US bishops try to calm anxiety over pope

[Ender]

If through a very thorough theological examination of these situations based on our new awareness regarding modern marriage and the changes in the culture of Catholicism.

A “new awareness” of “modern marriage” based on “changes in the culture”? Has the church’s understanding of marriage changed so that it means something different for us than it did for Christ? If there is anything in the church that is less open to change than the meaning of marriage it would be hard to find. This approach essentially opens all doctrines to doubt. If marriage can be “modernized” to mean something new then why would we expect finality in any doctrine at all?

blooming flowers… bouquet…Holy Spirit…wonderful…light and air…

At some point specificity is required, as in: what has to change? Which doctrines need to be abrogated? Are church teachings so ephemeral to you that you don’t care what they are or how they change?

I’m just theorising the possibilities now that the issue is on the table for examination. It’s there because Pope Francis is open to some sort of possibility.

Is this an acknowledgment that the real issue here is not merely improvements in the annulment process but rather is whether the divorced and remarried should receive communion?

It seems wowsery to keep saying it shouldn’t be looked at at all because we know absolutely that there are no solution …

Is there no topic off limits? No doctrine that shouldn’t be revisited? Shall we rehash the question of Christ’s divinity? It was just two years ago that the CDF addressed this issue in another context and cited this teaching in the catechism: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. (CCC 1650)
Is the thinking of the church in 2012 not modern enough for you?

Ender

 

[McCall1981]

A “new awareness” of “modern marriage” based on “changes in the culture”? Has the church’s understanding of marriage changed so that it means something different for us than it did for Christ? If there is anything in the church that is less open to change than the meaning of marriage it would be hard to find. This approach essentially opens all doctrines to doubt. If marriage can be “modernized” to mean something new then why would we expect finality in any doctrine at all?
At some point specificity is required, as in: what has to change? Which doctrines need to be abrogated? Are church teachings so ephemeral to you that you don’t care what they are or how they change?
Is this an acknowledgment that the real issue here is not merely improvements in the annulment process but rather is whether the divorced and remarried should receive communion?
Is there no topic off limits? No doctrine that shouldn’t be revisited? Shall we rehash the question of Christ’s divinity? It was just two years ago that the CDF addressed this issue in another context and cited this teaching in the catechism: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. (CCC 1650)
Is the thinking of the church in 2012 not modern enough for you?

Ender

Good news here from the CDF. This is from Fr. Z’s blog:

"At the French language site L’Homme Nouveau there is an interesting post about a question a priest posed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He asked the Congregation:

Can a confessor (a priest with faculties to receive sacramental confessions) give absolution to a penitent who, have married in a religious manner, has contracted a second union after divorce?

The CDF responded with a letter date 22 October 2014! Think about that in light of the dates of the recent Synod of Bishops, 5-19 October.

The CDF gave a standard reply, underscoring that it is possible to absolve such a person, provided that she has a firm purpose of amendment. In other words, yes, but under the same conditions as any other sinner: they must confess sin, express resolution not to sin again, and emendation of life. If civilly married couples cannot separate, or even reconcile with the true spouse, or if they must remain together for the sake of child-rearing, then they must resolve to live as “brother and sister”.

The CDF cites Familaris consortio, which some, on the opposite side of the issue and response, deem to be outdated, even though it is only 33 years old. Apparently the CDF does not consider the Magisterium of St. John Paul II to be outdated.

In no way does the Congregation suggest that absolution can be given without surety on the part of the confessor that there a firm purpose of amendment.

This, of course, has implications for Holy Communion. We must not receive Communion if we know we are not in the state of grace. If you cannot be absolved (or can be), then there are implications for admission to Communion…

The CDF’s response upholds the integrity of all the sacraments involved, Matrimony, Penance, and, of course, Eucharist."

wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/days-after-2014-synod-closes-cdf-responds-to-question-on-absolution-for-civilly-remarried/

 

[twf]

Good news here from the CDF. This is from Fr. Z’s blog:

"At the French language site L’Homme Nouveau there is an interesting post about a question a priest posed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He asked the Congregation:

Can a confessor (a priest with faculties to receive sacramental confessions) give absolution to a penitent who, have married in a religious manner, has contracted a second union after divorce?

The CDF responded with a letter date 22 October 2014! Think about that in light of the dates of the recent Synod of Bishops, 5-19 October.

The CDF gave a standard reply, underscoring that it is possible to absolve such a person, provided that she has a firm purpose of amendment. In other words, yes, but under the same conditions as any other sinner: they must confess sin, express resolution not to sin again, and emendation of life. If civilly married couples cannot separate, or even reconcile with the true spouse, or if they must remain together for the sake of child-rearing, then they must resolve to live as “brother and sister”.

The CDF cites Familaris consortio, which some, on the opposite side of the issue and response, deem to be outdated, even though it is only 33 years old. Apparently the CDF does not consider the Magisterium of St. John Paul II to be outdated.

In no way does the Congregation suggest that absolution can be given without surety on the part of the confessor that there a firm purpose of amendment.

This, of course, has implications for Holy Communion. We must not receive Communion if we know we are not in the state of grace. If you cannot be absolved (or can be), then there are implications for admission to Communion…

The CDF’s response upholds the integrity of all the sacraments involved, Matrimony, Penance, and, of course, Eucharist."

wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/days-after-2014-synod-closes-cdf-responds-to-question-on-absolution-for-civilly-remarried/

This is not surprising. +Muller has strongly and vocally opposed +Kasper’s proposal. As long as he is Prefect, the CDF will maintain this position…unless the Pope specifically ordered him otherwise. I don’t see that happened as I believe the Holy Father, while open to discussing +Kasper’s position, will wait for the consensus of the bishops at next year’s Synod.

 

[LongingSoul]

A “new awareness” of “modern marriage” based on “changes in the culture”? Has the church’s understanding of marriage changed so that it means something different for us than it did for Christ? If there is anything in the church that is less open to change than the meaning of marriage it would be hard to find. This approach essentially opens all doctrines to doubt. If marriage can be “modernized” to mean something new then why would we expect finality in any doctrine at all?

Pope Francis specifically wants the issue open to examination for possible as yet unseen aspects. We can be pretty certain that Pope Francis is utterly motivated by the desire to do Gods will. This particular issue has been bubbling among diocesan clergy for a long time. Pope Benedict revisited it again in 2005 after raising it in a letter of 1998 …

During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 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”.

“those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers”.

This is an indictment on modern marriage in modern times. In the culture of diversity that exists today it is more prevalent that some although baptised and raised as Catholics are actually without faith and Sacraments require faith.

At some point specificity is required, as in: what has to change? Which doctrines need to be abrogated? Are church teachings so ephemeral to you that you don’t care what they are or how they change?

I don’t have the theological or academic requirements to tell the Church how to set out her disciplines of faith. You neither.

Is this an acknowledgment that the real issue here is not merely improvements in the annulment process but rather is whether the divorced and remarried should receive communion?

My belief is that it involves not making changes to the general rules on annulment, but looking at the validity of a first marriage from a different perspective. One that gives more value to the fruits of faith that exist in the now and the internal forum.

Is there no topic off limits? No doctrine that shouldn’t be revisited? Shall we rehash the question of Christ’s divinity? It was just two years ago that the CDF addressed this issue in another context and cited this teaching in the catechism: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. (CCC 1650)
Is the thinking of the church in 2012 not modern enough for you?

Ender

The question has been bubbling below the surface for a long time. The Church doesn’t change rules based on unresolved questions of practice. If the question was significant and troubling enough that Pope Benedict has given it airings for many years… why would you not think there is something in that?

 

[FollowChrist34]

This is not surprising. +Muller has strongly and vocally opposed +Kasper’s proposal. As long as he is Prefect, the CDF will maintain this position…unless the Pope specifically ordered him otherwiseI don’t see that happened as **I believe the Holy Father, while open to discussing +Kasper’s position, will wait for the consensus of the bishops at next year’s Synod. **

You have hit the nail on the head.

 

[McCall1981]

Pope Francis specifically wants the issue open to examination for possible as yet unseen aspects. We can be pretty certain that Pope Francis is utterly motivated by the desire to do Gods will. This particular issue has been bubbling among diocesan clergy for a long time. Pope Benedict revisited it again in 2005 after raising it in a letter of 1998 …

During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 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”.

“those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers”.

This is an indictment on modern marriage in modern times. In the culture of diversity that exists today it is more prevalent that some although baptised and raised as Catholics are actually without faith and Sacraments require faith.

I don’t have the theological or academic requirements to tell the Church how to set out her disciplines of faith. You neither.

My belief is that it involves not making changes to the general rules on annulment, but looking at the validity of a first marriage from a different perspective. One that gives more value to the fruits of faith that exist in the now and the internal forum.

The question has been bubbling below the surface for a long time. The Church doesn’t change rules based on unresolved questions of practice. If the question was significant and troubling enough that Pope Benedict has given it airings for many years… why would you not think there is something in that?

You’re combining two separate issues here.

What Benedict refers to is a possible change to how we determine whether a marriage is valid in the first place, in other words a change to the annulment process. What he’s saying is “it’s possible that in the modern world there are other factors, like the faith of the people involved, that need to be taken into account when we determine whether a marriage was valid in the first place”. This is fine, and is not such a controversial issue.

The problem that people have with Kasper’s proposal (and Francis’ potential endorsement of it) is that it is not to do with the process of determining whether the first marriage is valid. Rather it is concerned with giving communion to people in a second marriage in spite of the fact that their first marriage has already been proved to be valid. That is why it is so problematic.

To consider examining the faith of the couple during the process of determining whether their marriage is valid, is theologically viable. To consider giving communion to those we have already determined are living in a state of mortal is not.

 

[Peebo]

Please excuse me if I sound a little harsh but some Catholics on here who seem to be troubled over a change in doctrine on divorce/remarriage/taking communion really don’t appear to have much faith in the Catholic Church…Jesus Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his church and has done so for two thousand years…if for some reason there was a change not so much in doctrine but in the implementation of certain practices that would help the healing process for many millions of Catholics who have been hurt by divorce…or for other reasons… then what business is it of yours that the church…which is still guided by the Holy Spirit would bring about some changes…some of you sound just like the Pharisees who Jesus rebuked for their observance of the law rather than mercy and compassion that Jesus taught…do you think you are more worthy than those who are left in limbo because of their circumstances…it certainly seems that way…Pope Francis has said that this is a time for mercy and compassion…and he is guided by the Holy Spirit…not by his own self righteous attitude… as some Catholics.

 

[McCall1981]

Please excuse me if I sound a little harsh but some Catholics on here who seem to be troubled over a change in doctrine on divorce/remarriage/taking communion really don’t appear to have much faith in the Catholic Church…Jesus Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his church and has done so for two thousand years…if for some reason there was a change not so much in doctrine but in the implementation of certain practices that would help the healing process for many millions of Catholics who have been hurt by divorce…or for other reasons… then what business is it of yours that the church…which is still guided by the Holy Spirit would bring about some changes…some of you sound just like the Pharisees who Jesus rebuked for their observance of the law rather than mercy and compassion that Jesus taught…do you think you are more worthy than those who are left in limbo because of their circumstances…it certainly seems that way…Pope Francis has said that this is a time for mercy and compassion…and he is guided by the Holy Spirit…not by his own self righteous attitude… as some Catholics.

In all the various appeals to vague notions of “mercy” and “compassion” I have seen, I have yet to see anyone, including Card Kasper himself, explain how giving communion to the remarried can be theologically justified.

 

[Sirach2]

In all the various appeals to vague notions of “mercy” and “compassion” I have seen, I have yet to see anyone, including Card Kasper himself, explain how giving communion to the remarried can be theologically justified.

Read the book.

The problem that people have with Kasper’s proposal (and Francis’ potential endorsement of it) is that it is not to do with the process of determining whether the first marriage is valid. Rather it is concerned with giving communion to people in a second marriage in spite of the fact that their first marriage has already been proved to be valid. That is why it is so problematic.

I question your motive in perpetuating this false idea that his “proposal” (wrong word, but that’s beside the point) determines to give people communion in a marriage that was PROVED to be valid. That is utterly false, but if it helps you promote your agenda, I can see why you distort it.

 

[McCall1981]

Read the book.

Ok, if there is a theological justification out there that he’s being coy about, go ahead, I’m all ears.

Did you read the “five Cardinals” book? If not, can I appeal to it and say they proved Kasper wrong?

 

[Sirach2]

Ok, if there is a theological justification out there that he’s being coy with, go ahead, I’m all ears.

My post was edited while you were responding. “Coy” is another demeaning word. But I understand where you’re coming from, as evidenced by your hundreds of posts and threads that leave no doubt to the reader’s imagination of where you stand.

Did you read the “five Cardinals” book?

Don’t you mean “books” - plural? And a big rush to get them out prior to the synod?

 

[mdgspencer]

I was disturbed when those in charge of writing the interim report at the synod proposed that divorced and remarried people go to communion (unless freed by an annulment), among other things said. According to my understanding, those in a state of mortal sin should not go to communion. Catholics in an invalid marriage aren’t really married.
And I have been concerned how those put in charge of writing the interim report, and apparently put in charge over the proceedings (and put in charge by Pope Francis?) came out with such proposals.
This all raises many questions in my mind. I wouldn’t say I am anxious, but I am not sure what is going on.
Saying that there is a new pastoral style that we should like doesn’t hack it with me.
I think it possible that I will decide things are right, after all, but this isn’t an assumption I don’t feel quite free to make right now.

 

[McCall1981]

Read the book.

I question your motive in perpetuating this false idea that his “proposal” (wrong word, but that’s beside the point) determines to give people communion in a marriage that was PROVED to be valid. That is utterly false, but if it helps you promote your agenda, I can see why you distort it.

So you are honestly asserting that his proposal (I prefer this word) has nothing to do with giving communion to people in a second marriage, while they also have a valid first marriage? And thus all he is really talking about is tweaking the annulment process?

 

[McCall1981]

My post was edited while you were responding. “Coy” is another demeaning word. But I understand where you’re coming from, as evidenced by your hundreds of posts and threads that leave no doubt to the reader’s imagination of where you stand.

Don’t you mean “books” - plural? And a big rush to get them out prior to the synod?

You’re right I should have said “books” since so many have written by Cardinals and theologians refuting Kasper’s proposal.

As to the bold, I seem to recall Kasper’s book coming out prior to the Synod as well, yes?

I use the word “coy” because if you’re right, everyone in the Catholic world, including his supporters, have completely misunderstood him, for almost a year, and he has yet to say anything about it. I find that a bit hard to believe.

 

[KSU]

“To consider examining the faith of the couple during the process of determining whether their marriage is valid, is theologically viable. To consider giving communion to those we have already determined are living in a state of mortal is not.”

Thank you, McCall1981. I hope you finally put and end to that confusion.

As implied/stated above by a few posters, everyone should just relax-- the Holy Spirit is still in charge and Francis does not want to change Church teaching.

But, McCall, you are correct to sense danger here; a new, less traditional, “opening of Church windows” style by the Holy Father scares me, too. The last time the secular media heralded such less traditional style, we lost two generations of people, our music, architecture, liturgy, educational system and clearly written end-documents. It seems worse this time around because the Vatican Press Office suddenly lost its ability/willingness to translate into English.

 

[Peebo]

In all the various appeals to vague notions of “mercy” and “compassion” I have seen, I have yet to see anyone, including Card Kasper himself, explain how giving communion to the remarried can be theologically justified.

So why should it be of concern to you if the church…again…which is guided by the Holy Spirit…found some way to offer communion to those remarried Catholics…what business is that of yours…or mine…if the church was to find a way to reconcile those people back to the church and to communion table of our Lord and Savior…Jesus sat down and dined with prostitutes…so who are you to judge who should and should not share in the Eucharist…if the Holy Spirit was to lead the church in that direction.

 

[ProVobis]

But, McCall, you are correct to sense danger here; a new, less traditional, “opening of Church windows” style by the Holy Father scares me, too. The last time the secular media heralded such less traditional style, we lost two generations of people, our music, architecture, liturgy, educational system and clearly written end-documents. It seems worse this time around because the Vatican Press Office suddenly lost its ability/willingness to translate into English.

You may be onto something here. After we finally mastered the art of translating from Latin to English, even if it takes lady journalists to do it, we now have to deal with Italian, which we’ve nothing to compare it with.

 

[McCall1981]

So why should it be of concern to you if the church…again…which is guided by the Holy Spirit…found some way to offer communion to those remarried Catholics…what business is that of yours…or mine…if the church was to find a way to reconcile those people back to the church and to communion table of our Lord and Savior…Jesus sat down and dined with prostitutes…so who are you to judge who should and should not share in the Eucharist…if the Holy Spirit was to lead the church in that direction.

I’m not the one judging who can and can’t receive communion, the Church has already done that.

If the Church somehow found a way to do this that was consistent with Catholic doctrine, then I guess theoretically, there would be no issue.

But like I said, I have yet to see any one, including those who support this proposal, even try to justify how it can be compatible with the Church’s teaching.

 

[McCall1981]

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.

 

[ProVobis]

Jesus sat down and dined with prostitutes…so who are you to judge who should and should not share in the Eucharist…

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.