Vatican releases preparatory document ahead of 2015 synod

[Ender]

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?

Actually, the “habit” excuse would apply to quite literally everything, and it would be nothing more than saying you may not commit evil occasionally, however if you do it regularly you get a pass. This whole approach is simply irrational.

Ender

 

[otjm]

Actually, the “habit” excuse would apply to quite literally everything, and it would be nothing more than saying you may not commit evil occasionally, however if you do it regularly you get a pass. This whole approach is simply irrational.

Ender

So I take it that the CCC is irrational. That simply disagrees with the Church’s holding in moral theology.

 

[ProVobis]

So I take it that the CCC is irrational. That simply disagrees with the Church’s holding in moral theology.

Speaking for myself, I do understand Ender’s point. He’s not saying the CCC is irrational but that the approach is. It might be better (and this is my opinion only) if we look at the CCC as clarifying what is meant by full consent, reflection, etc. The study of psychology has allowed us to see a little more clearly into matters of culpability, etc. That seems to be the bottom line; however if I may add a caveat, it will be up to God to judge us, we can’t do it alone, although our confessors might be able to guide us.

 

[Ender]

So I take it that the CCC is irrational. That simply disagrees with the Church’s holding in moral theology.

Not at all; I think you have misapplied what it says.*1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action **can be *diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
This is rather narrowly qualified; don’t confuse can be for is. Nor is this all the catechism has to say on the subject of habits.1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
It is one thing to lay a claim to leniency because of ignorance of the truth, which relates to 1735, but once the truth is known such a claim (according to 1791) is not appropriate. Unlike 1735, 1791 contains no mitigating and qualifying verbs. 1735 does not provide cover for the divorced and remarried to take communion. It might limit their culpability in situations where they were ignorant of the truth, but once they know the truth they become responsible for their actions.

Ender

 

[McCall1981]

Here’s a quote from a recent interview Card Burke gave to Le Figaro Magazine:

What are the stakes in what has become a controversy?

"In an age filled with confusion, as we see with Gender Theory, we need the teaching of the Church on marriage. Yet, we are on the contrary pushed towards a direction for the admission to communion of divorced and remarried persons. Without mentioning this obsession with lightening the procedures of annulment of the marital bond. All this will lead de facto to a kind of “Catholic divorce”, and to the weakening of the indissolubility of marriage, whose principle is nonetheless reaffirmed. However, the Church must defend marriage, and not weaken it. The indissolubility of marriage is not a penance, nor a suffering. It is a great beauty for those who live it, it is a source of joy. I am therefore very worried, and I call upon all Catholics, laymen, priests, and bishops, to involve themselves, from now up to the upcoming Synodal assembly, in order to highlight the truth on marriage."

• Interview granted in Rome to Jean-Marie Guénois
  Le Figaro Magazine, Dec. 19, 2014 issue, p. 46.

 

[otjm]

Not at all; I think you have misapplied what it says.*1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action **can be ***diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
This is rather narrowly qualified; don’t confuse can be for is. Nor is this all the catechism has to say on the subject of habits.1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
It is one thing to lay a claim to leniency because of ignorance of the truth, which relates to 1735, but once the truth is known such a claim (according to 1791) is not appropriate. Unlike 1735, 1791 contains no mitigating and qualifying verbs. 1735 does not provide cover for the divorced and remarried to take communion. It might limit their culpability in situations where they were ignorant of the truth, but once they know the truth they become responsible for their actions.

Ender

For starters, I have not said it will be applied; I have suggested that it might be applied in certain cases. It is not irrational, it is something that the Church can deal with, and anyone who presumes that it would be broadly applied with a trowel knows little or nothing of moral law.

The whole aspect of this came up with no one seeing any way that the Church could admit someone in an irregular marriage, which cannot be resolved through a tribunal, to Communion. I am not pushing for Communion for them; I am simply responding that there may be limited circumstances, with what is already accepted moral theology, that some individuals in limited circumstances might be admitted.

And whether they will be or not is up to the Church, not you and not me. The question is on the table; and not having a dog in this fight, I am willing to sit and watch. And unlike some people who are positing this absolutely cannot happen (and one at least indicating they would leave the Church over the matter), I am simply sitting and watching - and suggesting one possible means the Church might make that decision.

Do I believe it will happen? I believe that it may be possible, but I don’t think it is likely. On the other hand, I am not going to say it is an utter impossibility for the simple reason that the issue is still on the table. Some of the bishops and Cardinals believe it cannot happen. They are in a minority, and church rules are not made by a nose count of majorities or minorities, and I truly believe that these decisions are guided by the Holy Spirit. I am also aware, having been an adult when Humanae Vitae came out, that the matter is not over until the Pope speaks, and he doesn’t do a nose count either; the number of moral theologians who felt that the Pill was so different from other means of birth control because of how it acted, was astounding. And they were wrong. Likewise, there were a number of highly respected bishops and Cardinals who were adamantly opposed to Vatican 2, drafted the first round of documents, and were soundly rejected subsequently. So I don’t make bets on how issues such as this will be decided.

You and McCall may be absolutely spot on; and if you are it will come as no surprise to me.

And you both may be absolutely wrong, and that would not surprise me either. I suspend taking sides on issues such as these, having had enough surprises already in my life.

Y’all can carry on the conversation; just don’t put words in my mouth - I am eminently capable of that on my own.

 

[pnewton]

Speaking for myself, I do understand Ender’s point. He’s not saying the CCC is irrational but that the approach is. It might be better (and this is my opinion only) if we look at the CCC as clarifying what is meant by full consent, reflection, etc. The study of psychology has allowed us to see a little more clearly into matters of culpability, etc. That seems to be the bottom line; however if I may add a caveat, it will be up to God to judge us, we can’t do it alone, although our confessors might be able to guide us.

That is a good approach. I would like to add that even St. Paul struggled with the same issue. He laid the initial groundwork in culpability. We can use habituation as an excuse to sin, but we can also use it as a reason for mercy, especially when dealing with others.

My own observation is that it is in our nature to be closed the mitigation of sin by habit in sins that we do not struggle with, and be open to it in sins that we are tempted by it. The alcoholic may talk of his addiction as a disease, yet damn the homosexual for his.

 

[Sirach2]

*
Yet, we are on the contrary pushed towards a direction*

for the admission to communion of divorced and remarried persons. Without mentioning this **obsession **with lightening the procedures of annulment of the marital bond. All this will lead de facto to a kind of “Catholic divorce”, and to the weakening of the indissolubility of marriage, whose principle is nonetheless reaffirmed. *
Since McCall chose to post this in two topics, I will answer in both of them.

The only one I view as “pushing” with an “obsession” is Card. Burke, who has once again distorted the process of inquiry and debate by injecting adjectives that stir controversy and alarm; when in truth, we should all be praying for the Spirit’s unfailing guidance. This may disappoint His Eminence [and certain CAF members] when the final results do not meet with his desired expectations and wishes.

Be assured, I have been to communion at daily mass since the Synod began, and I never fail to lift up Our beloved Pope Francis, for in the end, only his decision is valid.

I would like to add that, since this decision to call the Synod came from the very top (Pope Francis himself), there is good reason to believe there will be important changes, since the Holy Spirit inspired him to convene it. Similarly, the Holy Spirit inspired Pope St. John XXIII to convene Vatican II, and there were many important changes, as we know, some of which are strongly contended and outright rejected by ultra conservatives, even today.

I sense deeply in my prayers that, since many clergy are* already in favor* of these proposals (even though not yet 2/3’s) the Spirit is moving in a powerful way to bring new light and mercy to those who suffer. I can almost predict an outcome that will shatter the expectations of many opponents.

 

[McCall1981]

**
Since McCall chose to post this in two topics, I will answer in both of them.

The only one I view as “pushing” with an “obsession” is Card. Burke, who has once again distorted the process of inquiry and debate by injecting adjectives that stir controversy and alarm; when in truth, we should all be praying for the Spirit’s unfailing guidance. This may disappoint His Eminence [and certain CAF members] when the final results do not meet with his desired expectations and wishes…

firstthings.com/article/2015/01/between-two-synods

Here are some quotes from a new essay by George Weigel:

“That a thorough examination of the crisis (of marriage) and the celebration of Christian marriage as the answer to it, didn’t happen to the degree one might have hoped. And that was in no small part the doing of German bishops led by retired Cardinal Walter Kasper, in league with the synod general secretary, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, who seemed determined to push the question of Holy Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to the front of the line in the synod’s debates.”

"Ten months before the synod met, I asked a knowledgeable observer of German Catholic affairs why the German Catholic leadership insisted on revisiting the issue of Holy Communion for those in civil second marriages, which most of the rest of the world Church thought had been sufficiently aired in the 1980 synod on the family, and which seemed to have been settled by the reaffirmation of the Church’s traditional teaching and practice in St. John Paul II’s 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio (The Community of the Family) and in the 1983 code of canon law. I got a one-word answer: “money.”

“Prior to the synod, extensive critiques of Cardinal Kasper’s proposals for allowing divorced Catholics in civil second marriages to be restored to the Church’s full eucharistic communion were published in the theological quarterly Nova et Vetera and in a book of essays, Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, whose authors included five scholar-cardinals. In both cases, the responses to the Kasper proposals were academically serious and respectful in tone. Yet Kasper, in replying to his critics (primarily in press interviews), failed to sustain the debate at the level of seriousness it deserved, dismissing those who had found grave biblical, patristic, theological, canonical, and pastoral problems with his proposals as doctrinal and scriptural fundamentalists.”

“The vibrant parts of Catholicism in the developed world are those that have lived the dynamic orthodoxy displayed in the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI; the crumbling parts of European Catholicism—which is to say, most of western European Catholicism—are those that have bent to the winds of the zeitgeist and have fudged the Church’s doctrinal and moral boundaries, imagining that to be the “spirit of Vatican II.” Yet there was Kasper, in league with synod general secretary Baldisseri, promoting a further fudging of the boundaries, and doing so in ways that seemed to the majority of synod fathers (the media spin notwithstanding) to be in flat contradiction to the teaching of the Lord himself.”

The Process. Throughout the synod, concerns that synod process was being manipulated by the general sec*retary, Cardinal Baldisseri, in league with Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Italian theologian who was the synod’s special secretary, were routinely dismissed as conservative conspiracy-mongering, even by typically sensible Vaticanisti (and there are a few). That was not the tale told by numerous synod fathers, however, and it was clearly their frustrations with the process that led to the blowup of October 16 and the subsequent release of the reports of the debates in the synod’s language-based discussion groups, which revealed sharp and extensive disagreement with the line taken in the interim report prepared by Forte."

“Those who suggested that more-honest reporting was in order were slapped down, and more than a few synod fathers came to the conclusion that, as one put it, manipulation of the proceedings was both “manifest and inept,” in the sense of being both obvious and, so to speak, stupidly obvious.”

“As one language-based discussion group began its deliberations, one member asked the others, with respect to the Forte-crafted interim report’s language on pastoral approaches to persons with same-sex attraction, “Did you hear any of this last week?” He got a unanimous negative reply. The interim report’s adoption of the language of the LGBT insurgency also came in for serious criticism, with synod fathers insisting that the Catholic Church does not describe human beings by their desires, whatever they are, and that doing so contradicts the rich Catholic anthropology of the human person, most recently *articulated by John Paul II in his inaugural encyclical, *Redemptor Hominis, and in his theology of the body.”

“Yet given the media sequence here—the interim report was leaked before it was formally presented (not accidentally, one presumes), and so the media template was quickly set in concrete (“It’s finally happened! The Church is changing!”)—what the world knows about synod 2014 is largely the interim report. This means that the stock “narrative”—kindly pope and progressives battle pre–Vatican II meanies—will be carried forward by much of the press. And that is going to distort and impede the important conversation that the pope rightly wants the world Church to have between synod 2014 and synod 2015.”

 

[McCall1981]

firstthings.com/article/2015/01/between-two-synods

I’ll also post Weigel’s conclusion:

"Success? In his closing address to the synod, Pope Francis declared the synod a success—which it was, if not precisely in the way the synod minority (the supporters of the Kasper proposals and the Forte interim report) have subsequently claimed. A robust debate was held in spite of the difficult circumstances created by the synod general secretariat. Out of that debate emerged a clear consensus in favor of the Catholic Church’s classic teaching on the nature of the human person, the morality of love, the nature of marriage, and the need to combine truth and mercy in proclaiming what John Paul II called the Gospel of life.

The dynamic and orthodox leaders of the Church today—the men who successfully foiled the attempt to divert synod 2014 down the path charted by the interim report, and whose interventions accounted for the much improved final report and the synod’s “Message” to the world—are all men of Vatican II, not men against Vatican II. They read the council through the magisterium of John Paul II and *Benedict XVI, which they see as offering an authoritative interpretation of its teaching. They want that authoritative interpretation deployed in service to what John Paul II called the new evangelization—which Pope Francis, in the 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, has made the grand strategy of his own pontificate. They know that the new evangelization is not advanced by tactical, and still less by strategic, compromises with the zeitgeist on the indissolubility of marriage and the morality of human love. And they are not prepared to take instructions on how to advance the new evangelization from Catholic leaders in Germany, Italy, England, or elsewhere who have manifestly failed in their evangelical task.

At the synod, it was suggested that, as a matter of pastoral strategy, the Church should approach people “where they are” on that ladder of love, no matter how low the rung. That’s certainly true, and indeed always has been true. But the Church approaches people “where they are” on the ladder in order to invite them to climb higher, with the help of God’s grace mediated through the Church’s sacraments. Finding worthy elements in irregular marital situations or irregular sexual relationships is not a matter of endorsing those irregularities, but of inviting people to ascend the ladder. This means helping them understand the fullness of the good and encouraging them to seek it, with the help of grace. The challenge here is as old as Paul’s efforts on the Areopagus, and it is not going to go away. But discussion of how to invite men and women to climb higher on the ladder of love will not be advanced by appeals to compassion that effectively detach compassion from truth, or by accommodating contemporary shibboleths about sexuality in any of its expressions.

One of the standard media tropes of synod 2014 coverage, too often drawn from unfortunate comments by synod fathers, was the difference between “doctrine” and “pastoral practice.” The two are obviously not the same. But it is just as obvious that certain ecclesial practices, such as defining the conditions that constitute (or impede) worthiness to receive Holy Communion, are closely linked to settled doctrine: the doctrine, drawn from the Lord himself, that marriage is indissoluble, and the implication of that doctrine for the proper reception of Holy Communion, which is drawn from St. Paul: Whoever “eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).

**Now that it is abundantly clear (to everyone except Cardinal Kasper, it seems) that there is no consensus possible in favor of the Kasper proposals for changing the Church’s practice in this matter (because doing so would constitute an impossible change in doctrine), the discussion over the next year should focus on adjustments of the canonical processes by which marriages are judged null, and on the truths about the Holy Eucharist and the sacrament of penance that are at the root of the Church’s current—and future—understanding and practice concerning worthiness to receive Holy Communion. **

This may require certain adjustments in the senior personnel of the synod general secretariat, but the basic change needed is one of attitude. The synod secretariat must understand that it exists to serve the synod fathers, not to manipulate the process and drive the discussion down a path toward certain predetermined conclusions. The massive resistance demonstrated by the synod fathers on October 16 to exactly that kind of manipulation was, in fact, a very healthy development in the still-young tradition of regular church-wide synods, for it demonstrated that the bishops took quite *seriously the pope’s call for a reclamation of synodality and collegiality."

 

[Ender]

I have suggested that it might be applied in certain cases. It is not irrational, it is something that the Church can deal with, and anyone who presumes that it would be broadly applied with a trowel knows little or nothing of moral law.

As they say, the devil is in the details. It is one thing to discuss “certain cases” in vague terms, and quite another to specify what those cases may be. People in grave sin may not receive communion. Adultery is a grave sin. People who divorce and remarry are in an adulterous relationship. Where are the cases here that allow communion?

The whole aspect of this came up with no one seeing any way that the Church could admit someone in an irregular marriage, which cannot be resolved through a tribunal, to Communion.

Exactly, and until someone comes up with a specific proposal, dealing with issue in vague terms is not useful.

I am not pushing for Communion for them; I am simply responding that there may be limited circumstances, with what is already accepted moral theology, that some individuals in limited circumstances might be admitted.

Until someone identifies what those circumstances could be there is really nothing to discuss.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I sense deeply in my prayers that, since many clergy are* already in favor* of these proposals (even though not yet 2/3’s) the Spirit is moving in a powerful way to bring new light and mercy to those who suffer.

This is a poor understanding of mercy, which is not the mere elimination of punishment or suffering. It is necessary to understand… *
*"…the educational value of suffering as a punishment. Thus in the sufferings inflicted by God upon the Chosen People there is included an invitation of his mercy, which corrects in order to lead to conversion: “… these punishments were designed not to destroy but to discipline our people” (JPII)
Mercy is not available absent the desire to repent and change.*On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth, especially in the face of the witness of the cross and resurrection of Christ. *(JPII)

I can almost predict an outcome that will shatter the expectations of many opponents.

Don’t bet the farm.

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

Don’t bet the farm.

See you next year, and the winner can say, “I told you so!”

 

[Ender]

See you next year, and the winner can say, “I told you so!”

Indeed. Merry Christmas

Ender

 

[otjm]

As they say, the devil is in the details. It is one thing to discuss “certain cases” in vague terms, and quite another to specify what those cases may be. People in grave sin may not receive communion. Adultery is a grave sin. People who divorce and remarry are in an adulterous relationship. Where are the cases here that allow communion?

You are changing the discussion. What is on the table is the carry-over, in the synod, of the issue of the “Orthodox option”, and whether or not there my be some circumstances in which a couple, in an irregular marriage, might be admitted to Communion beyond the “brother and sister” exception. So your question as to cases misses the point - it is not about existing cases, but rather about whether or not there may be circumstances where it might be permissible. I don’t have to come up with circumstances; if they already existed, the discussion in the synod would be moot as the question would already have been answered.

Exactly, and until someone comes up with a specific proposal, dealing with issue in vague terms is not useful.

Why does a discussion have to be “useful”, and how is that defined?

The discussion came up to start with, because the question came up at the synod, and some of the bishops and Cardinals have stated that it is not possible that someone in an irregular marriage may receive (brother and sister relation excepted). I simply posited a possible circumstance where it may be permissible; as part of the discussion. If you don’t like what I posited, that is fine; but it is not up to me to make an absolute, clear circumstance - that is the Church’s job.

Until someone identifies what those circumstances could be there is really nothing to discuss.

Ender

The fact that we have been discussing it shows there is something to discuss. It may not be crystal clear to you; but the very bottom line is that a minority of bishops and Cardinals basically said that according to current understanding, couples in irregular marriages cannot receive. They did not seem to specifically address the issue of the “orthodox option”, and factually, that question is still on the table.

It is entirely possible that the Church may decide that the “Orthodox option”, or something similar to it, may be permitted. It is entirely possible, also, that it may be denied, and we will continue as we have up to this point.

I thing that at the very bottom of the matter, although not specifically discussed, is that some in this thread and related threads are simply saying, :Allow the Church to decide what is right". Coupled with that would appear to be the feeling that people who “lock their heels” over this matter, while they may be proven right, also might be in a circumstance of being “proven wrong”. Another way of saying it is - yes, you may be absolutely right. However, history has enough evidence of surprises in the Church, that you might want to allow for change; for if you do not, and change occurs, you will be in a difficult position of whether or not you accept it.

With no desire to derail the discussion, we have a group which has found itself in that position, and there are bishops and priests who, according to Church authority, have no authority to confect the sacraments. At least one poster indicated they would leave the Church; and that is a sad statement.

It is one thing to say “The Church cannot do ‘XYZ’” and another thing to say “I absolutely cannot see any way the Church can do ‘XYZ’”. If there is a change, the latter allows one at least to say “I didn’t see that before”. I don’t recall anyone here saying that the Church will change its position. The majority of the bishops and Cardinals were not willing to say “This cannot happen” in reference to the “Orthodox option” , and while decisions such as this are not made by majority, history shows that sometimes the majority gets it right, and sometimes they don’t.

 

[McCall1981]

You are changing the discussion. What is on the table is the carry-over, in the synod, of the issue of the “Orthodox option”, and whether or not there my be some circumstances in which a couple, in an irregular marriage, might be admitted to Communion beyond the “brother and sister” exception. So your question as to cases misses the point - it is not about existing cases, but rather about whether or not there may be circumstances where it might be permissible. I don’t have to come up with circumstances; if they already existed, the discussion in the synod would be moot as the question would already have been answered.

Why does a discussion have to be “useful”, and how is that defined?

The discussion came up to start with, because the question came up at the synod, and some of the bishops and Cardinals have stated that it is not possible that someone in an irregular marriage may receive (brother and sister relation excepted). I simply posited a possible circumstance where it may be permissible; as part of the discussion. If you don’t like what I posited, that is fine; but it is not up to me to make an absolute, clear circumstance - that is the Church’s job.

The fact that we have been discussing it shows there is something to discuss. It may not be crystal clear to you; but the very bottom line is that a minority of bishops and Cardinals basically said that according to current understanding, couples in irregular marriages cannot receive. They did not seem to specifically address the issue of the “orthodox option”, and factually, that question is still on the table.

It is entirely possible that the Church may decide that the “Orthodox option”, or something similar to it, may be permitted. It is entirely possible, also, that it may be denied, and we will continue as we have up to this point.

I thing that at the very bottom of the matter, although not specifically discussed, is that some in this thread and related threads are simply saying, :Allow the Church to decide what is right". Coupled with that would appear to be the feeling that people who “lock their heels” over this matter, while they may be proven right, also might be in a circumstance of being “proven wrong”. Another way of saying it is - yes, you may be absolutely right. However, history has enough evidence of surprises in the Church, that you might want to allow for change; for if you do not, and change occurs, you will be in a difficult position of whether or not you accept it.

With no desire to derail the discussion, we have a group which has found itself in that position, and there are bishops and priests who, according to Church authority, have no authority to confect the sacraments. At least one poster indicated they would leave the Church; and that is a sad statement.

It is one thing to say “The Church cannot do ‘XYZ’” and another thing to say “I absolutely cannot see any way the Church can do ‘XYZ’”. If there is a change, the latter allows one at least to say “I didn’t see that before”. I don’t recall anyone here saying that the Church will change its position. The majority of the bishops and Cardinals were not willing to say “This cannot happen” in reference to the “Orthodox option” , and while decisions such as this are not made by majority, history shows that sometimes the majority gets it right, and sometimes they don’t.

I’d be interested to know what you think of George Weigel’s article I posted above.

firstthings.com/article/2015/01/between-two-synods

 

[Ender]

You are changing the discussion.

No, I was explaining the facts that underlie the issue. There are specific doctrines involved that limit the range of possible actions.

What is on the table is the carry-over, in the synod, of the issue of the “Orthodox option”, and whether or not there my be some circumstances in which a couple, in an irregular marriage, might be admitted to Communion beyond the “brother and sister” exception.

The issue is broader than that; what is being discussed is more than choosing between the Orthodox option or making no change at all. Nor does choosing the Orthodox option eliminate the problem I noted earlier. There are specific doctrines involved, and unless at least one of them is changed then the Orthodox solution is ruled out as well.

So your question as to cases misses the point - it is not about existing cases, but rather about whether or not there may be circumstances where it might be permissible. I don’t have to come up with circumstances; if they already existed, the discussion in the synod would be moot as the question would already have been answered.

My question is the point. So far this discussion has been merely theoretical because as soon as a specific situation is presented the problems it presents become obvious. The only way this debate can proceed is if there are no specifics to focus on.

The discussion came up to start with, because the question came up at the synod, and some of the bishops and Cardinals have stated that it is not possible that someone in an irregular marriage may receive (brother and sister relation excepted).

“Some” of the bishops and cardinals have pointed to the obvious: the church has repeatedly addressed this issue and has clearly resolved the matter. This is not the opinion of a handful of disgruntled clerics, it is the teaching of the church.

I simply posited a possible circumstance where it may be permissible; as part of the discussion.

Sorry, I don’t recall the example. Can you repeat it (or point me to the relevant post)?

I think that at the very bottom of the matter, although not specifically discussed, is that some in this thread and related threads are simply saying, :Allow the Church to decide what is right".

The church has addressed the issue and it has been decided. Should she continually reevaluate issues she has decided on the possibility that she decided them wrongly in the first place? At what point does doctrine become settled or is all doctrine subject to revision?

However, history has enough evidence of surprises in the Church, that you might want to allow for change; for if you do not, and change occurs, you will be in a difficult position of whether or not you accept it.

One of the more surprising features of this discussion is the attitudes people appear to have toward doctrines. It comes across as if there is no problem with the church saying no today and saying yes tomorrow, that a doctrine is nothing more than what the current Magisterium wants it to be. The acceptance of change, which in this case means a reversal of existing doctrine, is way too casual.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

One of the more surprising features of this discussion is the attitudes people appear to have toward doctrines. It comes across as if there is no problem with the church saying no today and saying yes tomorrow, that a doctrine is nothing more than what the current Magisterium wants it to be. The acceptance of change, which in this case means a reversal of existing doctrine, is way too casual.

Ender

It has never revolved around any prospect of a general change of the rule. It has always been in relation to specific circumstances that present generally within parishes to the parish Priests. As I’ve said before, my uncle and cousin are both currently Parish priest… one 50 years ordained. The other 25 years ordained, and this issue has been one that has been discussed at that level for a very long time. It’s similar to a patient presenting to the doctor where the doctor can only say ‘sorry you’re terminal. There is nothing that can be done for you’ when the medical community is sensing that this is not a terminal situation.

We all that that radiation for example is to be avoided as a general rule but by the same token can be life saving in certain specific diseases. That fact does not create any danger that we’ll suddenly all want to have weekly radiation… sick or not. People with sense, understand that a thing that’s normally contraindicative in the general sense… can be healing to one who has a specific disease.

My personal opinion is that any permission that comes about to address specific situations will only be a stepping stone to be able to address the overall annulment process more fully and develop a more thorough pre marriage focus.

We’ll have to wait and see what surprises God has for us.

 

[otjm]

Sorry, I don’t recall the example. Can you repeat it (or point me to the relevant post)?

What I brought up was the possibility that in some cirmstances (and I would presume them limited), a couple in a long term irregular marriage might come under the exception that some long term habitual sins, although objectively mortal sins, may not have the same degree of culpability. If that were to be decided, it would be on a case by case basis, and certainly not a blanket exception.

I am not a moral theologian, although it is an area where I have done a fair amount of reading. Could this happen? Certainly there are some who are adamantly opposed to the very idea, but they are not confessors. Will that be an exception? I have no clue; but someone was basically pusing the idea that there was absolutely no possibility any irregular couple could ever be admitted to Communion, and I gave what little I know.

The church has addressed the issue and it has been decided. Should she continually reevaluate issues she has decided on the possibility that she decided them wrongly in the first place? At what point does doctrine become settled or is all doctrine subject to revision?

There are several threads about this topic, and I don’t know which one of them I addressed this. If it is all so decided, then why is the question on the table? One would think that if it was so thoroughly decided, that it would not be on the agenda; yet it is on the agenda. A) I don’t know how the agenda was set: B) it may be on the agenda due to the question being asked in more than German circles; if it is fairly widespread, then it may be on the agenda to put the final nail in the coffin (or at least one more nail). I have said it before, and I’ll say it again - I don’t have a dog in this fight. I have, however, observed the Church through Vatican 2, and through Humanae Vitae, and I know that betting on the outcome calls for not putting all your money down on the matter.

One of the more surprising features of this discussion is the attitudes people appear to have toward doctrines. It comes across as if there is no problem with the church saying no today and saying yes tomorrow, that a doctrine is nothing more than what the current Magisterium wants it to be. The acceptance of change, which in this case means a reversal of existing doctrine, is way too casual.

Ender

I am not sure if you are directing that at me or not. No one who knows me considers me casual about doctrine. And I don’t consider it possible that any doctrine will be changed, any more than I think the sun will rise in the west. That does not mean, however, that I would be the least bit surprised if the Church said that under limited circumstances (and spells this out), some people in an irregular marriage might be admitted to Communion.

And at the same time, I would not be surprised in the least if the Church says that it is not possible.

I have been surprised enough by some of the things the Church has decided that I withhold making any bold statements as to what will happen, or what could possibly (or not possibly) happen.

And having been surprised more than once or twice, I can read something such as George Weigle, and think that he may be exactly spot on - but I still don’t bet the farm. Rather, I wait and see.

You may take that as a casual approach to doctrine; and I can assure you, it is not. I am wise enough, based on my experiences, to know that not only do I not have a Ph.D. in moral theology, but also to know that there are many others who do, and that they are considered loyal to the Church and yet may have opinions which appear to be on the wrong side… And among them, many take the position that St Thomas Aquinas did - that he put anything he said subject to the final determination of the Church, and they do likelwise. And not to make too fine a point of it, he erred on a few matters. If he can err, then I will sit and watch.

 

[McCall1981]

Here’s a good article on Pope Emeritus Benedict, Card Kasper and this communion issue:

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/12/benedicts-quiet-counsel-to-the-synod