Vatican releases preparatory document ahead of 2015 synod

[otjm]

I did. What do you believe I missed?

That’s not under debate. What’s under debate is whether one of the proposals, allowing communion to sexually active civilly remarried Catholics who want to continue being sexually active to their concubines, after some sort of penance, follows doctrine properly. Some Cardinals believe rather strongly against the proposal.

So you have a very interesting view of how the Orthodox church views the matter; but I would suspect that you have never studied the matter in the least, let alone in depth. It is easy to use terms such as “concubines”, which in the discussion becomes a rather emotionally laden term, to describe their process and theological underpinnings.

I am not proposing that the Orthodox are right. What I am proposing is that while I have a doctoral degree, I know mine is not in theology, and so I am willing to let the Church, with theologians who not only have doctoral degrees but years of working in and with the Magisterium, to inspect a question which has not in the past been specifically expounded, and determine what, if any, part of that may have any bearing on the matter.

I also have a profound respect for the fact that Christ promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from error in faith and morals, and likewise I have a profound respect for the Holy Spirit’s working in the Church.

I would likewise point out that some Cardinals vehemently opposed some of the documents of Vatican 2. That is not to say that the Cardinals who have spoken out are in the wrong; I can’t say that because the Church has not said that, and I am not smarter than, or more influenced by the Holy Spirit than any or all of the Cardinals in the synod.
I have no idea what the Church will ultimately decide. I do believe that the Holy Spirit will guide Pope Francis in making the final decision - which decision may agree with whatever the synod finally decides, accept part, reject part, reject all, or simply come up with a different answer.

I don’t have a dog in this fight; I am not in an irregular marriage. Nor do I have an opinion particularly as to what the Church might decide. The more I study moral law, the more I find that the Church has a more nuanced understanding of moral right and wrong than do the “folks in the pews”, and for good reason. And because of this, rather than run around insistently asking questions of “how could this happen” and insisting that "It can’t happen because so-and-so Cardinal said “X, Y, Z”, I am content to sit and watch the Church reflect and examine questions which I feel are vital not only to the Church,. but also to a very large number of Catholics.

I get the impression, though it is not said directly, that there are a number of people in these related threads that are approaching the position of “These folks made their choices; now let them sleep in their own filth” - and coupled with that is an assumption that “The all knew exactly what they were doing”. Never mind that some of the people who seem to be approaching this issue would be the first to admit that many people were catechized somewhere between poorly and extremely poorly - which leaves one to wonder if the latter is true, then how could the former be completely true.

From what I see of the synod, and from what I am reading in the Catholic press true to the Magisterium, is that the Church is trying to figure out how to bring people back to Christ. And it is my suggestion that people ask a way fewer questions, quit reading every snippet that comes out from whomever, and lift up the Church and particularly the synod and the Pope in fervent prayer to the Holy Spirit.

Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and enkindle in them the fire of Thy love.

V. Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created.
R. And Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.

 

[boar2roar]

According to CARA (and I have not seen anyone challenge their numbers): 7% of divorced Catholics have received a decree of nullity; 8% have started the process and either stopped, withdrawn their petition, or had a finding that there was insufficient evidence for a decree of nullity.

That leaves 85% of divorced Catholics having never applied.

Other statistics indicates that one out of four Catholic marriages result in divorce.

Maybe you consider these to be a “minority of people” for a “tiny amount of divorced people who didn’t get an annulment”.

The Church doesn’t.

I was referring to the tiny amount of people who really get directly affected by this priest refusing them communion because they know their personal lives so well. Unless you live in country farm with 10 families or less I don’t see how this is possible.

Maybe you should look into how many people get denied communion because I’ve never seen it happen and unless you are wearing a gay rainbow sash or are extremely close to the priest I don’t think it would ever happen.

What do you want those 85 percent to get annulments? Then just say you want catholic divorce than. Why hide behind this nonsensical annulment semantic then. If the argument is that non perfect marriages aren’t really catholic than thats what divorce is for…

 

[irenaeus1]

So you have a very interesting view of how the Orthodox church views the matter; but I would suspect that you have never studied the matter in the least, let alone in depth. It is easy to use terms such as “concubines”, which in the discussion becomes a rather emotionally laden term, to describe their process and theological underpinnings.

I am not proposing that the Orthodox are right. What I am proposing is that while I have a doctoral degree, I know mine is not in theology, and so I am willing to let the Church, with theologians who not only have doctoral degrees but years of working in and with the Magisterium, to inspect a question which has not in the past been specifically expounded, and determine what, if any, part of that may have any bearing on the matter.

I also have a profound respect for the fact that Christ promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from error in faith and morals, and likewise I have a profound respect for the Holy Spirit’s working in the Church.

I would likewise point out that some Cardinals vehemently opposed some of the documents of Vatican 2. That is not to say that the Cardinals who have spoken out are in the wrong; I can’t say that because the Church has not said that, and I am not smarter than, or more influenced by the Holy Spirit than any or all of the Cardinals in the synod.
I have no idea what the Church will ultimately decide. I do believe that the Holy Spirit will guide Pope Francis in making the final decision - which decision may agree with whatever the synod finally decides, accept part, reject part, reject all, or simply come up with a different answer.

I don’t have a dog in this fight; I am not in an irregular marriage. Nor do I have an opinion particularly as to what the Church might decide. The more I study moral law, the more I find that the Church has a more nuanced understanding of moral right and wrong than do the “folks in the pews”, and for good reason. And because of this, rather than run around insistently asking questions of “how could this happen” and insisting that "It can’t happen because so-and-so Cardinal said “X, Y, Z”, I am content to sit and watch the Church reflect and examine questions which I feel are vital not only to the Church,. but also to a very large number of Catholics.

I get the impression, though it is not said directly, that there are a number of people in these related threads that are approaching the position of “These folks made their choices; now let them sleep in their own filth” - and coupled with that is an assumption that “The all knew exactly what they were doing”. Never mind that some of the people who seem to be approaching this issue would be the first to admit that many people were catechized somewhere between poorly and extremely poorly - which leaves one to wonder if the latter is true, then how could the former be completely true.

From what I see of the synod, and from what I am reading in the Catholic press true to the Magisterium, is that the Church is trying to figure out how to bring people back to Christ. And it is my suggestion that people ask a way fewer questions, quit reading every snippet that comes out from whomever, and lift up the Church and particularly the synod and the Pope in fervent prayer to the Holy Spirit.

Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and enkindle in them the fire of Thy love.

V. Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created.
R. And Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.

I suppose my impatience is due to the fact that as long as the Church dawdles on this issue, the more confused the average Catholic in the pew is, especially with sound bites from the media. Second, of the many moral questions that the Church has addressed (e.g., religious liberty, slavery, in-vitro fertilization, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) divorce and re-marriage is among the absolute clearest of them all from the point of view of scripture (i.e., one does not need a doctorate in theology to figure this one out), and thus should require the least amount of ‘nuancing’. The issue of divorce and remarriage is mentioned in the New Testament no less than six times in clear and unambiguous language.

 

[Ender]

I suppose my impatience is due to the fact that as long as the Church dawdles on this issue, the more confused the average Catholic in the pew is, especially with sound bites from the media.

There are only two possible outcomes here: a bad one - where the rules on communion do not change - and a catastrophic one where they do. Since I too believe the church is protected from catastrophic error the best we can hope for is a bad outcome, which, as you say, will get worse with time as impossible expectations are raised and then dashed.

Ender

 

[McCall1981]

There are only two possible outcomes here: a bad one - where the rules on communion do not change - and a catastrophic one where they do. Since I too believe the church is protected from catastrophic error the best we can hope for is a bad outcome, which, as you say, will get worse with time as impossible expectations are raised and then dashed.

Ender

This is exactly how I see it too.

 

[boar2roar]

There are only two possible outcomes here: a bad one - where the rules on communion do not change - and a catastrophic one where they do. Since I too believe the church is protected from catastrophic error the best we can hope for is a bad outcome, which, as you say, will get worse with time as impossible expectations are raised and then dashed.

Ender

The only thing bad about current rules is that they don’t get enforced enough and that too many people get annulments who shouldn’t.

 

[irenaeus1]

There are only two possible outcomes here: a bad one - where the rules on communion do not change - and a catastrophic one where they do. Since I too believe the church is protected from catastrophic error the best we can hope for is a bad outcome, which, as you say, will get worse with time as impossible expectations are raised and then dashed.

Ender

Exactly! It seems we are destined to repeat the confusion that played out prior to the issuance of Humanae Vitae, where public opinion had largely been made up while it appeared that the Church was not up to the task and/or too confused to boldly proclaim the truth. By the time Humanae Vitae was issued, it was too late - the encyclical went largely rejected and neglected by the Catholic faithful, including by many bishops and priests, for the next 40 or 50 years.

Bishop Tobin mentioned that “Pope Francis is fond of ‘creating a mess.’ Mission accomplished.” Bishop Tobin appears to be correct in his assessment.

 

[otjm]

I was referring to the tiny amount of people who really get directly affected by this priest refusing them communion because they know their personal lives so well. Unless you live in country farm with 10 families or less I don’t see how this is possible.

The only people who know who has been denied Communion are the pastor and the couple, unless someone of that groups tells - and it isn’t going to be the pastor. Your post does not substantiate that is the group you were speaking about; and it is not the group which the synod is speaking about.

What do you want those 85 percent to get annulments? Then just say you want catholic divorce than. Why hide behind this nonsensical annulment semantic then. If the argument is that non perfect marriages aren’t really catholic than thats what divorce is for…

You seem to be approaching this matter emotionally rather than in a logical fashion, as you shotgun all over the place.

For starters, go back and read my post; you will find that I never said anything about wanting the 85% to obtain a decree of nullity. I am not sure what your image of justice is, but normally justice has a relationship to facts.

If, in fact, 25% of that 85% had invalid fist marriages, then in just ice and in truth that should be determined. If 70% - or whatever percent - of those 85
% of divorces were from invalid first marriages, then in justice and in truth that should be declared.

However, unless those people approach the tribunal, that won’t be done. And that issue - getting people reconciled to the Church - is what the synod is about. Christ came to save all (and yes, I know not all will be saved), but as that was Christ’s mission, it is therefore the mission of the Church - to do the work of Christ. Part of the work of the Church is to lead sinners to reconciliation, a point that does not come across in your posts.

 

[irenaeus1]

If, in fact, 25% of that 85% had invalid fist marriages, then in justice and in truth that should be determined. If 70% - or whatever percent - of those 85
% of divorces were from invalid first marriages, then in justice and in truth that should be declared.

However, unless those people approach the tribunal, that won’t be done. And that issue - getting people reconciled to the Church - is what the synod is about. Christ came to save all (and yes, I know not all will be saved), but as that was Christ’s mission, it is therefore the mission of the Church - to do the work of Christ. Part of the work of the Church is to lead sinners to reconciliation, a point that does not come across in your posts.

If a first marriage is declared invalid (declared null), then there isn’t a problem. They are free to marry. The problem is with those who won’t even seek a declaration of nullity (either because they know in their hearts that their first marriage was indeed valid; they don’t care because they really don’t attend church all that often; they don’t want to bother because the process seems to be too cumbersome, etc) or those whose first marriage is actually valid because they failed to obtain a declaration of nullity. I actually know of a woman whose ‘second’ husband’s first marriage was declared valid (so obviously, their irregular situation could not be regularized). So, they left the Church to attend a Protestant church. So I agree that we would need to evaluate the pastoral approach to people in situations such as this, but the ground is already there - namely, live as ‘brother and sister’ or abstain from the sacraments… not exactly rocket science. But certain proposals being offered to address this are what seem heretical to me.

 

[otjm]

I suppose my impatience is due to the fact that as long as the Church dawdles on this issue, the more confused the average Catholic in the pew is, especially with sound bites from the media. Second, of the many moral questions that the Church has addressed (e.g., religious liberty, slavery, in-vitro fertilization, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) divorce and re-marriage is among the absolute clearest of them all from the point of view of scripture (i.e., one does not need a doctorate in theology to figure this one out), and thus should require the least amount of ‘nuancing’. The issue of divorce and remarriage is mentioned in the New Testament no less than six times in clear and unambiguous language.

Having read the New Testament more than once or twice, or even three times, I am well aware of what the New Testament says about marriage; and I am further aware that the Church has fleshed out some of that, particularly in the issue and area of the validity of the first marriage.

As I noted, either in the post you reference or others, the synod is about the family, not about one selective issue concerning reception of Communion. The matter of how the Orthodox Church approaches those in irregular marriage is not an issue that has been thoroughly vetted by the Catholic Church, and it is now on the table. And no matter which way the Church decides, I am not going to be shocked.

I won’t be shocked for a simple reason; I trust the Church, and in the 1950’s I was taught (and still believe) that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and that the Church is protected from error in matters of faith and morals.

At the very bottom, that is the issue. I realize that many posters herein were “not even a twinkle in their father’s eyes” at the time I was learning my faith from the Baltimore Catechism, and that they did not have the Catechism later (as it was tossed out for being too “doctrinal” and not - what , pastoral? enough). So where am I going with this? A lot of the posters seem to be people who believe they are fairly knowledgeable concerning the Faith; but something as simple and as foundational as this seems to be missing. The amount of panic (one poster saying that if the Church made certain decisions, they would quit), and the amount of confusion is simply astounding.

I don’t know if there is a need for nuancing or not. It is clear that over time, the Church has seen fit to nuance matters that many Catholics saw as finally and thoroughly decided. Those making that decision were wrong, and the Church was right, to do so. The reason I brought that up was simply to say that there may be matters which you, and I , and the person in the pew think are finally and absolutely decided; and the Church just might surprise us. Should it do so, there will be those who will reject that, and declare the Church wrong and themselves right - another form of cafeteria Catholicism, but in the opposite direction of those who usually go that way.

And I strongly suspect that should the Church not go that direction, there will be “rejoicing and dancing” by some who will be so focused on a single issue, that they will miss what the Church is going to do. That, too, I would find sad. We need to spend less time trying to be “right”, and more time being Christ like.

 

[McCall1981]

Having read the New Testament more than once or twice, or even three times, I am well aware of what the New Testament says about marriage; and I am further aware that the Church has fleshed out some of that, particularly in the issue and area of the validity of the first marriage.

As I noted, either in the post you reference or others, the synod is about the family, not about one selective issue concerning reception of Communion. The matter of how the Orthodox Church approaches those in irregular marriage is not an issue that has been thoroughly vetted by the Catholic Church, and it is now on the table. And no matter which way the Church decides, I am not going to be shocked.

I won’t be shocked for a simple reason; I trust the Church, and in the 1950’s I was taught (and still believe) that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and that the Church is protected from error in matters of faith and morals.

**At the very bottom, that is the issue. I realize that many posters herein were “not even a twinkle in their father’s eyes” at the time I was learning my faith from the Baltimore Catechism, and that they did not have the Catechism later (as it was tossed out for being too “doctrinal” and not - what , pastoral? enough). So where am I going with this? A lot of the posters seem to be people who believe they are fairly knowledgeable concerning the Faith; but something as simple and as foundational as this seems to be missing. The amount of panic (one poster saying that if the Church made certain decisions, they would quit), and the amount of confusion is simply astounding.
**
I don’t know if there is a need for nuancing or not. It is clear that over time, the Church has seen fit to nuance matters that many Catholics saw as finally and thoroughly decided. Those making that decision were wrong, and the Church was right, to do so. The reason I brought that up was simply to say that there may be matters which you, and I , and the person in the pew think are finally and absolutely decided; and the Church just might surprise us. Should it do so, there will be those who will reject that, and declare the Church wrong and themselves right - another form of cafeteria Catholicism, but in the opposite direction of those who usually go that way.

And I strongly suspect that should the Church not go that direction, there will be “rejoicing and dancing” by some who will be so focused on a single issue, that they will miss what the Church is going to do. That, too, I would find sad. We need to spend less time trying to be “right”, and more time being Christ like.

Given the bolded above, what you think of what Card de Paolis said here:

"Furthermore, the innovations that would be introduced if the text of the proposition were approved would be of unprecedented gravity:

a) the possibility of admitting to Eucharistic communion with the explicit approval of the Church a person in a state of mortal sin, with the danger of sacrilege and profanation of the Eucharist;

b) doing this would bring into question the general principle of the need for the state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Eucharistic communion, especially now that a generalized practice has been introduced or is being introduced into the Church of receiving the Eucharist without previous sacramental confession, even if one is aware of being in grave sin, with all of the deleterious consequences that this practice involves;

c) the admission to Eucharistic communion of a believer who cohabits “more uxorio” would also mean bringing into question sexual morality, particularly founded on the sixth commandment;

d) this would also lend support to cohabitation or other bonds, weakening the principle of the indissolubility of marriage."

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350935?eng=y

Edit: and taking into account your post below, do you think Card de Paolis is “grown up”?

 

[otjm]

There are only two possible outcomes here: a bad one - where the rules on communion do not change - and a catastrophic one where they do. Since I too believe the church is protected from catastrophic error the best we can hope for is a bad outcome, which, as you say, will get worse with time as impossible expectations are raised and then dashed.

Ender

Since I assume that the Church seeks truth, and Truth, neither outcome could be bad or catastrophic.

There will be people who have presumed certain answers, and when they don’t get those answers, they will be “hurt”. And so for them, it may be seen as “bad” or Catastrophic", but such is life - including massive heart attacks, cancer, abject poverty, giving birth to a Down syndrome child, - the list goes on and on.

Christ could have soft-pedaled His explanation of the Eucharist, but instead He put it in fairly straight forward terms, and if one follows the Greek in John 6, Christ was very graphic in His language, finally using a word for “eat” that doesn’t translate so well - it is more akin to how we would describe an animal chewing on a bone.

And John notes that many turned away and no longer walked with Him. In fact, he turned to the Apostles and asked if they were going to leave too - which should tell us something of how strong the reaction was to His words. I guess one could say that this scene was somewhere between “bad” and “catastrophic”, but it didn’t stop him. And neither should this conversation the synod is having be avoided.

People have all sorts of expectations; and having those dashed is part of growing up.

And some people never grow up.

 

[irenaeus1]

Having read the New Testament more than once or twice, or even three times, I am well aware of what the New Testament says about marriage; and I am further aware that the Church has fleshed out some of that, particularly in the issue and area of the validity of the first marriage.

… there may be matters which you, and I , and the person in the pew think are finally and absolutely decided; and the Church just might surprise us.

If the Church surprises us, then there’s a problem. What’s more is what appears to be heretical proposals to pastorally address these issues - that is what is actually surprising.

The Church may be protected from officially teaching error, but she is not protected from being imprudent and sloppy in how she propagates true teaching. Again, I refer to Humanae Vitae. Or look at other instances in Church history where many bishops were teaching heresy. The fact that the Church as a whole never officially taught error does not preclude the fact that many, many folks were confused and believed error simply because it was proposed and taught by their bishop.

 

[otjm]

If a first marriage is declared invalid (declared null), then there isn’t a problem. They are free to marry. The problem is with those who won’t even seek a declaration of nullity (either because they know in their hearts that their first marriage was indeed valid; they don’t care because they really don’t attend church all that often; they don’t want to bother because the process seems to be too cumbersome, etc) or those whose first marriage is actually valid because they failed to obtain a declaration of nullity. I actually know of a woman whose ‘second’ husband’s first marriage was declared valid (so obviously, their irregular situation could not be regularized). So, they left the Church to attend a Protestant church. So I agree that we would need to evaluate the pastoral approach to people in situations such as this, but the ground is already there - namely, live as ‘brother and sister’ or abstain from the sacraments… not exactly rocket science. But certain proposals being offered to address this are what seem heretical to me.

Most people don’t have enough knowledge of Canon law to “know” whether or not their first marriage was valid or invalid; all too many say that if a priest was there as witness, no one was drunk, and they both said “I do”, that it was valid.

And the issue is further complicated with extremely strong emotions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the technical factual answer.

I have had people tell me classic details supporting a decision of invalidity, and then go into nuclear meltdown when they are urged to go to a tribunal - they simply cannot process that for X number of years they were not validly married. Whether that is looking at that time as “being shacked up”, or the question of legitimacy of their children (“My son will never be able to handle that!”) or something related, it normally revolves around a very simple (and effectively simplistic) understanding of the sacrament of marriage, and they just can’t deal with it, or won’t.

There are other areas where people feel that what the Church has said was heretical; a prime example is “outside the Church there is no salvation”, and no matter how many times the issue is addressed, they persist that heresy has occurred. They cannot seem to come to the point of saying - “well, I don’t understand it, so the problem must be on my end, as the Church is protected from error.”

 

[pnewton]

The … and that too many people get annulments who shouldn’t.

How could you know this? The Church has the authority to bind and loose. This is like saying too much mercy is being shown.

 

[irenaeus1]

Most people don’t have enough knowledge of Canon law to “know” whether or not their first marriage was valid or invalid; all too many say that if a priest was there as witness, no one was drunk, and they both said “I do”, that it was valid.

No, but it should be presumed valid until proven otherwise. And certainly, the validity of a marriage should not be at such a high standard so as to take that most marriages are deem invalid. I’m sure if I looked hard enough at my own marriage, some defect in my relationship to my then-fiancee, faith life, understanding of what marriage actually is, etc. could be found, and some tribunal somewhere would declare my marriage invalid. And that’s the risk we run if we go around proposing that everyone’s understanding of marriage is so deficient that it is nearly impossible for anyone to be married validly.

 

[pnewton]

Most people don’t have enough knowledge of Canon law to “know” whether or not their first marriage was valid or invalid; all too many say that if a priest was there as witness, no one was drunk, and they both said “I do”, that it was valid.

I do not know if I agree with this, at least in many case. There are times when one can pretty much know cut and dry if a marriage was invalid, especially in this day and age of pre-nuptial agreements, birth control and open marriage.

 

[otjm]

Given the bolded above, what you think of what Card de Paolis said here:

"Furthermore, the innovations that would be introduced if the text of the proposition were approved would be of unprecedented gravity:

a) the possibility of admitting to Eucharistic communion with the explicit approval of the Church a person in a state of mortal sin, with the danger of sacrilege and profanation of the Eucharist;

b) doing this would bring into question the general principle of the need for the state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Eucharistic communion, especially now that a generalized practice has been introduced or is being introduced into the Church of receiving the Eucharist without previous sacramental confession, even if one is aware of being in grave sin, with all of the deleterious consequences that this practice involves;

c) the admission to Eucharistic communion of a believer who cohabits “more uxorio” would also mean bringing into question sexual morality, particularly founded on the sixth commandment;

d) this would also lend support to cohabitation or other bonds, weakening the principle of the indissolubility of marriage."

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350935?eng=y

Edit: and taking into account your post below, do you think Card de Paolis is “grown up”?

I have no intent to critique Cardinal de Paolis for several reasons. For starters, it is my humble opinion that anyone who did not participate in the discussions he refers to is extremely likely to be taking both comments elsewhere about the discussion, and his response, out of context. There is no way that I can determine how he would respond, again going back to the Orthodox approach, should the Church decide that it either adopts in part, in whole, or comes up with something somewhat similar, in terms of Communion. Furthermore, how he would respond is not the issue. The issue is what the Church may eventually decide.

Maybe I have not made myself clear; I have no problem with the Church determining that the rules which we have had in place will remain in place. I havce no clue as to what they may decide or not decide; only that I am sitting on the sidelines watching. And when the Church finally determines how they will deal with this subset of the questions, as well as the rest of them, I will accept it. I may, or may not understand it, but it is not going to be a challenge to my faith.

Let me try a different way of saying it - I was taught a goodly bit about my faith before Vatican 2; and I was taught pretty much that Protestants were heretics, rejected the Truth, and were seriously in danger of condemnation (hell, to be specific). So the change of “us against them” that was widely accepted before Vatican 2 changed to “us, with them - hopefully” was a sea change. Not a minor item, but a really major one. It took me a while to understand, but I listened to what the Church said, not what some self-anointed expert said. And I understood it, after a while. It wasn’t heresy, the Church did not commit error, I didn’t lose my faith (as some I knew did) and I didn’t leave the Church (as they did).

And some of those self-anointed experts had the office of bishop. I have been through that, know where I am, and my faith is still intact.

Part of what I am trying to say is that people who take sides do so most often without sufficient training. They may pick the side which prevails, or they may not. But in general, they do not know as much as they profess to know. I am more than willing to say I don’t know enough to determine the outcome, and I will sit and watch, and learn.

I will say it again: in John 6, a large number of people were scandalized by what Christ said; and He didn’t back off, or try to say it a different way, or beg them to come back. Should the Church determine that the current rules are not to be modified, some will be scandalized; should it determine that an exception or process be carved out which doesn’t currently exist, others will be scandalized. I choose to sit and wait, to keep an open mind and learn from the Church.

And I might note that his b) could possibly be dealt with through the Orthodox process or something similar; but that is absolutely not any sort of guarantee that such will see the light of day. So even within his comment, he may be 100% right, but addressing something slightly different.

 

[irenaeus1]

Most people don’t have enough knowledge of Canon law to “know” whether or not their first marriage was valid or invalid; all too many say that if a priest was there as witness, no one was drunk, and they both said “I do”, that it was valid.

One does not need to be, in effect, a Canon lawyer to get married.

 

[irenaeus1]

I will say it again: in John 6, a large number of people were scandalized by what Christ said; and He didn’t back off, or try to say it a different way, or beg them to come back.

Bad example, considering that is not what some are proposing in this instance… rather, what is being proposed is that we soften the teaching so that some won’t be scandalized. Let’s back off the ‘hard saying’, and beg them to come back.