Vatican releases preparatory document ahead of 2015 synod

[McCall1981]

Nowhere have I suggested that anyone deny doctrine or violate it. And while I agree with you that doctrine is an expression of mercy, I don’t agree with you about “any need to modify doctrine” for the simple reason that the Church may see that certain acts are not a modification of doctrine, but an accepted practice because of a fuller understanding of the doctrine, and that occurs when the Church comes to a more nuanced understanding of doctrine.
…
As to your comment about flawed understanding; the same can occur when it appears to someone that the doctrine is being violated; but it is not a violation of doctrine that is occurring; it is the understanding which is flawed. And if the Church determines that in some instance, in addition to the current possibility of Communion under the “brother and sister” exception, that some in irregular marriages, following whatever procedure the Church makes, may receive Communion, I will gladly accept that. And if the Church decides that such is not possible, I will gladly accept that also. I understand a point too many don’t get, and that is that acceptance and understanding are two entirely different matters. Too many put the latter before the former.
…
For the moment, let’s assume that something along the lines of the Orthodox option is accepted - how are you going to react to that?

I know youre not suggesting changing doctrine, sorry if I implied that. I know we both don’t want doctrine to change, the difference is you think the proposal could theoretically be enacted without changing, while I don’t think that is a possibility. So the discussion isn’t between those who want to change doctrine and those who don’t, its between those who believe the communion proposal doesn’t necessarily change doctrine and those who believe it does necessarily change doctrine.

I see your point about nuance vs change. The reason this particular issue concerns me is, again, that I see it not as a further nuance of the same doctrine, but as a reversal (or as Card Pell said, a “doctrinal backflip”).

I know many people are concerned, for instance, about the language that will emerge from the Synod on homosexuality. I think its an important issue and all, but it doesn’t concern me in the same way because what they are discussing is not related to anything definitive or concrete (we’re talking tone and subjective language). So while we might end up with language that I would consider overly weak, or maybe even harmful, it would ultimately be “ok”, because a) that would just be my subjective opinion and I could simply be wrong, and b) tone and language don’t concretely change anything. If, for example, they were considering a concrete change like, say, recognizing homosexual civil unions, I would be much more concerned.

The communion issue concerns me because I believe it is an impossibility, rather than just a policy I don’t like or dont agree with. I feel that I’m justified in thinking that because of the stances taken by Cards Muller, Pell, Burke, de Paolis , etc, etc (even Benedict). The common thread in what they say is not that this shouldn’t happen, but that it cannot happen.

To the extent that they discuss the annulment procedure, and other issues that legitimately are pastoral, fine, lets find ways to improve. But to whatever extent they are discussing giving communion to a person in a state of sin, that simply cannot ever be justified. It is as if some are saying “we’ve always said that 2+2=4, but now we’re going to dialog to see if there is a way it can also equal 5.”

The other concern is that this question has already been answered so definitively, and so many times. Over and over the Church has said the divorced and remarried cannot receive communion. So, again, to the extent that they are discussing other questions related to the pastoral care of the remarried, great, but there is no way to have a legitimate discussion that questions something the Church has already “ruled” on.

As for what I would do, thats hard to answer because it would depend on the specifics of what was decided. Speaking generally I think I would watch for the reactions of the Cardinals like Muller and Pell, and take their lead. Given what theyve said, I think they would find themselves in an untenable position (as would I and a lot of other Catholics) so I suppose I would see what they do and go from there.

 

[otjm]

I know youre not suggesting changing doctrine, sorry if I implied that. I know we both don’t want doctrine to change, the difference is you think the proposal could theoretically be enacted without changing, while I don’t think that is a possibility.

I think that overstates my position. I have no clue whether a position - either of the “Orthodox option” or something similar could be enacted. I do know that it has not been definitively ruled out at this point. As a result, I am willing to sit and wait.

So the discussion isn’t between those who want to change doctrine and those who don’t, its between those who believe the communion proposal doesn’t necessarily change doctrine and those who believe it does necessarily change doctrine.

There may be others who think it does not change doctrine. I don’t know if it does or not; what I do know is that a) it is on the table for further discussion; b) that if it is decided that it is permissible, that it will be because it is an exception - just as “brother and sister” is an exception; c) if it is an exception, it will not simply be a wholesale, carte blanche admission, but that there will be some sort of requirements, just as there is for “bother and sister”; and that d) it will be done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I see your point about nuance vs change. The reason this particular issue concerns me is, again, that I see it not as a further nuance of the same doctrine, but as a reversal (or as Card Pell said, a “doctrinal backflip”).

I understand. Again, a) I do not know anything about Pell, or most of the others; b) I am not questioning either their loyalty to the Church nor their theological view; c) I don’t see that the statements they have made address the specific question, but rather they seem to address the question of a general relaxing of the rule, with not necessarily a lot more required; and again, my experience of very well respected bishops and Cardinals in the past being on the wrong end of a question.

I absolutely do not want that to be take as an indication or an inference that they are wrong. I have no clue. But I do know that bishops and Cardinals who were well respected in many quarters were both dead set against any Council being called, and that when it got down to the documents, their positions were rejected. That is not to say that the opinion of the 9 will be rejected; I would not be the least bit surprised if their position is the final answer on the matter as to the “Orthodox option”.

What I am trying to say is that someone who is well respected in the Church, and whose opinion at the moment seems to reflect the Church’s thinking, may have an opinion tht ultimately is not in accord with the Church.

It takes a great deal of humility, particularly for people who are thoroughly trained in theology, to say “I submit”. And lest I be seen as hammering on bishops like Lefebvre, I would add to the list Hans Kung, who is on the outs doctrinally and has the same issue of not being able to say “I submit”. I am not picking sides; rather, I am saying that where there is a serious theological issue upon which the ?Church has not made a final decision, one is in danger of “backing the wrong horse”; and if one becomes so locked in that one cannot accept the possibility that they are wrong, then when a contrary decision come in they are in more than just an awkward position.

There is an old saying that one needs to keep an open mind; just not so open that one’s brains fall out.

Moral theology is often seen as black and white; I would point out that if one has engaged in serious sin for so long that a deep habit has formed, the Church may hold that for that individual, they may no longer be culpable of a mortal sin (although objectively it remains one); they may be culpable of a venial sin or no sin. That is not carte blanche either; but it is set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Could that be part of the response to long-term irregular marriages? I don’t know, but I am not going to say it is absolutely not possible. And how that might be integrated in a pastoral care for that couple is way above my pay grade.

(continued)

 

[otjm]

The other concern is that this question has already been answered so definitively, and so many times. Over and over the Church has said the divorced and remarried cannot receive communion. So, again, to the extent that they are discussing other questions related to the pastoral care of the remarried, great, but there is no way to have a legitimate discussion that questions something the Church has already “ruled” on.

Again that is a black and white answer, to which the Church ahs added the “brother and sister” exemption. Let’s be realistic: a couple who has been married for a long enough time will have a strongly entrenched sexual connection. Some may be able to live continently for years; others are likely not going to be able to remain continent for a long time; where does the issue of moral culpability come into play (and I ask because the Church recognizes it in other sexual sins). Could that be part of consideration in some circumstances which are not recognized now? I have no clue; but I am not going to go out on a limb and say it can’t. I flat out don’t know.

As for what I would do, thats hard to answer because it would depend on the specifics of what was decided. Speaking generally I think I would watch for the reactions of the Cardinals like Muller and Pell, and take their lead. Given what theyve said, I think they would find themselves in an untenable position (as would I and a lot of other Catholics) so I suppose I would see what they do and go from there.

Well, again, if they are on the wrong side of the issue (and I have no clue!), I would no longer be looking as to what they would say further, or not say, or hint at. Once the Church speaks, what is asked is submission. And fairly recent history shows that not all willingly submit.

For all I know, it will be a different Cardinal who has to submit…

I will say again that this is not an area in which I am trained. It is, however, and area which has held a fascination, and which I have done a certain amount of reading over the years. There are areas which many think are black and white, and the reality is that there are occasionally shades of grey. The issue is on the table, and the Church will answer the matter. My biggest concern is that people let the Church make its decision, and that they not become so locked in that if the answer does not match their take on the matter, that they not have a crisis of faith. All too many people in the past have done that, and the results are always sad - if that is even an adequate word for it. I don’t tend to follow one (or a few) bishops and/or Cardinals as to their take on an issue. I look to the teaching authority of the Church - the Magisterium - as to what it says.

 

[ProVobis]

Moral theology is often seen as black and white; I would point out that if one has engaged in serious sin for so long that a deep habit has formed, the Church may hold that for that individual, they may no longer be culpable of a mortal sin (although objectively it remains one); they may be culpable of a venial sin or no sin. That is not carte blanche either; but it is set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It seems several posters have already thought of this, including myself. This doesn’t seem that far unrelated to full consent and sufficient reflection. Can the Church be a better judge of this than God or even the person himself? However, deep habit is a legitimate defense, given the wording in the Catechism, but there is no certitude of less or no culpability. There still is the stigma of scandal, regardless of mortal sin or not.

That said, perhaps there should be the same level of focus, if not more, directed on whether one entered into sacramental Matrimony with full consent, etc.

Also, it seems one of the gross injustices involved in the annulment process is that one of the ex-spouses who provided no (name removed by moderator)ut and perhaps didn’t even want to be bothered gets full benefits of the annulment regarding ability to remarry. Sad but it is what it is.

 

[McCall1981]

There may be others who think it does not change doctrine. I don’t know if it does or not; what I do know is that a) it is on the table for further discussion; b) that if it is decided that it is permissible, that it will be because it is an exception - just as “brother and sister” is an exception; c) if it is an exception, it will not simply be a wholesale, carte blanche admission, but that there will be some sort of requirements, just as there is for “bother and sister”; and that d) it will be done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
…
I absolutely do not want that to be take as an indication or an inference that they are wrong. I have no clue. But I do know that bishops and Cardinals who were well respected in many quarters were both dead set against any Council being called, and that when it got down to the documents, their positions were rejected. That is not to say that the opinion of the 9 will be rejected; I would not be the least bit surprised if their position is the final answer on the matter as to the “Orthodox option”.
…
What I am trying to say is that someone who is well respected in the Church, and whose opinion at the moment seems to reflect the Church’s thinking, may have an opinion tht ultimately is not in accord with the Church.

Again that is a black and white answer, to which the Church ahs added the “brother and sister” exemption. Let’s be realistic: a couple who has been married for a long enough time will have a strongly entrenched sexual connection. Some may be able to live continently for years; others are likely not going to be able to remain continent for a long time; where does the issue of moral culpability come into play (and I ask because the Church recognizes it in other sexual sins). Could that be part of consideration in some circumstances which are not recognized now? I have no clue; but I am not going to go out on a limb and say it can’t. I flat out don’t know.
…
Well, again, if they are on the wrong side of the issue (and I have no clue!), I would no longer be looking as to what they would say further, or not say, or hint at. Once the Church speaks, what is asked is submission. And fairly recent history shows that not all willingly submit.

I don’t think the point that this would only be for exceptions really matters in this context though. If there is no way to enact this proposal without contradicting doctrine on marriage (which I think is the case) it doesn’t matter if its only for a few people, or for many people, either way it would be just as wrong (if there is a way of doing it, then so be it).

Also, I don’t think the brother/sister example is really an “exception”. When we say “exception”, I think what it implies in this context is an exception where the couple in question remains in a state of sin, but is nevertheless allowed to receive communion. But with the brother/sister example, the couple has removed themselves from the state of sin, so theyre not really an exception to a rule, they really just changed their situation so that they abide by the rule. For that reason, when we hear that this proposal would only be for exceptions, I think what is being talked about is totally different than the brother/sister example.

Submission to the Church gets rather complicated if submission to a “new” rule requires the rejection of an “older” rule.

What is “the 9” you’re referring to?

 

[otjm]

I don’t think the point that this would only be for exceptions really matters in this context though. If there is no way to enact this proposal without contradicting doctrine on marriage (which I think is the case) it doesn’t matter if its only for a few people, or for many people, either way it would be just as wrong (if there is a way of doing it, then so be it).

Also, I don’t think the brother/sister example is really an “exception”. When we say “exception”, I think what it implies in this context is an exception where the couple in question remains in a state of sin, but is nevertheless allowed to receive communion. But with the brother/sister example, the couple has removed themselves from the state of sin, so theyre not really an exception to a rule, they really just changed their situation so that they abide by the rule. For that reason, when we hear that this proposal would only be for exceptions, I think what is being talked about is totally different than the brother/sister example.

Submission to the Church gets rather complicated if submission to a “new” rule requires the rejection of an “older” rule.

What is “the 9” you’re referring to?

The nine are the bishops and Cardinals who said that Communion could not be given to those in irregular marriages.

You may call it an exception; the rule in general is that those who have divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity may not receive Communion. the specific, or the subset of that rule is that those in such an irregular marriage who promise to live as brother and sister may be admitted to reception. You can call it a subset to the rule, or whatever you wish.

I have not studied the subset which the Orthodox option sets; whether or not that process is adopted as is or is modified in some way, it would be up to the Church to determine that.

Part of your objection is beyond any minor (miniscule) competency that I may have, and I don’t really claim any. But let me take a stab at it.

We can either focus on the sin itself - adultery; or we can focus on the issue I spoke of in the previous post (or one of them - I am too busy at the moment to go review) and that iws that the Church may treat very ingrained serious sin as still objectively serious, but subjectively - that is, for the subject - the person caught up in serious habitual sin, as less culpable. That does not alleviate any need for amendment, but the Church treats it as not a mortal sin for the individual.

So, let’s posit that what the Church comes up with is that if in the judgment of the pastor (or the bishop) the parties are in a seriously habitual adultery - for example, they have had an active sex life as purported husband and wife - that in the judgment of the pastor (or bishop) they are no longer culpable of the mortal sin of adultery, then could they be admitted to Communion? And if not, how does that differ from someone who has been in habitual mortal sin in some other sexual nature?

You can’t simply answer “scandal, if for no other reason than that the 'bother sister” example also is knows for the irregular marriage. Most people are not going to ask a couple about their sex life, whether that couple is “brother sister” or the couple in my example.

 

[ProVobis]

You can’t simply answer “scandal, if for no other reason than that the 'bother sister” example also is knows for the irregular marriage. Most people are not going to ask a couple about their sex life, whether that couple is “brother sister” or the couple in my example.

That’s why very few buy into that “brother sister” stuff, especially when young, vibrant couples are involved. Of course, you can always sleep in separate bedrooms even when cohabitating but what does that really show when it only takes a few minutes of alone time to do the sex thing? Kids will figure it out eventually.

 

[Seraphim73]

There is also this article:

The Myth and Reality of Second Marriages among the Orthodox

There has been 30 pages released of ‘Remaining in the Truth of Christ’ which discussed the Communion issue and here is an excerpt from the section on the Orthodox:

ignatius.com/promotions/remaining_in_the_truth/remaining_in_truth_preview.pdf

The Catholic Church and Orthodox have a ‘fundamental difference’ on how we certain issues relating to the divorce and remarriage issue. How does the Orthodox position help advocates of the position that the Catholic Church should allow Communion for the divorced and remarried?

I will say that first link does a really awful job of portraying the Orthodox position. It is not true that a second marriage is not considered a sacrament. In fact the idea that it wouldn’t be is completely absurd.

 

[otjm]

Can the Church be a better judge of this than God or even the person himself? However, deep habit is a legitimate defense, given the wording in the Catechism, but there is no certitude of less or no culpability.

Well, I would not go so far as to say the Church is better than God at judging our culpability. But Christ is the perfect psychologist. In providing us the sacrament of Reconciliation, He covers all our faults and weaknesses, from lack of self-honesty to rigid judgmentalism. And I would agree with you that there is no absolute certitude; but unless we are gaming the system by confessor shopping, we have the right (and in some instances, the duty) to trust our confessor. The same could be said for tribunal decisions; they are not imbued with infallibility, but we can and need to trust them.

There still is the stigma of scandal, regardless of mortal sin or not.

Agreed; but I have addressed scandal elsewhere. Some scandal is due to a correct understanding of a situation; and some of it due to an improper understanding. As the Church provides permission to receive Communion, the scandal is not the communicant’s issue.

That said, perhaps there should be the same level of focus, if not more, directed on whether one entered into sacramental Matrimony with full consent, etc.

Most assuredly.

Also, it seems one of the gross injustices involved in the annulment process is that one of the ex-spouses who provided no (name removed by moderator)ut and perhaps didn’t even want to be bothered gets full benefits of the annulment regarding ability to remarry. Sad but it is what it is.

Yes; full benefit but often included are requirements of counseling, etc. which mean that it is not simply a "get out of jail (pun my soul - marriage) card. My understanding is that some of the requirements can be fairly strict.

 

[McCall1981]

The nine are the bishops and Cardinals who said that Communion could not be given to those in irregular marriages.

You may call it an exception; the rule in general is that those who have divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity may not receive Communion. the specific, or the subset of that rule is that those in such an irregular marriage who promise to live as brother and sister may be admitted to reception. You can call it a subset to the rule, or whatever you wish.

I have not studied the subset which the Orthodox option sets; whether or not that process is adopted as is or is modified in some way, it would be up to the Church to determine that.

Part of your objection is beyond any minor (miniscule) competency that I may have, and I don’t really claim any. But let me take a stab at it.

**We can either focus on the sin itself - adultery; or we can focus on the issue I spoke of in the previous post (or one of them - I am too busy at the moment to go review) and that iws that the Church may treat very ingrained serious sin as still objectively serious, but subjectively - that is, for the subject - the person caught up in serious habitual sin, as less culpable. That does not alleviate any need for amendment, but the Church treats it as not a mortal sin for the individual.

So, let’s posit that what the Church comes up with is that if in the judgment of the pastor (or the bishop) the parties are in a seriously habitual adultery - for example, they have had an active sex life as purported husband and wife - that in the judgment of the pastor (or bishop) they are no longer culpable of the mortal sin of adultery, then could they be admitted to Communion? And if not, how does that differ from someone who has been in habitual mortal sin in some other sexual nature?**

You can’t simply answer “scandal, if for no other reason than that the 'bother sister” example also is knows for the irregular marriage. Most people are not going to ask a couple about their sex life, whether that couple is “brother sister” or the couple in my example.

Well, the question you bring up in the bold is really the question the “other side” needs to answer. That is, how would you deny this “solution” to any other sexual or marriage related sin?

This is exactly the problem that Cardinal Napier (from South Africa) brought up in his interview during the Synod. His point was, if the proposal was enacted, how would we then deny communion to people in a polygamous relationship, given that all of the moral circumstances would be the same? His conclusion is that you can’t. (Card Napier didn’t mention it, but I think you could make the same objection using a homosexual relationship example, etc).

IMO, scandal really isn’t the issue here, since if they admitted remarried people to communion, they could just use the same scandal solution that is currently used in the brother/sister situation (having them attend mass where they wouldn’t cause scandal). The problematic step isn’t how to mitigate scandal, its the step before that, where the couple was given communion in the first place.

Its hard for me to comment much on your example without knowing what the specifics would consist of, like what the need for ammendment would result in, etc.

And that vagueness, IMO is one of the major problems with this whole debate. (Not saying its your fault, its the nature of the situation). We (or, the Church) have been presented with a conclusion (expanding access to communion for remarried people), without the means to get there. It is as if they have said “we want to give communion to remarried, and now we will discuss how to retroactively come up with a justification for it.” It would be different if there had been some long standing theological argument that potentially justifies giving communion to the remarried, that the Church had never used, and they were now considering using it. But that isn’t the case.

This problem is compounded by the fact that (as I’ve said) the Church has already examined, discussed and decided on this issue many times. The Church considered this, for example in 1980, and said no, but now we are presented not only with potentially a contradictory conclusion to 1980, but without even a justification for getting there. And then we are told “don’t worry, the Synod will come up with some way to justify this (even though the Church has previously said there is no way)”.

 

[otjm]

Well, the question you bring up in the bold is really the question the “other side” needs to answer. That is, how would you deny this “solution” to any other sexual or marriage related sin?

I thought the CCC answered that; perhaps you are asking a different question. As I understand it, it is not some sort of blanket “pass”, but rather something under the guidance of a confessor.

This is exactly the problem that Cardinal Napier (from South Africa) brought up in his interview during the Synod. His point was, if the proposal was enacted, how would we then deny communion to people in a polygamous relationship, given that all of the moral circumstances would be the same? His conclusion is that you can’t. (Card Napier didn’t mention it, but I think you could make the same objection using a homosexual relationship example, etc).

I don’t intend flippancy, but his question comes across as a straw-man argument.

Its hard for me to comment much on your example without knowing what the specifics would consist of, like what the need for ammendment would result in, etc.

To begin with, it assumes that the Church would even go in this direction. It is one thing to have a question to be addressed; it is another thing entirely to address it. It would undoubtedly be on a case by case basis. Whether or not it is even a possibility is about the best I can do; implementation is beyond me. It is one I would presume would take a serious amount of time - after the time it would take to go through the tribunal process. Which is another way of saying that even if it should happen, it would not happen quickly or necessarily widely.

And that vagueness, IMO is one of the major problems with this whole debate. (Not saying its your fault, its the nature of the situation). We (or, the Church) have been presented with a conclusion (expanding access to communion for remarried people), without the means to get there. It is as if they have said “we want to give communion to remarried, and now we will discuss how to retroactively come up with a justification for it.” It would be different if there had been some long standing theological argument that potentially justifies giving communion to the remarried, that the Church had never used, and they were now considering using it. But that isn’t the case.

There never has been a solution the Church has provided, except to a problem, and one can easily say it is obtained retroactively - so what?

Again, the bottom line: if the Church comes up with a response to people in irregular marriages which it has not had in the past, it is because more time has been spent on the issue, and the answer is within the faith and morals protection of the Holy Spirit. And if the Holy Spirit does not lead the Church in that direction, faith and morals are still guarded, and the specific issue is resolved. This is a bit where we seem to diverge; You are taking the position that o change is possible. I take the psotion that I don’t kow if it is or isn’t possible, in part because I don’t have enough training in moral theology, and in part because I can posit one question - reduced culpability due to habitual sin. A solution to the question may involce that, or it may involve something else.

At the very bottom, You may be absolutely correct. You are far more invested in this issue than I am. For starters, I am not in an irregular marriage, so I don’t have the proverbial dog in the fight.

but more than that, about 30 years ago I had an epiphany. After banging my head on a proverbial wall, I suddenly came to the conclusion that the Church had developed far, far more wisdom in 2,000 years than I had in 1/50th of that time. And I learned to relax, let the Church do Church things and I watch and learn.

The Church has yet to disappoint me. Some actions of some members have seriously disappointed me but the Church has not.

But it has definitely and deeply surprised me in the past, and I suspect that in my lifetime, it may surprise me again. In short, I trust. And because of that, I don’t worry an issue down to a fine nub. What will happen will happen, whether I worry about it or I don’t - so it seems to me the smartest choice is to not worry.

I wish I could give you that. I would estimate that within a year, we will both have our answer on the issue on the table, and it very well may be what you posit. And if it is not, then the Church will explain the “why” of its decision, and we can both learn something. In the meanwhile, I wish I could give you a couple of pounds of peace, and several of trust. I have tried my best, but I don’t get the feeling I have succeeded.

 

[ProVobis]

As the Church provides permission to receive Communion, the scandal is not the communicant’s issue.

I’m not sure of what your stating here. Is the “permission” something that one perceives because there is nothing to stop him from receiving? Or is it something that God permits through His permissive will as opposed to His positive will? As I’ve stated before, we can be more sure of the latter from REPEATED teachings of the Church. If we don’t have that, then we have to go by what a bishop or priest sees as scandal, even if the communicant can’t see it either through arrogance or ignorance.

 

[ProVobis]

… I suddenly came to the conclusion that the Church had developed far, far more wisdom in 2,000 years than I had in 1/50th of that time. And I learned to relax, let the Church do Church things and I watch and learn.

Of course. As one who has undergone the annulment process, I have found that better and better understanding of the psychology behind marriage and other areas of our faith by ALL those involved will help all those who want to work with Christ and the Church. Finding couples and individuals who have given up and decided to do things on their own is truly sad.

 

[McCall1981]

I thought the CCC answered that; perhaps you are asking a different question. As I understand it, it is not some sort of blanket “pass”, but rather something under the guidance of a confessor.

But the problem isn’t the source of the permission (be it a blanket statement or a confessor) the problem is that the same thinking also applies to something like a polygamous relationship. If a confessor can advise a remarried couple to receive communion when their sin is mitigated by “habit”, them why not the same for a polygamous relationship?

I don’t intend flippancy, but his question comes across as a straw-man argument.

Well, I think he’s correct, and no one seems to be able to provide an answer to his objection.

To begin with, it assumes that the Church would even go in this direction. It is one thing to have a question to be addressed; it is another thing entirely to address it. It would undoubtedly be on a case by case basis. Whether or not it is even a possibility is about the best I can do; implementation is beyond me. It is one I would presume would take a serious amount of time - after the time it would take to go through the tribunal process. Which is another way of saying that even if it should happen, it would not happen quickly or necessarily widely.

But again, the problem is not whether it is rare or common, or whether it takes a long time or is quick, the problem is whether it happens at all. The process is basically irrelevant.

Again, the bottom line: if the Church comes up with a response to people in irregular marriages which it has not had in the past, it is because more time has been spent on the issue, and the answer is within the faith and morals protection of the Holy Spirit. And if the Holy Spirit does not lead the Church in that direction, faith and morals are still guarded, and the specific issue is resolved. This is a bit where we seem to diverge; You are taking the position that o change is possible. I take the psotion that I don’t kow if it is or isn’t possible, in part because I don’t have enough training in moral theology, and in part because I can posit one question - reduced culpability due to habitual sin. A solution to the question may involce that, or it may involve something else.

At the very bottom, You may be absolutely correct. You are far more invested in this issue than I am. For starters, I am not in an irregular marriage, so I don’t have the proverbial dog in the fight.

but more than that, about 30 years ago I had an epiphany. After banging my head on a proverbial wall, I suddenly came to the conclusion that the Church had developed far, far more wisdom in 2,000 years than I had in 1/50th of that time. And I learned to relax, let the Church do Church things and I watch and learn.

The Church has yet to disappoint me. Some actions of some members have seriously disappointed me but the Church has not.

But it has definitely and deeply surprised me in the past, and I suspect that in my lifetime, it may surprise me again. In short, I trust. And because of that, I don’t worry an issue down to a fine nub. What will happen will happen, whether I worry about it or I don’t - so it seems to me the smartest choice is to not worry.

I wish I could give you that. I would estimate that within a year, we will both have our answer on the issue on the table, and it very well may be what you posit. And if it is not, then the Church will explain the “why” of its decision, and we can both learn something. In the meanwhile, I wish I could give you a couple of pounds of peace, and several of trust. I have tried my best, but I don’t get the feeling I have succeeded

Well, as far as doctrinal things like this, the Church has yet to disappoint me either, so maybe that will continue, I certainly hope so. And yeah, worrying is pointless because we can’t do anything about it, but what can I say, I’m certainly not perfect

 

[irenaeus1]

Moral theology is often seen as black and white; I would point out that if one has engaged in serious sin for so long that a deep habit has formed, the Church may hold that for that individual, they may no longer be culpable of a mortal sin (although objectively it remains one); they may be culpable of a venial sin or no sin. That is not carte blanche either; but it is set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

That is because adultery is not a gray issue. With that said, even when one determines that culpability for serious sin may be somewhat mitigated for reasons of deep-seated habit, this does not preclude the subjective sinfulness that took place during the ‘formation’ of the habit in the first place; i.e., before it became a habit. Also, with your reasoning, a couple fornicating, consensual couples who ‘spouse swap’, a man in a polygamous marriage, etc. would have to be counseled the same under the proposed provision. Or when a widow or widower loses their spouse, should it be deemed morally licit (subjectively speaking) for the surviving spouse to now seek a sexual outlet simply because they were in the ‘habit’ of having sex?

 

[otjm]

But the problem isn’t the source of the permission (be it a blanket statement or a confessor) the problem is that the same thinking also applies to something like a polygamous relationship. If a confessor can advise a remarried couple to receive communion when their sin is mitigated by “habit”, them why not the same for a polygamous relationship?

Perhaps the Cardinal was listening to the same two NPR programs I heard; or perhaps he is referring to matters in Africa; but in both instances they are matters tht do not involve the same matter - irregular second marriage.

And in the US, the looming issue is not polygamy; it is polyamory.

Polygamy is not recognized nor is it permitted in any of the 50 states - it is however, practiced to a minor extent in both Utah and Idaho; and the Church does not permit polygamy.

there is a difference, and the simple difference is that an irregular marriage has the potential of being rectified; neither polygamy nor polyamory can be rectified, And as they cannot be rectified, there is no reason to presume that it has anything whatsoever to do with the question at hand. As noted, it is a straw man argument, which is another way of saying it is an oxymoron.

Well, I think he’s correct, and no one seems to be able to provide an answer to his objection.

As noted above. It is a non-issue. The fact that he brought up such a construct does not mean that the construct has relevance. His fear is unfounded, just as is any discussion of the receipt of Communion by aliens from another planet. They are both theoretical constructs which have no bearing or relevance to the discussion at hand.

But again, the problem is not whether it is rare or common, or whether it takes a long time or is quick, the problem is whether it happens at all. The process is basically irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant to consider whether there is any circumstance where someone in a currently unamendable irregular marriage can receive Communion, other than the brother and sister exception. It is relevant because it is a matter which the Church ahs chosen to discuss. You are assuming that the current and past prohibition is absolute - and it very well may be - but that is not your determination; it is the Church’s, and the Church is choosing to discuss the issue. Our ability - yours and mine - to see how this might be possible - is what is irrelevant at this moment.

 

[otjm]

That is because adultery is not a gray issue. With that said, even when one determines that culpability for serious sin may be somewhat mitigated for reasons of deep-seated habit, this does not preclude the subjective sinfulness that took place during the ‘formation’ of the habit in the first place; i.e., before it became a habit.

For starters, you fail to see your own blind spot - you are well catechized. Odds are reasonably good that you did not grow up in a family which had gone through divorce - parents, siblings, and extended family. Further, it is reasonably likely that you; are making a presumption that both parties were Catholic at the time of the first marriage.

The reality is that we now have two generations who have had little or no catechesis, and who have lived in a society where shacking up is not just not frowned on, but more egregiously, is take as the norm. Your statement presupposes so much in terms of catechesis, formation, and any understanding of sexual sin that it fails to even come close to what has been occurring for decades.

A couple may or may not have had any clue in terms of permanency of marriage, other than perhaps some pre Cana talks they got 10, 20, 30 or more years ago; and if they were the product before those talks of the once a week (maybe, if sports, or parental laziness, or rebellion to the classes didn’t preclude that) for maybe 6 months, for maybe an hour, of what the Church teaches. And in the interim, they were subjected to peers who had no religious upbringing, and who believed in “friends with benefits” and all the other permutations that the sexual revolution of the 60’s has brought us.

But even assuming that they had some basic awareness that the second marriage was not approved by the Church, that earlier sin could be forgiven. It is pretty much the same issue as the teenager who starts engaging in reading/observing pornography and masturbating; 15 years later they are so deeply habitually held by this that there is no significant difference between the two.

Further, you preclude any pastoral work on the issue. It is not like they get a blank check; as noted on the “Orthodox option”, they go through a period of penance.

Hey - I don’t have the answer; I am just positing a possibility. The ;Church is the one who is studying the issue - not me. I have no clue as to what they will decide, but I can see certain possible avenues - all of which may be rejected.

Or not.

Also, with your reasoning, a couple fornicating, consensual couples who ‘spouse swap’, a man in a polygamous marriage, etc. would have to be counseled the same under the proposed provision.

No, they wouldn’t. The issue with fornicators is simple - they can marry. Those in an irregular marriage can’t - which is why it is irregular.

Consensual couples would not be admitted if, for no other reason, that they have no clue about marriage. They are not ever going to be considered, and there is no “have to be counseled”. They would have to approach the Church, and at the base of it have some recognition of basic morality. Polygamous marriages would not “have to be counseled” as there is no possibility that the relationship could ever be regularized. An irregular marriage of a man and a woman at least has some possibility of being regularized.

Or when a widow or widower loses their spouse, should it be deemed morally licit (subjectively speaking) for the surviving spouse to now seek a sexual outlet simply because they were in the ‘habit’ of having sex?

As that is not an irregular marriage, it is irrelevant; and the issue can simply be resolved through marriage.

 

[irenaeus1]

Perhaps the Cardinal was listening to the same two NPR programs I heard; or perhaps he is referring to matters in Africa; but in both instances they are matters tht do not involve the same matter - irregular second marriage.

They both involve irregular marriages. The Cardinal was simply carrying the proposition to its logical conclusion in application to his part of the world.

And in the US, the looming issue is not polygamy; it is polyamory.

Polygamy is not recognized nor is it permitted in any of the 50 states - it is however, practiced to a minor extent in both Utah and Idaho; and the Church does not permit polygamy.

Narrow focus considering this was a synod of the Catholic (universal, world-wide) Church, not the Catholic Church in Western Europe or North America.

 

[irenaeus1]

For starters, you fail to see your own blind spot - you are well catechized. Odds are reasonably good that you did not grow up in a family which had gone through divorce - parents, siblings, and extended family. Further, it is reasonably likely that you; are making a presumption that both parties were Catholic at the time of the first marriage.

The reality is that we now have two generations who have had little or no catechesis, and who have lived in a society where shacking up is not just not frowned on, but more egregiously, is take as the norm. Your statement presupposes so much in terms of catechesis, formation, and any understanding of sexual sin that it fails to even come close to what has been occurring for decades.

A couple may or may not have had any clue in terms of permanency of marriage, other than perhaps some pre Cana talks they got 10, 20, 30 or more years ago; and if they were the product before those talks of the once a week (maybe, if sports, or parental laziness, or rebellion to the classes didn’t preclude that) for maybe 6 months, for maybe an hour, of what the Church teaches. And in the interim, they were subjected to peers who had no religious upbringing, and who believed in “friends with benefits” and all the other permutations that the sexual revolution of the 60’s has brought us.

But even assuming that they had some basic awareness that the second marriage was not approved by the Church, that earlier sin could be forgiven. It is pretty much the same issue as the teenager who starts engaging in reading/observing pornography and masturbating; 15 years later they are so deeply habitually held by this that there is no significant difference between the two.

Then we already have a process in place… seek a declaration of nullity.

No, they wouldn’t. The issue with fornicators is simple - they can marry. Those in an irregular marriage can’t - which is why it is irregular.

They may not want to marry… as you stated above - “friends with benefits”. But now that it’s a ‘habit’, the culpability is mitigated.

Consensual couples would not be admitted if, for no other reason, that they have no clue about marriage. They are not ever going to be considered, and there is no “have to be counseled”. They would have to approach the Church, and at the base of it have some recognition of basic morality. Polygamous marriages would not “have to be counseled” as there is no possibility that the relationship could ever be regularized. An irregular marriage of a man and a woman at least has some possibility of being regularized.

Only if the first marriage is proven to be valid. What is the Church to do with those couples whose marriages cannot be regularized?

As that is not an irregular marriage, it is irrelevant; and the issue can simply be resolved through marriage.

It is not irrelevant because the bottom line is that it is a ‘fornication’ relationship.

And divorced and remarried couples while considered in an irregular marriage is really misleading; sanitizing it with the term ‘irregular’ to be more pastoral has dulled our sense of calling things as they are; namely, immoral relationships.

 

[McCall1981]

Perhaps the Cardinal was listening to the same two NPR programs I heard; or perhaps he is referring to matters in Africa; but in both instances they are matters tht do not involve the same matter - irregular second marriage.

And in the US, the looming issue is not polygamy; it is polyamory.

Polygamy is not recognized nor is it permitted in any of the 50 states - it is however, practiced to a minor extent in both Utah and Idaho; and the Church does not permit polygamy.

there is a difference, and the simple difference is that an irregular marriage has the potential of being rectified; neither polygamy nor polyamory can be rectified, And as they cannot be rectified, there is no reason to presume that it has anything whatsoever to do with the question at hand. As noted, it is a straw man argument, which is another way of saying it is an oxymoron.

Of course he’s referring to Africa, that’s where he’s from.

And no, there is no difference. In both the remarriage example and the polygamy example, we are dealing with a person, who is validly married to their original spouse, yet at the same time is in a relationship with another person. The timing of their intimacy, and whether it overlaps (which is what I assume you’re getting at) is irrelevant.

You’re blurring the catagories we’re talking about here by bringing up remarriages that can be regularized, which is a different topic. If the relationship in question is one that can be regularized, then fine, but no one disagrees on that. In this debate we are expressly talking about remarriages that cannot be regularized (or rather, could only be “regularized” by this new proposal).

A remarriage, after an original valid marriage, cannot be rectified other than by means of leaving the relationship, or the brother/sister arrangement, and the same goes for the case of polygamy.

Interesting that while some other arguments are above your paygrade to judge, this one is apparently well within your paygrade

As noted above. It is a non-issue. The fact that he brought up such a construct does not mean that the construct has relevance. His fear is unfounded, just as is any discussion of the receipt of Communion by aliens from another planet. They are both theoretical constructs which have no bearing or relevance to the discussion at hand.

As noted above, his point is correct. I’ve yet to see anyone show how the two are different, simply saying they are different is not an argument.

It is not irrelevant to consider whether there is any circumstance where someone in a currently unamendable irregular marriage can receive Communion, other than the brother and sister exception. It is relevant because it is a matter which the Church ahs chosen to discuss. You are assuming that the current and past prohibition is absolute - and it very well may be - but that is not your determination; it is the Church’s, and the Church is choosing to discuss the issue. Our ability - yours and mine - to see how this might be possible - is what is irrelevant at this moment.

The proposal being discussed is not about finding new solutions like the brother/sister arrangement, quite the opposite. The brother/sister arrangement is a legitimate solution because it changes the characteristics of the relationship (by removing the sexual intimacy) in a way that removes the problematic aspect of the relationship. The current proposal however, is about giving communion to people in an irregular relationship without changing the characteristics of the irregular relationship, and that is exactly why it is so controversial.

This conversation is getting a bit depressing, how about we agree to disagree?