Vatican releases preparatory document ahead of 2015 synod

[McCall1981]

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.

He is referring to the paragraph on communion in the Synod’s final document, something we all have access to, so there is no issue of context or incomplete information (his full essay is also available at the link I provided).

He says that enacting the proposal that is presented in the document would be of “unprecedented gravity”. He (to say nothing of the other Cardinals etc that have expressed the same concerns) seems to be doing exactly what you are telling us here not to do; that is, pick a side, have expectations, express the gravity of the situation, assert that doctrine would be changed, etc.

This is a Cardinal saying this. He is educated, experienced, a theologian, older, closely connected to these events, basically he has all of the qualifications you are saying we here on CAF lack. Yet, he is expressing the same things we are, and for the same reasons (and so are many others).

 

[Caldera599]

Still disheartened that some seem to still think the Church will go the way of the Episcopalians and apostacize. Have we forgotten Matthew 16:18?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

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.

First, God bless you for arguing this point. I think that there are lots of Catholics who have never been in this situation arguing abstracts, which it is really easy to do if it isn’t them. I hope that they never are but some compassion is in order.

I wonder how much of the 8% who either get frustrated or their annulment was rejected end up becoming lapsed Catholics. I imagine most do. I also wonder what percent of divorced Catholics end up leaving because they think that annulments are only for rich people. I think that it is easy for those who are in loving marriages to lecture people to “suck it up” on this. I certainly hope that they never have to. There are real downfalls to the system that need to be discussed. The Orthodox and Catholics have ways of integrating people who have failed marriages back into the community; perhaps the Orthodox way is better.

 

[McCall1981]

Still disheartened that some seem to still think the Church will go the way of the Episcopalians and apostacize. Have we forgotten Matthew 16:18?

I think this is a fair point, and I can only speak for myself here.

As a Catholic I’ve always known the ideas that “the Holy Spirit protects the Church”, and “the gates of Hell will not prevail”, etc. I used to have an idea in my head about what I thought those meant, and I truly believed it. However, it was proven to me that my conception was wrong. So now I have a hard time saying “the Holy Spirit protects the Church and thus X, Y, Z can’t happen”, because I know I’ve been wrong on that subject before. It makes me very hesitant to put any expectations on those teachings.

 

[irenaeus1]

I also wonder what percent of divorced Catholics end up leaving because they think that annulments are only for rich people. I think that it is easy for those who are in loving marriages to lecture people to “suck it up” on this. I certainly hope that they never have to. There are real downfalls to the system that need to be discussed. The Orthodox and Catholics have ways of integrating people who have failed marriages back into the community; perhaps the Orthodox way is better.

It doesn’t have to do with whether it is easy to say or not. I personally know people who are in this situation, and it saddens me. Jesus said divorce and remarriage is adultery, which would not have been any more popular then than now. Paul said that the marriage bond is not broken except by death, and that one is not to divorce their spouse. And if they separate from their spouse, they are either to be reconciled or remain single. Again, not any more popular then than now. So the complaint on the “suck it up” lecture, well, you can thank Jesus and Paul for that.

 

[Caldera599]

I think this is a fair point, and I can only speak for myself here.

As a Catholic I’ve always known the ideas that “the Holy Spirit protects the Church”, and “the gates of Hell will not prevail”, etc. I used to have an idea in my head about what I thought those meant, and I truly believed it. However, it was proven to me that my conception was wrong. So now I have a hard time saying “the Holy Spirit protects the Church and thus X, Y, Z can’t happen”, because I know I’ve been wrong on that subject before. It makes me very hesitant to put any expectations on those teachings.

Then you’ve just spoke heresy, because you denied that the Church is infallible.

 

[otjm]

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.

You may refer to Humanae Vitae, but I don’t think the Church was at fault; I think that those in the second group advising Paul 6 who wanted the Church to approve the Pill were at fault. And they “grabbed the microphone”, and the rest is history.

As to a bishop teaching error - any reading of the last 2,000 years of history will show that has happened repeatedly.

You see the proposal as heresy; I am not sure that the Church would declare it to be heretical; but the Church currently rejects the proposal.

As AI have noted, the Church currently is taking up a question which specifically has not been vetted. It is entirely possible that the Church will vet the question, and come up with the same answer in a few months or a year that it has now - that is, it may well reject any sort of Orthodox formula.

Or it may come up with a different answer. And if it does, there will be people who have problems with it. But the fact that people have problems with it does not mean that it is wrong; ;we have a group currently which still says that at l=east some of the documents of
"Vatican 2 are wrong, and they will not sit down and work out the issue.

Others may say that the answer is imprudent and sloppy - which is simply a veiled way of saying the Church is wrong. And I have repeated myself enough that you can understand how I answer that.

 

[otjm]

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.

If we have suffered a profound lack of catechesis on the parish level for the last 45 years, give or take a few, and if what I hear is correct, that people don’t even know what transubstantiation is, then why am I supposed to believe, all of a sudden that miracle of miracles, they suddenly figured out on their wedding day what marriage was and perfectly understood all of the issues, including but not limited to permanency? Pardon me for being a bit credulous of that claim.

And if they were as poorly catechized as everyone says, and they really did not accept openness to children (what do they call it - ABC?), permanency unto death of one of them, and they really believed that divorce was an answer - or perhaps even a great likelihood, then why am I to believe you that most marriages are valid? Somewhere between 80% and 90% of married Catholics practice artificial birth control. Not all of them are anti children, and the use of ABC is not proof that they are not open to children, at lest in general. but it certainly should appear to be evidence that there is an indication that is not a mere slight possibility.

I have never said and never will say that I think all marriages which have ended in divorce were initially invalid. But I certainly think the proportion is much higher than most people would admit to.

 

[otjm]

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

Nor did I say they needed to be.

The point I was responding to was the “feeling” that some people have as to the validity of their marriage. That “feeling” is all too often included by a) a gross lack of knowledge as to the matters the Church holds are grounds of invalidity (and if they don’t know those, they cannot test their feeling against such knowledge); b) an emotional mind block as to the possibility that their marriage is invalid - they can’t face what they see as the repercussions, including the widely held “knowledge” that their children would all be illegitimate and c) issue out of the divorce, including but not limited to feelings of abandonment, fear of failure; fear of the economic consequences to single parenthood, social stigma of a divorce, and then the Catholic social stigma of an invalid marriage, and a host of other issues which are not reality based, but emotionally based.

 

[McCall1981]

Then you’ve just spoke heresy, because you denied that the Church is infallible.

I’m not denying that the Church is infallible, or that the Holy Spirit protects the Church. I believe those things. I just wouldn’t have specific, detailed expectations of exactly what those things mean.

 

[Caldera599]

I’m not denying that the Church is infallible, or that the Holy Spirit protects the Church. I believe those things. I just wouldn’t have specific, detailed expectations of exactly what those things mean.

In that case please forgive my rashness.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

It doesn’t have to do with whether it is easy to say or not. I personally know people who are in this situation, and it saddens me. Jesus said divorce and remarriage is adultery, which would not have been any more popular then than now. Paul said that the marriage bond is not broken except by death, and that one is not to divorce their spouse. And if they separate from their spouse, they are either to be reconciled or remain single. Again, not any more popular then than now. So the complaint on the “suck it up” lecture, well, you can thank Jesus and Paul for that.

It utterly confuses me that people think just because the local annulment tribunal says that a marriage is invalid that God would agree and just because the annulment isn’t granted that God thinks that the person is a “concubine” and some of the other words being bandied about by people. Jesus said divorce is a sin; he also talked lots and lots and lots about giving to the poor. The question is why Jane Catholic’s sin of remarrying is treated as worse by the Catholic Church than Ebenezer Scrooge’s sins.

There is a system now for annulments that is very, very imperfect and that varies drastically from dioceses to dioceses and causes lots of people to fall through the cracks. It is also easier for someone who is unworthy of the annulment to get one than a person who might have been an innocent victim or made one youthful mistake. Do you really think a system that allows Gingrich to get two marriages annulled to marry a third trophy wife while making it difficult for a man or woman whose spouse left them after twenty years to remarry is a fair or merciful system? It isn’t a bad idea to explore other options. (BTW, most categories for ecclesiastical divorce would be considered as categories for annulments as well. The benefits are that it is less legalistic and easier for non canon lawyers to understand, includes quite a bit of hands on pastoral care, puts the emphasis on the actual sin, the divorce, and helps out that the people who fall through the cracks in the Catholic system now.)

 

[Ender]

As I have noted, the Church currently is taking up a question which specifically has not been vetted.

We need to be very clear about this point: what question is it you think the church has not fully examined? The question of annulments is not the issue. It may be a problem because of how it has been implemented, but there is no theological concern involving the practice.

“The question” as I see it is this: are there any circumstances that would allow someone who divorced from a valid marriage and remarried to receive communion? If you accept this as a fair description of “the question” then I disagree with your assertion that it has not been vetted. It would be hard to find a question that has been more completely answered.

Ender

 

[irenaeus1]

You may refer to Humanae Vitae, but I don’t think the Church was at fault; I think that those in the second group advising Paul 6 who wanted the Church to approve the Pill were at fault. And they “grabbed the microphone”, and the rest is history.

EXACTLY, otjm! I think that those in the second group advising Francis who want the Church to approve Communion for the divorced and remarried are at fault. And they have “grabbed the microphone”, and we are doomed to repeat history.

 

[irenaeus1]

It utterly confuses me that people think just because the local annulment tribunal says that a marriage is invalid that God would agree and just because the annulment isn’t granted that God thinks that the person is a “concubine” and some of the other words being bandied about by people. Jesus said divorce is a sin; he also talked lots and lots and lots about giving to the poor. The question is why Jane Catholic’s sin of remarrying is treated as worse by the Catholic Church than Ebenezer Scrooge’s sins.

No one ever claimed that the annulment process was infallible. I’m sure multitudes of people have lied or exaggerated certain situations in order to present a more dire condition in the hopes of making a case that their marriage is invalid when it may have been perfectly valid. Those people will have to answer to God for that. But I doubt very seriously that it is just as frequent that an invalid marriage is actually ‘declared’ to be valid since the standard seems to be set quite low for what is deemed an impediment.

With regard to Jane Catholic’s sin being considered more egregious than Ebenezer Scrooge’s is not the issue. It’s not whether one’s sin is ‘worse’ than the other as much as whether it is ‘manifest’ or ‘public.’ Unless one knows what a ‘scrooge’ is doing with his personal finances, how do you know whether such a one is actually taking care of the poor? However, a person who is divorced and remarried is presenting a ‘public’ scandal. Huge difference since Holy Communion is not merely a personal issue between a person and their God, but rather a very ‘public’ profession of communion with Christ and the Church.

 

[SWolf]

It utterly confuses me that people think just because the local annulment tribunal says that a marriage is invalid that God would agree and just because the annulment isn’t granted that God thinks that the person is a “concubine” and some of the other words being bandied about by people. Jesus said divorce is a sin; he also talked lots and lots and lots about giving to the poor. The question is why Jane Catholic’s sin of remarrying is treated as worse by the Catholic Church than Ebenezer Scrooge’s sins.

For being a miser you can easily go to confession, be remorseful, and promise not to sin anymore. For a remarriage you have to go to confession and say you will not have relations with a person whom the Church sees as not your husband or wife.

Both adultery and oppressing the poor are sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, so neither should take communion. The difference is the divorced living with somebody else stating they are his or her spouse is a very public display of a sinful state, hence why the Church has the discipline. It’s harder, and much more invasive, to say whether someone is being excessively stingy.

If concubine is such a bad word, what one would you use? It’s not possible to have two wives, and the Church does not recognize remarriage while the spouse is still living.

There is a system now for annulments that is very, very imperfect and that varies drastically from dioceses to dioceses and causes lots of people to fall through the cracks. It is also easier for someone who is unworthy of the annulment to get one than a person who might have been an innocent victim or made one youthful mistake. Do you really think a system that allows Gingrich to get two marriages annulled to marry a third trophy wife while making it difficult for a man or woman whose spouse left them after twenty years to remarry is a fair or merciful system? It isn’t a bad idea to explore other options. (BTW, most categories for ecclesiastical divorce would be considered as categories for annulments as well. The benefits are that it is less legalistic and easier for non canon lawyers to understand, includes quite a bit of hands on pastoral care, puts the emphasis on the actual sin, the divorce, and helps out that the people who fall through the cracks in the Catholic system now.)

Every human system is imperfect.

I know a two women who got two annulments each. They were justified too. Two were for secular marriages and two were for the mental instability of the spouse at the time of the marriage. Note both these women were very poor, and the Church helped with most of the costs for the annulments. It’s long, sure, it’s painful, sure, but it gets the job done. And it SHOULD be hard to get an annulment for a marriage with no obvious defects from the start. I think it can be streamlined for more slam-dunk cases though.

If I remember right with Gingrich: The first wife died, and the second wife was already married before, so the annulment was a slam dunk. Also, he was not married in the Church for any of his marriages. Was he a dirtbag to the women? Sure. I’m assuming he went to confession and promised to sin no more.

 

[McCall1981]

In that case please forgive my rashness.

I was pretty unclear in my first post, sorry.

A better way to say it would be that I believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church as a general principle, but for instance I wouldn’t go so far as to say "the Holy Spirit protects the Church, and thus we know the Church will not give communion to the remarried."

I would say it might be true that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to give communion to the remarried, I just don’t know.

 

[otjm]

We need to be very clear about this point: what question is it you think the church has not fully examined? The question of annulments is not the issue. It may be a problem because of how it has been implemented, but there is no theological concern involving the practice.

“The question” as I see it is this: are there any circumstances that would allow someone who divorced from a valid marriage and remarried to receive communion? If you accept this as a fair description of “the question” then I disagree with your assertion that it has not been vetted. It would be hard to find a question that has been more completely answered.

Ender

On the contrary, the issue of how the Orthodox treat individual cases is still on the table. I have no idea how that will be decided, but that specific issue has not been vetted.

And I have no idea how it might be worked out; currently if the couple promise to live as bother and sister they can be admitted to Communion; but little or nothing is said as to what happens if they fail in their promise - and is that a one time occurrence? Is it similar to someone who has such a habitual problem with masturbation that the Church considers that to be a venial sin as opposed to a mortal one? How would this be handled (hint - currently I have seen nothing treating the issue).

For all the people who think things are so cut and dried, I would submit they are a bit more complex than people are aware of.

I don’t have an answer, but unlike everyone who wants to chew this issue up with the conclusion that there is only one answer, I am willing to sit and watch.

 

[otjm]

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.

You missed the whole point of what I was saying about scandal. That comment has been bandied about with a certain degree of abandon, indicating that if the Church did anything other than reiterate the current rule, that “faithful Catholics” would be scandalized.

So that you don’t belabor the issue: Christ deeply scandalized some who had been following, to the point that they left and did not come back. He did so by speaking the truth.

Given the premise that the Church is protected for error in matters of faith and morals, if they decide that the current rule should be nuanced further, there will be “faithful Catholics” scandalized.

And they will be scandalized by truth, which they perceive as error - just as the disciples who left Christ were scandalized by truth, which they perceived as error.

And to avoid you coming back about the rule not currently being nuanced - I consider the “brother and sister” exemption to be a nuance, and don’t particularly care if you don’t agree. That is my definition, and fits within what I am saying, so it is not for you to define differently.

 

[otjm]

He is referring to the paragraph on communion in the Synod’s final document, something we all have access to, so there is no issue of context or incomplete information (his full essay is also available at the link I provided).

He says that enacting the proposal that is presented in the document would be of “unprecedented gravity”. He (to say nothing of the other Cardinals etc that have expressed the same concerns) seems to be doing exactly what you are telling us here not to do; that is, pick a side, have expectations, express the gravity of the situation, assert that doctrine would be changed, etc.

This is a Cardinal saying this. He is educated, experienced, a theologian, older, closely connected to these events, basically he has all of the qualifications you are saying we here on CAF lack. Yet, he is expressing the same things we are, and for the same reasons (and so are many others).

Well, Cardinal Ottaviani didn’t exactly fall off the rutabaga truck as it rolled through the town square, and he strongly and adamantly was opposed to the calling of the Council, lead the conservative element which wrote some of the first documents, which were roundly rejected and sent back for re-writing. I don’t consider him a heretic in the least, but he and those who aligned with him (including laity) saw things one way, and the Church saw it another way.

I will grant there are still people who think the Church was wrong and he was right, but I will boot back to the protection of the Holy Spirit - which moved the Church Fathers a different direction than the Cardinal so seriously wanted.

I am not comparing this Cardinal to Ottaviani. What I am doing is saying that pre Council, and during the Council, people picked the Cardinal who represented their view of matters. The current Cardinal may be on the side of the issue which is ultimately upheld, or he may be on the other side, and until the Pope makes a decision after the final synod report, we don’t know. And all the speculation is just that.

I don’t have a desired outcome, other than to pray that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church in better pastoral handling of a number of issues which affect families, and by that, the Church as a whole.

If the Church upholds this current Cardinal, that is fine by me; and if it doesn’t, that, too is fine by me; I trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Would that we could all do so, and lower the feelings of panic and borderline despair, the hand wringing and totally unnecessary damage to a lot of electrons.