Vatican’s legal chief says desire to change enough for Communion

[St_Francis]

That is if they are in a continued state of sin.

A divorced and remarried Catholic who is in a legal marriage, and has been for decades and even had children in that marriage is not committing adultery and the notion that they are, is an impediment to bringing them to Christ whom they seek. If I recall correctly, a recent statement from the Vatican is rejected the use of the world adultery in discribing such situations.

It is true that their first marriage may have been null, and thus their second marriage valid in a hidden sense: I said that months ago when AL first came out and this reasoning for allowing reception of the Eucharist by D&R without a decree of nullity was examined and rejected by FC.

But that is not the reasoning proposed for the change. It was not brought out in AL, nor has it been mentioned by any of the defenders of this interpretation of AL.

Instead we get that continuing to live in sin is less sinful than doing something which is not at all sinful.

We Catholics could actually be committing sin by using words which condemn, rather than heal. Condemn, rather than bring hope. Condemn, rather than show God’s mercy.

Pope Francis along with the Vatican’s legal chief, are looking at the situation from a realistic standpoint, not an ideological one.

It’s easy for those of us in happy marriages and such, to tell those divorced and remarried Catholics that they are living disordered sinful lifestyles and must not receive Holy Communion as long as they remain married to the person other than the one they married at a Catholic wedding.

Jesus would have a different attitude.

How can you possibly say that Christ would have a different attitude given his actual words? Srsly?

 

[dans0622]

…A divorced and remarried Catholic who is in a legal marriage, and has been for decades and even had children in that marriage is not committing adultery and the notion that they are, is an impediment to bringing them to Christ whom they seek. If I recall correctly, a recent statement from the Vatican is rejected the use of the world adultery in discribing such situations.

…

Intriguing line of reasoning.

I would be very interested to see such a statement from the Vatican.

Dan

 

[JimR-OCDS]

St Francis

How can you possibly say that Christ would have a different attitude given his actual words? Srsly

?

Well for one, Jesus attitude with the Samaritan woman, who had been married five times.

He didn’t tell her to go away, but instead, revealed to her who He is.

God came into our world in Jesus Christ, yet while we were still sinners.

Would he turn a sinner away who in their heart wants to be close to Him, because their first marriage failed, but their 2nd one is successful and good ?

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Intriguing line of reasoning.

I would be very interested to see such a statement from the Vatican.

Dan

Cardinal Kasper: Adultery language is offensive, insulting

Rome, Italy, Oct 3, 2014 / 08:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In recent interviews, German Cardinal Walter Kasper suggested that while Church doctrine cannot change, it can be adapted and interpreted in different ways, and language can be softened when it is deemed offensive.

If an individual divorces their spouse and enters a new civil marriage without an annulment, the second union is “not a sacramental one,” Cardinal Kasper acknowledged.

“That’s clear. It’s not of the same level as the first one,” he said in a video interview with Catholic News Service, released Oct. 2.

However, he continued, it is still “a new situation of marriage” in which a couple is living together and “There is love, there is commitment, there is exclusivity, it is forever.”

He urged against using the language of adultery, generally drawn from the words of Jesus that one who divorces his wife and marriages another commits adultery.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-kasper-adultery-language-is-offensive-insulting-31791/

Jim

 

[Mongo]

Jim

If it’s not sacramental how is it forever?

 

[dans0622]

Oh, Cardinal Kasper. He doesn’t really count as “the Vatican” when we’re talking about a 2014 statement.

Be that as it may, I don’t think we always have to use “adultery”, “sin”, etc. Familiaris consortio, for example, doesn’t often use those terms (“adultery” is practically absent from the text) but still gets the point across. Nevertheless, to redefine adultery to suit our own preferences is not helpful. Scripture’s definition is sufficient.

Dan

 

[goout]

…
I will stand or fall on the totality of the teachings of Holy Mother Church as handed down through the centuries. Period.

Here is the really difficult part of what you are trying to say:
The Magisterium and Tradition are not merely a body of work, a set of rules and proclamations, or the expression of doctrine.

77…"the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

I don’t disagree with the thrust of the article you posted at all. I think it is very good.
But the living Tradition of Christ’s Mystical Body will take us places that are very uncomfortable, because that’s the nature of it in relation to our fallen humanity.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If it’s not sacramental how is it forever?

Don’t understand your question.

However, a Sacrament requires faith and a couple who went through the rite of Marriage in the Catholic Church, but did not have faith, could nullify the marriage, per Pope Benedict XVI.

Jim

 

[_Abyssinia]

That is if they are in a continued state of sin.

A divorced and remarried Catholic who is in a legal marriage, and has been for decades and even had children in that marriage is not committing adultery and the notion that they are, is an impediment to bringing them to Christ whom they seek. If I recall correctly, a recent statement from the Vatican is rejected the use of the world adultery in discribing such situations.

We Catholics could actually be committing sin by using words which condemn, rather than heal. Condemn, rather than bring hope. Condemn, rather than show God’s mercy.

Pope Francis along with the Vatican’s legal chief, are looking at the situation from a realistic standpoint, not an ideological one.

It’s easy for those of us in happy marriages and such, to tell those divorced and remarried Catholics that they are living disordered sinful lifestyles and must not receive Holy Communion as long as they remain married to the person other than the one they married at a Catholic wedding.

Jesus would have a different attitude.

Jim

I saw that statement you posted by Cardinal Kasper but it was Jesus Christ himself who used the word “adultery” in Matthew 19:9.

I think Jesus Christ wants all people to come to him and he wouldn’t of used the word if He thought it would be stop those coming home to him. He must of that used that word for a reason.

Are you saying that by Catholics using the word that Jesus Christ himself used, “adultery”, could be a sin for Catholics? If that is what you are saying, that is extraordinary. On what do you base that on? Calling the situation adultery is stating the reality of the situation as seen by Jesus Christ.

 

[goout]

If an individual divorces their spouse and enters a new civil marriage without an annulment, the second union is “not a sacramental one,” Cardinal Kasper acknowledged.

What’s the difference between sacramental and civil marriage?
What does he mean the civil marriage necessarily has the following?

“There is love, there is commitment, there is exclusivity, it is forever.”

It seems to me an attempt to equate civil marriage with sacramental marriage. Or at best, an unfounded and generally sweeping assumption of the goods that* might be* present in a non-sacramental marriage. Forever? In a civil marriage? In what way, this “forever”?
How does civil marriage constitute the level of commitment that Cardinal Kasper is pointing to?
How does that commitment differ from that of two people “living together”, generally speaking?

These questions are important for people reading this who are going to be confused about what a sacrament is.

 

[pnewton]

How can you possibly say that Christ would have a different attitude given his actual words? Srsly?

I did not see any words of Christ contradicted. Also, we have the actions of Jesus, along with his words, like him sharing his body and blood with the “Son of Perdition.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I saw that statement you posted by Cardinal Kasper but it was Jesus Christ himself who used the word “adultery” in Matthew 19:9.

I think Jesus Christ wants all people to come to him and he wouldn’t of used the word if He thought it would be stop those coming home to him. He must of that used that word for a reason.

Are you saying that by Catholics using the word that Jesus Christ himself used, “adultery”, could be a sin for Catholics? If that is what you are saying, that is extraordinary. On what do you base that on? Calling the situation adultery is stating the reality of the situation as seen by Jesus Christ.

Again, Jesus words have to be understood in the context of which he was speaking.

Don’t compare Jewish Marriage of over 2000 years ago, to weddings in a Catholic Church today.

And when it comes to using the words, “adultery,” read the Cardinal’s statement in the article I posted.

Take your complaint up with him.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What’s the difference between sacramental and civil marriage?
.

A Sacramental Marriage is where the couple who have faith, come before God and the Church, to have their marriage blessed.

A civil marriage is where a couple commit themselves to each other without necessarily expressing their commitment before God. although its possible that they could. Mostly, it’s a legal construct for the protection of property and children that could come in the future. It’s also a statement of commitment between the couple, but its not always the case.

The reality is, both Catholic and Civil marriages fail, unfortunately.

Often, young couples get married in the Church, because its what’s expected of them.

After they’re married, getting to Mass drops off except for Christmas and perhaps, Easter, but its more of a social event than an act of faith.

Few get married in the Church as an act of faith in Jesus Christ and to have Him as head of their marriage.

Jim

 

[Pulvis]

Words mean real things and should no be used any way we please.

Subjectivism - the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth.

This accusation of subjectivism is a straw many, an easy out to avoid difficult theology. No one is suggesting or has suggested this doctrine, or applied it to marriage. Acknowledgment of the role of conscience is not, and never has been in the tradition of the Church, subjectivism. This is like calling people we do not like liberals or Nazis, though usually the phrase moral relativism is used.

Scott Hahn spoke of what he called cafeteria Catholicism by coincidence, where we agree with all the Church is teaching because the Church is teaching what we think. We do not know our faith in the Church until we are confronted with a teaching with which we do not agree. I am not going to get into the status of the various comments about Amoris Laetitia, but suffice it to say, if the Church finally resolves to a position one believes is not correct, then one must face by what standard do they measure truth. Is it by one owns reason? I am not going to say this is wrong, but if one determines by one’s own reason that the Church is in error and therefore departs, how is that different than what countless other Christians have done through the centuries? I am a firm believer in conscientious dissent. However, I believe it comes with the burden of trying to understand the what it is the Church teaches, whether it be birth control, the death penalty, or in this case, Amoris Laetitia.

Actually, i would argue that this subjectivism is part of the same heresy as the modernism Pope St. Pius X warned of in Pascendi Domenici Gregis.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

I am certain you have read this. I see no straw man argument here. I see a thoughtful, considered work from a Priest who sees trouble for what it is. Words do have meanings, and using ambiguous language that allows a multiple of interpretations has meaning as well. This needs to be corrected post haste, if it is not already too late.

We are living through a progressivist age, an age infected by the errors of Russia that have spread across the entire world like the plague.

just my opinion.

 

[James248]

I did not see any words of Christ contradicted. Also, we have the actions of Jesus, along with his words, like him sharing his body and blood with the “Son of Perdition.”

Yeah. We could do a whole thread on whether Judas received communion.

 

[goout]

Words mean real things and should no be used any way we please.

Subjectivism - the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth.

This accusation of subjectivism is a straw many, an easy out to avoid difficult theology. No one is suggesting or has suggested this doctrine, or applied it to marriage. Acknowledgment of the role of conscience is not, and never has been in the tradition of the Church, subjectivism. This is like calling people we do not like liberals or Nazis, though usually the phrase moral relativism is used.

In subjectivism truth is subjected to the individual, to his experiences of it, his interpretations of it, his grasp of it. Subjectivism is not a straw man, it is rampant in Catholicism and our culture at large. All you have to do is read these forums and see the erroneous exaltation of conscience, in opposition to, objective truth. Conscience and truth are a both/and, not an either/or. It is not a healthy view of humanity to view conscience and truth at odds with one another, or as separate from one another.
Unity of faith and life, as JP2 has said.

Truth is not a subject, it is the object toward which a conscience is drawn. Truth is a person, Jesus Christ, in whom God’s revelation and the individual’s response can be united.

 

[pnewton]

In subjectivism truth is subjected to the individual, to his experiences of it, his interpretations of it, his grasp of it. Subjectivism is not a straw man, it is rampant in Catholicism and our culture at large. All you have to do is read these forums and see the erroneous exaltation of conscience, in opposition to, objective truth. Conscience and doctrine are a both/and, not an either/or. It is not a healthy view of humanity to view a conscience and truth at odds with one another, or as separate from one another.
Unity of faith and life, as JP2 has said.

Truth is not a subject, it is the object toward which a conscience is drawn. Truth is a person, Jesus Christ, in whom God’s revelation and the individual’s response can be united.

I think pretty much everyone agrees with this, here, I mean. That is why I call it a straw man. One simply cannot say that those who disagree with him personally is rejecting Truth. Even Amoris Laetitia, which I am sure everyone has read by now, is pretty much a bastion of support for the Church’s teaching on what is true. That is why there is but one footnote attracting all the attention. In context, there is no way it can support moral relativism.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I wonder if the door is open enough to leave a first marriage, get civilly married in a ssm and then apply this theology?

 

[dans0622]

What’s the difference between sacramental and civil marriage?
What does he mean the civil marriage necessarily has the following?
It seems to me an attempt to equate civil marriage with sacramental marriage. Or at best, an unfounded and generally sweeping assumption of the goods that* might be* present in a non-sacramental marriage. Forever? In a civil marriage? In what way, this “forever”?
How does civil marriage constitute the level of commitment that Cardinal Kasper is pointing to?
How does that commitment differ from that of two people “living together”, generally speaking?

These questions are important for people reading this who are going to be confused about what a sacrament is.

Hello,

Cardinal Kasper, in those remarks, is addressing the case of a Catholic who is married, then divorces and then enters another union. The second union cannot be contracted “in the Church” but will be contracted before the civil authorities and accepted by them. It is a marriage in civil law…it’s a civil marriage.

In the Church’s legal system (which is just as “valid” as the secular one and just as binding on the faithful), this second union is not a marriage.

His use of the term “sacramental marriage” is his own creation, based apparently, to some extent, upon the way the Eastern Orthodox deal with “second marriages.” The normal way of looking at this is to say that a sacramental marriage is one that is contracted between two baptized people. For Kasper, even two baptized people, who are in what he would actually call a second marriage, cannot have a sacramental marriage (until, it would seem, the first spouse(s) die(s)).

One can recognize a certain commitment on the part of those Catholics who marry only in accord with civil law. That doesn’t change the fact that their union is not a marriage in the Church’s legal system. These points were made by John Paul II in Familiaris consortio…somewhere around paragraph 84.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

I wonder if the door is open enough to leave a first marriage, get civilly married in a ssm and then apply this theology?

…I don’t see why not.

Dan