US bishops try to calm anxiety over pope

[SWolf]

Here again, it is not up to the couple. “Internal forum” requires the involvement of the priest/spiritual director. The reasons would be shared with that person, subject to the confidentiality of the “internal forum” ie confession. So, that priest would be making the determinition in conjunction with the couple and therefore it would still “be up to the church”.

Which is why I said:
“A couple can easily shop for a spiritual director who will rubber stamp what they already want.”

In an extremely weak way, it will still be up to the Church. I wasn’t arguing it would go against doctrine. It would, however, be an awful pastoral approach that would, in practice, make any marriage trivial to annul. I could go to the courthouse, get a divorce, and go to a spiritual director who would annul the marriage, in the same afternoon.

This is much easier to do than go to a tribunal of Canon lawyers to see, objectively, the state of the marriage as it pertains to Canon Law.

Sorry, but there are more weak spiritual directors than there are solid spiritual directors, and most would just go along with whatever the person wants than give a harsh truth.

The annulment process should be long. The annulment process should be painful. The annulment process should be intrusive. Deeming a marriage invalid is a very serious undertaking and should not be done by only the couple and one other person who might not even be well versed in Canon law.

 

[McCall1981]

(name removed by moderator),

You said:

“Kaspar only proposes that remarried Catholics with either a previous marriage that has not yet been ruled upon or a previous marriage which failed to be “annulled” (to use your term) but which has been found to be not valid in the internal forum, be allowed to receive communion.”

Could you please let me know where you got this info?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I am not a theologian; therefore I listen to and accept the arguments of theologians I trust on this issue to the best of my ability.

Just as an aside (but with an equally good motive) - want to also share a slightly more upbeat shot of horses then appeared previously in the thread - one of the noblest creatures in creation.

 

[McCall1981]

, to receive communion. How we determine whether the previous marriage was valid, whether we use the internal forum or external forum or whatever is irrelevant. The point is that a person with a valid previous marriage (regardless of how that determination has been reached) could be allowed to receive
communion."

However Kaspar proposes no such thing, because there is never a determination that a prior marriage is in fact “valid”.

Kaspar only proposes that remarried Catholics with either a previous marriage that has not yet been ruled upon or a previous marriage which failed to be “annulled” (to use your term) but which has been found to be not valid in the internal forum, be allowed to receive communion.

I don’t know how else to say it.

(name removed by moderator),

Could you please let me know where you found this?
[/quote]

 

[Sirach2]

Sneaking right in before this thread gets locked up…

For a scholarly article on the notion of an “internal forum solution”, see: scribd.com/doc/46811462/Does-there-exist-an-internal-forum-solution-for-the-divorced-and-remarried

For Cardinal Ratzinger’s actual letter, without Magister’s interspersed commentary/interpretation (which has a varied value), see: osservatoreromano.va/en/news/the-pastoral-approach-to-marriage-must-be-founded-#.UulAWPZ21dg

I contend that Ratzinger never “proposed” anything in the letter. The letter recounts a discussion among theologians/bishops/etc. Some points, he said, require further study. I am amused at how he said the 1994 letter from the CDF “was met with a very lively response.” That’s a very diplomatic way to say it.

For that 1994 letter, which has more weight than the one linked to above, see: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Dan

The only problem with the last reference is that the Pope Benedict’s footnote #3 in your second link is missing entirely, and it is a very important consideration.

I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further”.

 

[KSU]

Per (name removed by moderator): “OK, this really really is the last try…I don’t know how else to say it.”

Oh, please let it be so. You are flirting with pettifogging. I would venture that we all understand your point. More importantly, “our side” finds it irrelevant to what has become the point at issue in this thread; i.e., you have not been able to apply it specifically to how it could precipitate a change to current Church teaching.

 

[The_Chops]

Who has the authority to change things that are set in motion ? (Example): Changing the laws about marriage & divorce’s ? How do they go about this ? & are the general public allowed to vote ?

 

[Ender]

The ban on Eucharistic communion for divorced and remarried Catholics is increasingly contested and disobeyed. Benedict XVI is standing firm. But he is republishing an essay from 1998 that opens two loopholes, the second entrusted to conscience

Then again, maybe not. Here is what BXVI said (your source):“If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.”
There is no conscience loophole to a valid marriage.

But immediately afterward, he adds:

“However, the Church has the authority to clarify those conditions which must be fulfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus’ teaching.”

Again, no one disputes this point. This goes to the question of which marriages should be held to be valid. It assuredly is not an exception to the prohibition against receiving communion for those who divorced from valid marriages…which is what the debate is all about.

An important footnote, because it concerns precisely one of the points on which Benedict XVI maintains that an exception could be opened in the general ban on communion.

"…under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible."
What part of “under no circumstances” and “intrinsically impossible” allows for an exception?

What Pope Benedict was talking about was whether the determination of the validity of a marriage needed to be left solely to the discernment of ecclesiastical tribunals or whether there was a place for individual judgment.

This, however, is very different than the approach taken by Cardinal Kasper, who has suggested that a person who has divorced and remarried would have to undergo a “penitential path” for the failure of the sacramental marriage. If the first marriage was valid then there are, in the words of Pope Benedict, “no circumstances” where a second union would be considered lawful, Cardinal Kasper’s “penitential path” notwithstanding.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The concern is that Kasper’s proposal doesn’t make a distinction between valid and invalid marriages. That doesn’t seem to be part of the consideration for him. The great difference between Kasper and Benedict on this point is that the latter started by unconditionally rejecting the possibility that someone who remarried after being divorced from a valid marriage could receive communion.“If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible.”
Kasper has never acknowledged this, rather his approach appears to be to admit to communion those who undergo a “penitential path” for the failure of the sacramental marriage. This is a wholly different approach.

You claim that “internal forum” allows the couple to determine if a prior bond was valid under Kaspar’s proposal. It doesn’t.

Kasper’s proposal doesn’t even require that much. The question of validity is simply ignored.

Ender

 

[FollowChrist34]

The concern is that Kasper’s proposal doesn’t make a distinction between valid and invalid marriages. That doesn’t seem to be part of the consideration for him. The great difference between Kasper and Benedict on this point is that the latter started by unconditionally rejecting the possibility that someone who remarried after being divorced from a valid marriage could receive communion.“If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible.”
Kasper has never acknowledged this, rather his approach appears to be to admit to communion those who undergo a “penitential path” for the failure of the sacramental marriage. This is a wholly different approach.
Kasper’s proposal doesn’t even require that much. The question of validity is simply ignored.

Ender

 

[McCall1981]

The concern is that Kasper’s proposal doesn’t make a distinction between valid and invalid marriages. That doesn’t seem to be part of the consideration for him. The great difference between Kasper and Benedict on this point is that the latter started by unconditionally rejecting the possibility that someone who remarried after being divorced from a valid marriage could receive communion.“If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible.”
Kasper has never acknowledged this, rather his approach appears to be to admit to communion those who undergo a “penitential path” for the failure of the sacramental marriage. This is a wholly different approach.
Kasper’s proposal doesn’t even require that much. The question of validity is simply ignored.

Ender

I think that if (if, if, if…) the people involved are beginning to feel that the Kasper proposal doesn’t have enough support to be a viable option, that it will gradually be “walked back” so that eventually it will be “all we ever meant was little adjustments to the annulment process, no big deal, nothing to see here”.

And I think this is why it’s always been so vague, so it could be walked back (or forward) as circumstances dictated.

But again, if, if, if…

Btw, I love the horse pics

 

[KSU]

Here we go: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23233

 

[Ender]

I think that if (if, if, if…) the people involved are beginning to feel that the Kasper proposal doesn’t have enough support to be a viable option, that it will gradually be “walked back” so that eventually it will be “all we ever meant was little adjustments to the annulment process, no big deal, nothing to see here”.

The catechism and Benedict (JPII et all) have unequivocally stated that someone who has remarried out of a valid marriage cannot receive communion. It seems no more likely that this prohibition could be overturned than the church could change her declaration on the real presence in the Eucharist. Some things simply cannot happen.

That said, I imagine there will be some changes to the annulment processes to make the determination of the invalidity of a marriage more streamlined. Given that this is the most that could be accomplished (and is rather uncontroversial to begin with), I imagine you are right in suggesting that this will be claimed as a victory for the whatever-one-calls-Kasper’s-side.

Having said that such a change cannot happen, however, does not mean that it isn’t necessary to fight against it. This is the importance of having Burke and the gang of four involved.

And I think this is why it’s always been so vague, so it could be walked back (or forward) as circumstances dictated.

Perhaps, but there was never any possibility of making a specific argument for reversing or ignoring the relevant doctrines since they are so clearly and inflexibly stated.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The catechism and Benedict (JPII et all) have unequivocally stated that someone who has remarried out of a valid marriage cannot receive communion. It seems no more likely that this prohibition could be overturned than the church could change her declaration on the real presence in the Eucharist. Some things simply cannot happen.

That said, I imagine there will be some changes to the annulment processes to make the determination of the invalidity of a marriage more streamlined. Given that this is the most that could be accomplished (and is rather uncontroversial to begin with), I imagine you are right in suggesting that this will be claimed as a victory for the whatever-one-calls-Kasper’s-side.

Having said that such a change cannot happen, however, does not mean that it isn’t necessary to fight against it. This is the importance of having Burke and the gang of four involved.
Perhaps, but there was never any possibility of making a specific argument for reversing or ignoring the relevant doctrines since they are so clearly and inflexibly stated.

Ender

I am familiar with your general fixed view of things from discussing the Churchs position on capital punishment as per CCC2267 so I don’t hold high hopes of having a fruitful discussion on this issue either. However, I’ll have a try.

Synodality is a specific type of discussion environment. It is one that has been developed further through the efforts of ecumenism. Card. Kasper in his long role as president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is very familiar with this process which involve honestly and openly listening to other faiths beliefs about the Eucharist and the role and status of Our Lady in faith life. It involves not being afraid of the impasses that have stood in the way of religious unity… but to try and understand fully, each sides perspective with the view of discovering what may be hidden in the darkness.

So when you talk about Card. Kaspers ‘proposal’ as being impossible, irreconcilable, heretical etc… that does not reflect the spirit in which those ideas were presented. Card. Kasper is an old and respected theologian. He was appointed by Pope St JPII to his position on the Commission and has been included as part of the inner circle of Vatican business by all the recent Popes.

What he presents is an idea, fully aware that he has not got a complete rundown of all the theology involved and presenting it for others, each with their special charisms and skills, to explore from other angles for possibilities.

Think of the examples of how medicines have been discovered that we’d be a much sicker world without. Some botanist or scientist has a bold idea for a cure and presents it to team who have an attitude of openness to possibility. There’s no place in a science lab for a scientist with the attitude “no it can’t be done. I can’t see the data up front so that’s that. No point in even looking at it!” Everybody knows that you can’t eat a poppy plant cure your pain. You’d probably be much sicker for it. But fact is… their are facets and aspects of a poppy plant that can be honed into a wonderfully salvific drug like morphine. People who feel for the genuine suffering of others are inspired by the mercy of God to find cures and relief for genuine illnesses. That’s how synodality works.

Cardinal Kaspers bold ideas are inspired by the genuine suffering of faithfilled people. That’s an invitation to Gods mercy in the situation. Those that are basically saying “let them suffer. It’s their own fault and why should we good people have to care about it”… are actively rejecting the mercy of God for the unity of people.

 

[ProVobis]

Synodality is a specific type of discussion environment. It is one that has been developed further through the efforts of ecumenism. Card. Kasper in his long role as president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is very familiar with this process which involve honestly and openly listening to other faiths beliefs about the Eucharist and the role and status of Our Lady in faith life. It involves not being afraid of the impasses that have stood in the way of religious unity… but to try and understand fully, each sides perspective with the view of discovering what may be hidden in the darkness.

So when you talk about Card. Kaspers ‘proposal’ as being impossible, irreconcilable, heretical etc… that does not reflect the spirit in which those ideas were presented. Card. Kasper is an old and respected theologian. He was appointed by Pope St JPII to his position on the Commission and has been included as part of the inner circle of Vatican business by all the recent Popes.

As I understand it, and I learned this from BrJR, is that ecumenism starts with the premise that children aren’t responsible for the actions of their parents. Heresy does not make one a heretic, for example. A Lutheran is a valid Christian though his beliefs may not be the same as a Catholic but he must be respected for what he does believe.

When you start delving into matters where parents set examples for their kids, however, you have an entirely different scenario.

 

[SWolf]

Cardinal Kaspers bold ideas are inspired by the genuine suffering of faithfilled people. That’s an invitation to Gods mercy in the situation. Those that are basically saying “let them suffer. It’s their own fault and why should we good people have to care about it”… are actively rejecting the mercy of God for the unity of people.

Who is saying that?

Don’t these people also need God’s mercy?
lifesitenews.com/news/who-will-rescue-the-lost-sheep-of-the-lonely-revolution

“So I am looking at a world in a shambles. We do not have Pharisees who preen themselves for having followed the letter of the law and missed its soul. We have Pharisees who preen themselves for disobeying the law, even the most serious admonitions of the law, even your own clear words on marriage and divorce, while presuming to have discovered a soul-of-the-law whose existence has eluded two thousand years of martyrs, saints, popes, bishops, and theologians. “I thank you, O God, that you have made me a sinner and a publican, and not like these others who set their aim so high.””

 

[KSU]

I’ve not had a chance to read this in full until now: pch24.pl/against-pharisees,31907,i.html#ixzz3IDLUUmew

LongingSoul, in all seriousness, where does he go wrong in your opinion.

 

[JimG]

I’ve not had a chance to read this in full until now: pch24.pl/against-pharisees,31907,i.html#ixzz3IDLUUmew

LongingSoul, in all seriousness, where does he go wrong in your opinion.

An interesting article. Thanks.

“It is certainly an honor for Polish Catholicism that the President of the Catholic episcopate, His Excellency Archbishop Gądecki, defended with clarity and courage the truth of Christ about marriage and human sexuality, thus revealing himself to be a true spiritual son of Saint John Paul II. Cardinal George Pell characterized the liberal sexual agenda and the alleged merciful and pastoral support of Holy Communion for “divorced remarried” during the Synod very aptly, saying that this is only the tip of the iceberg and a kind of a Trojan horse in the Church.”

Read more: pch24.pl/against-pharisees,31907,i.html#ixzz3J6nnkhXB

 

[Ender]

I don’t hold high hopes of having a fruitful discussion on this issue…

We can only have a useful discussion if you address specifics. As long as you speak in generalities there is really nothing to discuss.

So when you talk about Card. Kaspers ‘proposal’ as being impossible, irreconcilable, heretical etc… that does not reflect the spirit in which those ideas were presented.

Cardinal Kasper has avoided directly confronting the issue of the validity of the first marriage so I will ask you: is it possible for someone who has remarried after divorcing from a valid marriage to receive communion? Do you believe there is any situation that would this to happen? I’m looking for a yes or no here. A “spirit of ideas” is not sufficient.

Card. Kasper is an old and respected theologian. He was appointed by Pope St JPII to his position on the Commission and has been included as part of the inner circle of Vatican business by all the recent Popes.

This is an argument for why he should know what he’s doing. It says nothing, however, about whether his position is valid.

What he presents is an idea, fully aware that he has not got a complete rundown of all the theology involved …

He has access to the catechism. That’s pretty clear on the theology involved. Is it possible not to understand what 1650 means when it says:*The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.
*If this point is open for debate then why would anyone believe that any doctrine at all is not open as well? Do you not recognize that if something as black and white as this is can be distorted or changed to mean its opposite what this would do to every doctrine? Why would we believe that anything was settled if this isn’t?

Cardinal Kaspers bold ideas are inspired by the genuine suffering of faithfilled people. That’s an invitation to Gods mercy in the situation.

JPII’s comments are relevant here.* Likewise, a failure to speak the truth because of a misconceived sense of compassion should not be taken for love. *(Letter to Priests, 2002)

In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil (Dives in Misericordia)

Those that are basically saying “let them suffer. It’s their own fault and why should we good people have to care about it”… are actively rejecting the mercy of God for the unity of people.

You just can’t make it through a post without throwing out insults. Given your calls for others to show forgiveness, mercy, and compassion it is disappointing that you show so little of it yourself.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

Cardinal Kaspers bold ideas are inspired by the genuine suffering of faithfilled people. That’s an invitation to Gods mercy in the situation. Those that are basically saying “let them suffer. It’s their own fault and why should we good people have to care about it”… are actively rejecting the mercy of God for the unity of people.

Or maybe you don’t see the whole picture:

……mercy is said to be a distinctive quality of true discipleship. This is correct, but it misses the mark when adopted as an argument in the field of sacramental theology. The entire sacramental economy is a work of divine mercy and it cannot simply be swept aside by an appeal to the same. An objectively false appeal to mercy also runs the risk of trivializing the image of God by implying that God cannot do other than forgive. The mystery of God includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice. If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man. Jesus encountered the adulteress with great compassion but he said to her, “go and do not sin again.” God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the church.

Gerhard Card Muller
"Remaining in the Truth of Christ"