I don’t particularly care whether you consider the “brother and sister” exemption to be a nuance. The fact of the matter is that the “brother and sister” exemption precludes an adulterous situation; waiving that ‘exemption’ and allowing Communion to those now tolerated to be in an adulterous relationship is not a nuance, but a moral 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.
Aside from the fact that you have just called the priest or other individual who helped couples to prepare for the hearing, the defender of the bond, the three judges and the advocate either to be fools or liars, your comment shows a serious lack of knowledge of the process.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.
[/QUOTE]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.
Interesting that the couple who agrees to live as bother and sister are admitted to Communion but no public announcement is made from the pulpit, or as they approach in the 'Communion line, or in the bulletin, or in the local Catholic newspaper… Which gives lie to the charge bandied all over about the “public scandal”.If the standard is so low, then perhaps you can explain why out of all the people who start the process, more people have failed to obtain a decree of nullity than those who have received a decree.
The same can be said for those who are divorced, receive a decree of nullity, then marry and receive Communion. No one, including them, is/are required to report to anyone of the sequence; but often is it known that one or both of the parties in a marriage were in a previous marriage that ended in divorce.
The bolded is a common theme that I have seen numerous times here on CAF, which suggests that the communion proposal is (or could be) essentially “innocent” in nature. That is, that the things being considered are actually things that no one would really have a problem with, if we only knew more about it.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.
Well, the Church does not use that word, for starters; they call it an irregular marriage.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.
I did no such thing… I was referring to one or both parties seeking the declaration of nullity. I was not referring to the tribunal, priests, advocates, etc. Look now who’s being accusative.Aside from the fact that you have just called the priest or other individual who helped couples to prepare for the hearing, the defender of the bond, the three judges and the advocate either to be fools or liars, your comment shows a serious lack of knowledge of the process.
Then call them adulterer and adulteress. That’s what Jesus called them. “Concubine” seems less offensive though.Well, the Church does not use that word, for starters; they call it an irregular marriage.
The use of the word “concubine”, aside from being a putdown of women (since men are not referred to as concubines) is an emotionally laden word, and you know it, I know it, and so likely does anyone else reading this thread.
“Public scandal” is somewhat relative, wouldn’t you say? In other words not everyone knows, except perhaps in a small community, what everybody’s situation is. So to make an announcement from the pulpit would unnecessarily draw attention to something that does not necessarily need to be shouted from the roof tops. For example, I also know of couples who obediently abstain from receiving the Eucharist, although they are actively involved in certain parish ministries, like St. Vincent de Paul. No need to announce from the pulpit that, while it is her first marriage, it is not her husband’s first. But I only know this because she mentioned it to me years ago during a retreat. Those who don’t know don’t necessarily need to know. But those who do know that her husband was divorced and re-married (to her) would not be scandalized since they abstain from receiving the Eucharist. Also, if a couple is living as “brother and sister”, but fail at some point, would that not be the same thing as any other ‘private’ sin. In other words, I don’t know when someone has sinned privately, but has since been to the sacrament of confession.Interesting that the couple who agrees to live as bother and sister are admitted to Communion but no public announcement is made from the pulpit, or as they approach in the 'Communion line, or in the bulletin, or in the local Catholic newspaper… Which gives lie to the charge bandied all over about the “public scandal”.
The same can be said for those who are divorced, receive a decree of nullity, then marry and receive Communion. No one, including them, is/are required to report to anyone of the sequence; but often is it known that one or both of the parties in a marriage were in a previous marriage that ended in divorce.
I went back and re-read your post, and I read it too fast; others have made the accusation that people applying for a decree lie and that is why so many receive the decree.I did no such thing… I was referring to one or both parties seeking the declaration of nullity. I was not referring to the tribunal, priests, advocates, etc. Look now who’s being accusative.
So, pray tell, why are you so sure multitudes lie? Have you been through the process? Have you been a witness in one or more petitions? Have you spoken with tribunal members?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.
Good post; and his conclusion is close to mine.Here is an interesting article on the Orthodox practice, and it’s relationship to the Synod:
The “Orthodox Practice”: A solution to divorce, remarriage and Communion?
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1258
I am going to guess that either you are someone post Vatican 2. You missed what was an extremely interesting, and major, change in the Church. It was not a change in doctrine; rather it was a change in how the Church viewed itself, and how it related both to itself and to the world.As much as I would love for it to be the case that the proposal being discussed is entirely “innocent” in this way (because it would mean we don’t have anything to worry about), I don’t see how that can possibly be the case.
The reason being that while it is entirely possible that we ordinary Catholics may have misunderstood what’s being discussed, I don’t think it’s possible for so many Cardinals, Bishops, theologians etc to have misunderstood. In other words, for the proposal to be “innocent”, its not just us here that have to have radically misunderstood, it would also mean that numerous Cardinals and Bishops that actually attended the Synod have also radically misunderstood. And that just doesn’t seem possible.
I was getting close to the limit, so this is in addition to my last post.The reason being that while it is entirely possible that we ordinary Catholics may have misunderstood what’s being discussed, I don’t think it’s possible for so many Cardinals, Bishops, theologians etc to have misunderstood. In other words, for the proposal to be “innocent”, its not just us here that have to have radically misunderstood, it would also mean that numerous Cardinals and Bishops that actually attended the Synod have also radically misunderstood. And that just doesn’t seem possible.
Given the secular world today, a whole lot of people would not be scandalized.“Public scandal” is somewhat relative, wouldn’t you say? In other words not everyone knows, except perhaps in a small community, what everybody’s situation is. So to make an announcement from the pulpit would unnecessarily draw attention to something that does not necessarily need to be shouted from the roof tops. For example, I also know of couples who obediently abstain from receiving the Eucharist, although they are actively involved in certain parish ministries, like St. Vincent de Paul. No need to announce from the pulpit that, while it is her first marriage, it is not her husband’s first. But I only know this because she mentioned it to me years ago during a retreat. Those who don’t know don’t necessarily need to know. But those who do know that her husband was divorced and re-married (to her) would not be scandalized since they abstain from receiving the Eucharist. Also, if a couple is living as “brother and sister”, but fail at some point, would that not be the same thing as any other ‘private’ sin. In other words, I don’t know when someone has sinned privately, but has since been to the sacrament of confession.
I also know of a man who was cheating on his wife and processed up the aisle during Mass to receive Communion. Well, it wasn’t a public sin, so the Church cannot do anything about it. The onus is upon the communicant to abstain. However, it may be my responsibility to somehow, charitably admonish him of his error and pray for his repentance. If his adultery was public knowledge and he was receiving the Eucharist, do you believe that this would constitute “public scandal”, or merely a bandied around term?
Perhaps but Christ was more concerned about the children, it seems.Given the secular world today, a whole lot of people would not be scandalized.
Luke 17:2
Utilius est illi si lapis molaris imponatur circa collum ejus, et projiciatur in mare quam ut scandalizet unum de pusillis istis.
It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones. (DR)
Christ did not put faith “first” to the detriment of Truth, or to the detriment of doctrine (Or to the detriment of anything else for that matter, as He certainly didn’t need to trade off one value at the expense of another). If His understanding of faith had required that Truth had to be relegated to “second place”, or compromised in some way, it would mean that His understanding of faith was flawed (which of course it wasn’t).I am going to guess that either you are someone post Vatican 2. You missed what was an extremely interesting, and major, change in the Church. It was not a change in doctrine; rather it was a change in how the Church viewed itself, and how it related both to itself and to the world.
It has been said that Pius 12th was the last, and perhaps the “best” of the bureaucratic popes, and not only that John Paul 2 effectively broke that mold,but that it may stay “broken” for some time into the future. That is no reflection on Pius 12th (who was my first Pope). Wht happened at Vatican 2 was that John 23rd, who was seen largely as a “place keeper” and not expected to do too much, caused a major upset in the upper circles of the Church. Through the 19th century and about half of the 20th, the Church was in a defensive mode; the continual increase in Protestantism led to an “us against them” mentality and an excessive emphasis on doctrine as opposed to a pastoral approach. World events added to that defensiveness, as changes continued to rock the world, and in particular Europe both in terms of politics and the increase in secularization. Some of that culminated in the loss of the Papal States and two world wars only a few decades apart.
As I said, there was a very strong attempt to derail Vatican 2 by hat have been referred to as the Conservatives (I intensely dislike labels, but these are not mine). In spite of attempts to derail the Council, it went forward, and the next attempt was to control the council through the first round of documents, produced by the conservatives. That was defeated, and from that point the progressives At this point it should be made clear that one should not assume that there are two camps; it is more complex than that. Two of the better known progressives subsequently were made Popes.
Interestingly, one of those progressives returned to his country, and lead that country into a successful implementation of the documents of Vatican 2, without all of the baggage provided by those who subsequently, in the name of “spirit of Vatican 2” went where the documents did not lead. It may have helped that that country was under Communist rule and the people did not have the luxury of the laissez faire approach to life and to faith, and were not infected with the secularism of Europe and the US.
In any event, since Vatican 2, the Church has taken a new direction, and that is decidedly not to go back to a defensive posture towards its own members or to the world - whether that be the Protestant part, the secular part, or other parts. That does not sit well, 50 years later, with those who consider themselves strongly conservative. The difficulty in any conversation is that we end up with labels, and too often the labels themselves are false. We have lost the ability to understand that there ar not two groups - liberals and conservatives; rather there are three; liberals at one end, conservatives at the other, and moderates in the middle; and within all of those groups, there are variations.
With that said, it is not the least hard to understand that there will be bishops and Cardinals who focus on doctrine, and within that group some of whom will be doctrinaire; or so totally focused on the rule that they see no mercy, no pastoral approach that even hints of not applying doctrine first and foremost.
The reverse is also true; there will be those who do not deny doctrine, so much as that they are so focused on mercy and a pastoral approach that doctrine is lost sight of.
But the bottom line is that it is not either/or. One can be guided by doctrine, but still very focused on how one pastors people.
And if we want to speak of the Gospels, I would say that people don’t have much of any understanding of who the Samaritans were, or how bitterly and fiercely divide were the Jews and the Samaritans. Christ was constantly working with and healing Samaritans; and that is akin to constantly working with blazing heretics. The point I am trying to make is that Christ did not put doctrine first; he put faith first. And we all need to struggle with that lesson.
Well, yes and no. To adopt the Orthodox way is to repudiate the Roman way. It is to do precisely what the Roman Catholic church has always taught cannot be done. The issue may well be discussed, but at the end of the day the problem is the same, and claiming we should do it because Johnny does it is not much of an argument.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.
I see this from the exact opposite position. The issue has been addressed repeatedly and consistently throughout the history of the church; how anyone can believe it is open to change now is incomprehensible.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.
Have you looked at this article McCall1981 posted yesterday?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.
ignatius.com/promotions/remaining_in_the_truth/remaining_in_truth_preview.pdfIn the fourth chapter of this volume, Archbishop Cyril Vasil’, S.J., offers a rare up-to-date account of the history, theology, and law behind this practice. He locates the fundamental difference between Eastern Orthodox and Catholic positions on divorce and remarriage in a divergence over their understandings of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Historically, Orthodox authorities interpreted porneiaas adultery and read these passages as providing an exception to Christ’s prohibition of divorce. Catholic interpretations, on the other hand, held that Christ intended the marriage bond to remain intact even if, on account of adultery, the couple should separate.
Yes, I did, and thank you for noting it. I responded in post # 71.Have you looked at this article McCall1981 posted yesterday?
The “Orthodox Practice”: A solution to divorce, remarriage and Communion?
I think, for starters, that you did not understand my post which you quoted. Go read it again, as I was responding to your prior post.e.The doctrine of the Church is an expression of Truth, so if a person’s understanding of mercy allows them to violate doctrine, it means by definition that their understanding must be flawed.
The Church’s doctrine, by its very nature, already is an expression of mercy, and it is not something we need to protect people from.
I mean, does it make sense to say: “we have this doctrine which has been given to us by our all merciful God, and yet in order to be merciful to people, we might need to modify it”?
Don’t you think our all merciful God has already built mercy into the doctrine He gave us?That the doctrine itself already is an expression of mercy? Or did our all merciful God give us doctrine that is unnecessarily harsh? If people need mercy to protect them from the Church’s doctrine, what does that say about the doctrine?