imaginable.

Synodality, which is an approach greatly embraced by Pope Francis since taking the seat of Peter, involves honest brainstorming with the view to coming closer to the will of God and the callings of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with opposing agendas and political ‘proposals’. There is no thought of winners and losers in the political sense in synodality. It is a means of collecting the different perspectives of people in order to learn from each other and contribute to a rounded understanding of Gods will for the Church. Everyone’s a winner in synodality. It’s distressing and frustrating to have to try and counter these petty attacks against Cardinals of the Catholic Church and by extension, Pope Francis.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Guess I’ll be back tomorrow for the next thread on how suspicious are the ‘bent’ Cardinals of the Catholic Church trying to destroy the holier than holys that guard the faith against the bent Cardinals. sigh.

For most all intents and purposes, this thread was ended by McCall1981 in his post number 84 which cut right to the heart of the matter. So, for some to imply now that Burke, Pell et al. engage in willful slander of Kasper is inaccurate, disrespectful, irrelevant to the issue and improper for this Forum. Even Kasper would agree.

 

[LongingSoul]

For most all intents and purposes, this thread was ended by McCall1981 in his post number 84 which cut right to the heart of the matter. So, for some to imply now that Burke, Pell et al. engage in willful slander of Kasper is inaccurate, disrespectful, irrelevant to the issue and improper for this Forum. Even Kasper would agree.

I’ve already addressed the content of post 84 in virtually every reply I make to McCall. I try not to judge his inflexibility to consider that there are always new ways of addressing old truths, as willful obstinacy. In life this is natural and necessary. People had to get used to the new way of thinking about “outside the Church there is no salvation” also and some still can’t accept it. Fr Feeney was ultimately at odds with Catholic teaching until the end.

The Church has made big shifts over time in the way we view the Jews, the slaves, the mentally ill and alcoholics etc. She has softened or completely abandoned restrictions on Catholic practices addressed to these groups.

The fact that Pope Francis is making a space for these ideas indicates that there may be a more loving and holy way of addressing the divorced/remarried issue from a different angle without downgrading the indissolubility of marriage. Why would we not feel optimism that other groups that suffer, may be able to be understood and accepted more without downgrading the moral truths involved? It actually seems that some hate the idea of a merciful God to the point of blocking out the whisperings of the Holy Spirit by casting doubt over the Pope and his pontifical mission.

 

[Rin]

Fr Feeney was ultimately at odds with Catholic teaching until the end.

Actually, technically he wasn’t. He was at odds with the “mind of the Church” for certain, but he was never accused of heresy by the Church. His excommunication was not because of his teaching, but because of disobedience - he refused to reply to a summons to Rome, again issued because of his accusations of heresy against the Magisterium.

His interpretation of the EENS teaching was orthodox, but his insistence that the mainstream interpretation was heretical was wrong. It was the latter that got him excommunicated. When the excommunication was lifted, he was not required to recant his theology (and he never did), since his theology was not the reason for the excommunication. There are Feeneyite communities in communion with Rome, and canonically recognized, even today. They still hold, and are allowed to hold, Feeney’s position.

Note that I vehemently disagree with Feeney - I just think it’s important to recognize that his view was indeed orthodox, just dramatically out of sync with the “mind of the Church”. There has always been a wide spectrum of positions among Catholic theologians on the matter of soteriology, and precious little of what we call Catholic teaching on the matter has actually been defined infallibly. It’s as if the Church prefers to say as little as possible about the specifics of salvation, which if you ask me is prudent.

The Church has made big shifts over time in the way we view the Jews, the slaves, the mentally ill and alcoholics etc. She has softened or completely abandoned restrictions on Catholic practices addressed to these groups.

On this (and the rest of your post) we agree. Ecclesial discipline related to suicide is another example of a big shift, where virtually every theologian and faithful Catholic only a century or two ago would see giving a suicide victim a Catholic funeral as theologically impossible. As with the hot button issues of our time, denying them a funeral was seen as a necessary consequence of dogma. Yet, here we are, seeing it as uncontroversial. Thankfully, the Church is able to process new information, like the discoveries in psychology about the status of free will (and therefore consent) in suicide victims.

Note that I’m not saying that the issues being discussed in the Synod are similar; whether a change of discipline is possible or not, I do not know. It is up to the bishops, and ultimately the Pope, to decide. But possible or not, too many people confuse discipline and doctrine. If changing discipline means changing doctrine, as some people claim, then I’m afraid the Church has changed doctrine more times than we can count. Even long-standing discipline, perennial discipline, has been changed before. It does not have to imply a change of doctrine in any way whatsoever.

Lastly, I question whether some teachings commonly seen as infallible are indeed such, or simply deductions from infallible doctrine, which may or may not follow necessarily. Conserative Catholics do in my opinion have a tendency of claiming infallibility a tad too often, but as with the above, I do not know. It is not my business to challenge any specific teaching.

 

[Sirach2]

Ok, fair enough, if his intention was only to ask questions and thus stir debate.

But what emerged from the Synod, in the final document, is not just questions and discussion topics, but rather a concrete "proposal " [there’s that word again!] to admit remarried Catholics to communion.

You need to read the final report again with an open mind…the only proposal was to keep the matter on the agenda in 2015 for further discussion and resolution, one way or another. Many of us are optimistic and trustful of the process… but some belong to the Chicken Little crowd.

The other Cardinals are saying this proposal is simply theologically impossible, which means that either an argument needs to be put forth to try and justify it, or else why are we yourself in the “we”] still talking about it?

I’m well aware of what the “other” Cardinals are saying; they have been blatantly vocal in the media. The ones who are considering a possible resolution are respectfully not in the limelight.

In other words, I think its clear [oh really?] that he has gone far beyond posing questions and starting conversations, and that he now supports concrete changes to Church practice that seemingly cannot be theologically reconciled with the teachings of the Church.

One sees what they want to see [through the eyes of Burke’s group] and nothing else, unfortunately. Forgive me for trying to be reasonable with you. I won’t make that mistake again.

 

[LoneTiger]

pope francis is filled with a satanic spirit. He is a heretic. Uneducated unbelievers in God’s word always hide behind the falsehood that the church and it’s pope’s are unfaliable. But if a so called pope blasphemes God’s words is he an actual pope? I wonder what you Catholics in name only will say whenever this anti-pope or one in the future if the trend of the Cahtolic Church and the Vatican continues…tells you that Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation? OH WAIT, This Pope has already been quoted as saying athiests who are good people are “Redeemed.” Dont be decieved by these false prophets, this pope is an anti-christ preaching false doctrines! WAKE UP!!!

 

[Sirach2]

I also have a strong suspicion that the detraction’s amounted to ‘malicious slander’ ‘done with full knowledge’. The media for one group of rats, rides the edges of truth whilst claiming objectivity in reporting or ignorance.

Cardinal Kasper is a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. He was appointed to present his ideas in the spirit of synodality, by Pope Francis. Pope Francis is reported widely as a radiantly holy and good Pope even by the so called conservative Cardinals which means a great deal. Cardinal Kasper being presented as a dissenting liberal progressive is the biggest load of mischievous… no, malicious… muckraking imaginable.

Synodality, which is an approach greatly embraced by Pope Francis since taking the seat of Peter, involves honest brainstorming with the view to coming closer to the will of God and the callings of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with opposing agendas and political ‘proposals’. There is no thought of winners and losers in the political sense in synodality. It is a means of collecting the different perspectives of people in order to learn from each other and contribute to a rounded understanding of Gods will for the Church. Everyone’s a winner in synodality. It’s distressing and frustrating to have to try and counter these petty attacks against Cardinals of the Catholic Church and by extension, Pope Francis.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Guess I’ll be back tomorrow for the next thread on how suspicious are the ‘bent’ Cardinals of the Catholic Church trying to destroy the holier than holys that guard the faith against the bent Cardinals. sigh.

Excellent post!

 

[graciew]

Synodality, which is an approach greatly embraced by Pope Francis since taking the seat of Peter, involves honest brainstorming with the view to coming closer to the will of God and the callings of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with opposing agendas and political ‘proposals’. There is no thought of winners and losers in the political sense in synodality. It is a means of collecting the different perspectives of people in order to learn from each other and contribute to a rounded understanding of Gods will for the Church. .

Thanks!!