Vatican releases preparatory document ahead of 2015 synod

[Sirach2]

I think there is a slanderous campaign being waged in this link. If one reads the linked article without noting the actual revised text … published, by the way, well beyond the February, 2014 speech by Card. Kasper to the Consistory, and which continues to retain Benedict’s statement of 2005. Sandro Magister quote:

2.b. Today there is another question that imposes itself with great seriousness. Currently there are more and more baptized pagans, meaning persons who have become Christian by means of baptism but do not believe and have never known the faith. This is a paradoxical situation: baptism makes the person Christian, but without faith he remains nonetheless just a baptized pagan.

**Can. 1055 § 2 **says that “between baptized persons there cannot exist a valid marriage contract that is not for that very reason a sacrament.” But what happens if a baptized unbeliever knows nothing at all about the sacraments? He might even have the intention of indissolubility, but he does not see the uniqueness of the Christian faith. The tragic aspect of this situation appears evident above all when baptized pagans convert to the faith and begin a completely new life. This brings up questions for which we still do not have answers. And therefore it is even more urgent to explore them.

Footnote: The new retraction of the 1972 article, with the concluding part entirely rewritten, appeared in the fall of 2014 in the following volume of the German edition of the Opera Omnia.

This is was Pope Benedict’s 2005 statement.
**3. **During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further”.
See more at L’osservatore Romano.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think there is a slanderous campaign being waged in this link. If one reads the linked article without noting the actual revised text … published, by the way, well beyond the February, 2014 speech by Card. Kasper to the Consistory, and which continues to retain Benedict’s statement of 2005. Sandro Magister quote:

This is was Pope Benedict’s 2005 statement.
**3. **During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further”.
See more at L’osservatore Romano.

God Bless, Sirach2! I was trying to find that very pertinent statement from Pope Benedict which had been posted on an earlier thread in response to efforts to mendaciously establish a division between the two living Popes.
…

***Jesus does not ask us to keep grace in a safe… He wants us to use it for the benefit of others.

Pope Francis***

 

[Sirach2]

God Bless, Sirach2! I was trying to find that very pertinent statement from Pope Benedict which had been posted on an earlier thread in response to efforts to mendaciously establish a division between the two living Popes.

It appears to me that this is a diabolical plot right out of the fiery pit. As I awoke today, I did not recall a single paragraph in the speech by Card. Kasper that alluded to anything whatsoever written by Pope Emeritus Benedict, although I will go back and read the speech in his book, Gospel of the Family, again – to see if there were any footnotes. From what I recall, Kasper never said “I think, I believe, or Pope Benedict said, etc.” but merely presented some concepts for the Councilors to consider, as Pope Francis had asked him to do. It should not take me long, since it was a very short chapter, consisting of about 8 pages.

From McCall’s link: “Why would Kasper utilize Ratzinger’s authority to support a proposal that Ratzinger later rejected? Was Kasper unaware?” If I find no quoting of Ratzinger’s words, nor any footnotes alluding to them, then this linked website carries its obvious fruit of machination.

I sense that God is stirring up my spirit, similar to the incident of Daniel defending Suzanna against the lies of those two elders, for I am now strongly moved to go further against these attempts to calumniate Kasper, even to Pope Francis himself. All I can guess is that those who engage in this slander are very desperate and will use any means whatsoever to stop the Synod from its work in this regard.

 

[Sirach2]

It appears to me that this is a diabolical plot right out of the fiery pit. As I awoke today, I did not recall a single paragraph in the speech by Card. Kasper that alluded to anything whatsoever written by Pope Emeritus Benedict, although I will go back and read the speech in his book, Gospel of the Family, again – to see if there were any footnotes.

From McCall’s link: “Why would Kasper utilize Ratzinger’s authority to support a proposal that Ratzinger later rejected? Was Kasper unaware?” If I find no quoting of Ratzinger’s words, nor any footnotes alluding to them, then this linked website carries its obvious fruit of machination.

Well, I searched Kasper’s book again, and found a slight reference to Ratzinger:
Joseph Ratzinger proposed taking up the position of Basil in a new way**. That appears to be an appropriate solution**, one that also underlies my current reflections. We cannot act on the authority of one or other historical interpretation that is still controversial. A fortiori, we cannot simply replicate the early church’s solutions in our situation, which is completely different. In our changed situation, however, we can take up again the early church’s fundamental concern and seek to actualize it in today’s situation, in a manner that is fair and just in the light of the gospel.
18. See Joseph Ratzinger, “Zur…etc. 1972”
He absolutely did not enlarge upon this whatsoever, except to say that this underlies his “current reflections,” and wisely cautioned with blue portion I quoted above.

So these bloggers have blown this all out of proportion in order to depict Kasper as “utilizing Ratzinger’s authority” for his own purpose. It pays to check these articles, folks. They are not what they appear at first glance, but contaiin much deliberate deception.

Please take note also that this work was not retracted by P.E. Benedict until well after Kasper delivered his speech earlier this year.

 

[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.

Fine. Identify one specific circumstance that might be an exception allowing someone who divorced from a valid marriage and remarried to receive communion.

Ender

 

[McCall1981]

I think there is a slanderous campaign being waged in this link. If one reads the linked article without noting the actual revised text … published, by the way, well beyond the February, 2014 speech by Card. Kasper to the Consistory, and which continues to retain Benedict’s statement of 2005. Sandro Magister quote:

This is was Pope Benedict’s 2005 statement.
**3. **During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further”.
See more at L’osservatore Romano.

It appears to me that this is a diabolical plot right out of the fiery pit. As I awoke today, I did not recall a single paragraph in the speech by Card. Kasper that alluded to anything whatsoever written by Pope Emeritus Benedict, although I will go back and read the speech in his book, Gospel of the Family, again – to see if there were any footnotes. From what I recall, Kasper never said “I think, I believe, or Pope Benedict said, etc.” but merely presented some concepts for the Councilors to consider, as Pope Francis had asked him to do. It should not take me long, since it was a very short chapter, consisting of about 8 pages.

From McCall’s link: “Why would Kasper utilize Ratzinger’s authority to support a proposal that Ratzinger later rejected? Was Kasper unaware?” If I find no quoting of Ratzinger’s words, nor any footnotes alluding to them, then this linked website carries its obvious fruit of machination.

I sense that God is stirring up my spirit, similar to the incident of Daniel defending Suzanna against the lies of those two elders, for I am now strongly moved to go further against these attempts to calumniate Kasper, even to Pope Francis himself. All I can guess is that those who engage in this slander are very desperate and will use any means whatsoever to stop the Synod from its work in this regard.

Well, I searched Kasper’s book again, and found a slight reference to Ratzinger:
Joseph Ratzinger proposed taking up the position of Basil in a new way**. That appears to be an appropriate solution**, one that also underlies my current reflections. We cannot act on the authority of one or other historical interpretation that is still controversial. A fortiori, we cannot simply replicate the early church’s solutions in our situation, which is completely different. In our changed situation, however, we can take up again the early church’s fundamental concern and seek to actualize it in today’s situation, in a manner that is fair and just in the light of the gospel.
18. See Joseph Ratzinger, “Zur…etc. 1972”
He absolutely did not enlarge upon this whatsoever, except to say that this underlies his “current reflections,” and wisely cautioned with blue portion I quoted above.

So these bloggers have blown this all out of proportion in order to depict Kasper as “utilizing Ratzinger’s authority” for his own purpose. It pays to check these articles, folks. They are not what they appear at first glance, but contaiin much deliberate deception.

Please take note also that this work was not retracted by P.E. Benedict until well after Kasper delivered his speech earlier this year.

Um, you’re missing the key distinction of this entire debate.

Everything Benedict talks about here (the internal forum, baptized pagans, validity dependent on the faith of the couple, etc) is about the process of determining validity. All of those issues are perfectly valid theological questions, all of them can be discussed, and I would thank God if the Synod ends up going in this direction.

The proposal by Card Kasper is about giving communion to (some) remarried people despite them having a valid first marriage (in other words, the validity of the first marriage has already been determined).

If they just change the process of determining validity, say by formalizing the internal forum, or making the faith of the couple at the time of their first marriage a factor, that would not be a problem.

And yes, Benedict is absolutely against giving communion to the remarried, and that is not debatable.

 

[LongingSoul]

Fine. Identify one specific circumstance that might be an exception allowing someone who divorced from a valid marriage and remarried to receive communion.

Ender

From the experience of diocesan Priests as relayed from horses mouths over at least the last 30 years in my neck of the woods… families who over many years have participated faithfully in parish life, raising children in the Church, educated in the sacraments, but continue themselves to hold back from Communion due to a blighted attempt at a first marriage in the distant past.

Pope Benedict addressed the modern phenomenon of celebrating Sacraments without faith, which is a complicated thing for a Tribunal to address since ‘faith’ can’t be detected intellectually… it is known only by its fruits in the fullness of time.

My guess is this long time unease at the Parish level of clergy, is what continues to drive the quest for some deeper understanding with which to address this situation within the Parishes where they exist.

 

[Sirach2]

Everything Benedict talks about here (the internal forum, baptized pagans, validity dependent on the faith of the couple, etc) is about the process of determining validity. All of those issues are perfectly valid theological questions, all of them can be discussed, and I would thank God if the Synod ends up going in this direction.

The proposal by Card Kasper is about giving communion to (some) remarried people despite them having a valid first marriage (in other words, the validity of the first marriage has already been determined).

[It appears that you will continue to post in two threads, to make sure everyone ‘gets it.’ Therefore, I will continue to reply in both of them, as well.)

No. I repeat myself. He has merely offered points for the Synod’s reflection, (labeled by him as an ‘opening’) as he was commissioned to do by Pope Francis, and has not etched in stone any of these points as his own personal opinion, barring the one statement I shared previously, that he was leaning with Ratzinger’s earlier writing on one point (which, as you should have noted, was not elaborated upon in Kasper’s speech, per se.)

Furthermore, he has not adopted for his *own basis, the thought of Joseph Ratzinger, as I have proved beyond a doubt, despite what your bloggers had to say to the contrary. The outcome is still to be determined next year.

Can we let this rest and stop trying to nail Kasper to the proverbial cross?

 

[McCall1981]

[It appears that you will continue to post in two threads, to make sure everyone ‘gets it.’ Therefore, I will continue to reply in both of them, as well.)

No. I repeat myself. He has merely offered points for the Synod’s reflection, (labeled by him as an ‘opening’) as he was commissioned to do by Pope Francis, and has not etched in stone any of these points as his own personal opinion, barring the one statement I shared previously, that he was leaning with Ratzinger’s earlier writing on one point (which, as you should have noted, was not elaborated upon in Kasper’s speech, per se.)

Furthermore, he has not adopted for his *own basis

, the thought of Joseph Ratzinger, as I have proved beyond a doubt, despite what your bloggers had to say to the contrary. The outcome is still to be determined next year.

Can we let this rest and stop trying to nail Kasper to the proverbial cross?

Ok, then let’s stick in this thread.

His proposal is vague, and it includes some parts that are theologically fine, and some that are not. To whatever extent his proposal includes reform of the annulment process, the internal forum, baptized pagans, faith a condition for validity, etc, etc, that is all fine, and that is not the controversial problem.

The controversial problem is that his proposal also includes the suggestion to create a “penitential process” where, at the end of the process, a person with a valid first marriage is admitted to communion. That is the part that is problematic, and that is the part he being rightly criticized for.

 

[Ender]

What I brought up was the possibility that in some circumstances (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.

Without trying in any way to distort your example here is how it appears to me.

Someone who is knowingly and persistently committing an objectively grave (indeed,mortal) sin may still be admitted to communion because his habits may excuse him from responsibility for his actions.

Is this your exception?

If that were to be decided, it would be on a case by case basis, and certainly not a blanket exception.

Frankly the distinction seems artificial and irrelevant. Either the doctrines permit it or they don’t, and if they permit it then the extent of the “exceptions” is merely a difference of opinion, not of truth. Who is admitted and who is barred is merely a matter of choice.

If it is all so decided, then why is the question on the table?

I have no answer for this. The question has been decided any number of times yet it still persists. The whole thing is inconceivable to me.

I have said it before, and I’ll say it again - I don’t have a dog in this fight.

I do. Not because the situation applies to me or anyone in my family, but because it goes to the question of whether doctrine actually means something.

I don’t consider it possible that any doctrine will be changed

And I can’t imagine any circumstance that can allow communion in such a circumstance unless doctrine is ignored.

I do not have a Ph.D. in moral theology…

This is true for virtually all of us, but it doesn’t require such expertise and training to be able to understand the plain meaning of words. This is not all that complicated; to me the argument is that doctrines mean what they say…except when they don’t.

Ender

 

[otjm]

Without trying in any way to distort your example here is how it appears to me.

Someone who is knowingly and persistently committing an objectively grave (indeed,mortal) sin may still be admitted to communion because his habits may excuse him from responsibility for his actions.

Is this your exception?

It is not my exception; it is listed in the CCC and is part of moral theology. I simply brought it up as one possibility based on current moral theology, when everyone else is saying there is no possibility. I am not asserting that there is a possibility; I am simply asking the question - “could this be one?”

Frankly the distinction seems artificial and irrelevant. Either the doctrines permit it or they don’t, and if they permit it then the extent of the “exceptions” is merely a difference of opinion, not of truth. Who is admitted and who is barred is merely a matter of choice.

It is neither artificial nor irrelevant; but it would be limited within the set of “all irregular marriages”. It is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of facts. A confessor has to determine, based on the facts of a penitent, whether or not the penitent is less culpable. And it fits exactly with the doctrine, as the doctrine says that one committing a mortal sin of adultery is not to be admitted. If in the confessor’s determination, they are not committing the mortal sin of adultery, then they are not prohibited. And a mortal sin requires 3 parts, one of which is the substance of the determination that there is not a level of culpability to raise it to the full intent.

I have no answer for this. The question has been decided any number of times yet it still persists. The whole thing is inconceivable to me.

It is inconceivable to you and to some who are far, far more trained in moral theology than either of us; but it is not our decision to make - nor, for a matter of fact, theirs. It is the Pope’s.

I do. Not because the situation applies to me or anyone in my family, but because it goes to the question of whether doctrine actually means something.
And I can’t imagine any circumstance that can allow communion in such a circumstance unless doctrine is ignored.

Look - you may very well be right. I am not promoting one side or the other; I am not taking bets. I am suggesting that until the matter is decided, you spend a lot less time agonizing over it, for the very reason you state - you cannot imagine the circumstance. Doctrine is not going to be changed; it never has been changed (although through the history of the Church, doctrine has been nuanced) and that won’t start here. Should the Church find, within moral theology, that under certain limited circumstances, certain limited numbers of people in irregular marriages might be admitted to Communion, it will be because the matter has been explored in depth, and what had not been seen before is now seen. And that, if it should occur, will not occur by changing doctrine, but by applying moral theology in a way that does not deny doctrine.
That is not dependent upon you finding the way. Or me.

This is true for virtually all of us, but it doesn’t require such expertise and training to be able to understand the plain meaning of words. This is not all that complicated; to me the argument is that doctrines mean what they say…except when they don’t.

Ender

You should have been alive well before Vatican 2; the common understanding (and it was not limited to just those in the pews) was that “outside the Church” was far, far more limited than what was resolved in Vatican 2. Many felt there was no way that doctrine could be expanded; many are still convinced the results were heretical.

 

[Ender]

It is not my exception; it is listed in the CCC and is part of moral theology.

This is a misreading of what the catechism states. It says that* “responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by…habit”*. It assuredly does not say that habit permits one to continue sinning, especially after it is made clear that the habitual action is a grave sin. There is no theological argument to be made that habit excuses sin.

It is neither artificial nor irrelevant; but it would be limited within the set of “all irregular marriages”. It is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of facts. A confessor has to determine, based on the facts of a penitent, whether or not the penitent is less culpable.

Will there be degrees of culpability for mortal sins such that we may continue to engage in them? How is it conceivable that someone could be granted permission to knowingly commit grave sins and not be held responsible?

And it fits exactly with the doctrine, as the doctrine says that one committing a mortal sin of adultery is not to be admitted. If in the confessor’s determination, they are not committing the mortal sin of adultery, then they are not prohibited. And a mortal sin requires 3 parts, one of which is the substance of the determination that there is not a level of culpability to raise it to the full intent.

You misstate the conditions.1857* For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”*
What is required is full knowledge and deliberate consent regarding a grave matter. Those conditions are satisfied as soon as the priest makes it clear that, regardless of the reason, an irregular marriage is adulterous.

Ender

 

[cena]

Without trying in any way to distort your example here is how it appears to me.

Someone who is knowingly and persistently committing an objectively grave (indeed,mortal) sin may still be admitted to communion because his habits may excuse him from responsibility for his actions.

Is this your exception?
Frankly the distinction seems artificial and irrelevant. Either the doctrines permit it or they don’t, and if they permit it then the extent of the “exceptions” is merely a difference of opinion, not of truth. Who is admitted and who is barred is merely a matter of choice.
I have no answer for this. The question has been decided any number of times yet it still persists. The whole thing is inconceivable to me.
I do. Not because the situation applies to me or anyone in my family, but because it goes to the question of whether doctrine actually means something.
And I can’t imagine any circumstance that can allow communion in such a circumstance unless doctrine is ignored.
This is true for virtually all of us, but it doesn’t require such expertise and training to be able to understand the plain meaning of words. This is not all that complicated; to me the argument is that doctrines mean what they say…except when they don’t.

Ender

:yup:

 

[otjm]

This is a misreading of what the catechism states. It says that* “responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by…habit”. It assuredly does not say that habit permits one to continue sinning, especially after it is made clear that the habitual action is a grave sin. There is no theological argument to be made that habit excuses sin.
Will there be degrees of culpability for mortal sins such that we may continue to engage in them? How is it conceivable that someone could be granted permission to knowingly commit grave sins and not be held responsible?
You misstate the conditions.1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”*
What is required is full knowledge and deliberate consent regarding a grave matter. Those conditions are satisfied as soon as the priest makes it clear that, regardless of the reason, an irregular marriage is adulterous.

Ender

Perhaps it is good that you are not a pastor. The essence of what you have posted is that there really is no such thing as sin so habitual as to reduce culpability. I am not going to get into an argument with you about what the Church teaches; but I will acknowledge that you have a lot of company with others who do not accept that habit can act to reduce culpability.

Have a blessed and wonderful Christmas.

 

[cena]

Perhaps it is good that you are not a pastor. The essence of what you have posted is that there really is no such thing as sin so habitual as to reduce culpability. I am not going to get into an argument with you about what the Church teaches; but I will acknowledge that you have a lot of company with others who do not accept that habit can act to reduce culpability.

Have a blessed and wonderful Christmas.

Someone whose body is literally dependent on drugs (like heroine) would probably fit this. If your body becomes dependent on it then you might still do it without your full consent.

 

[ProVobis]

… I will acknowledge that you have a lot of company with others who do not accept that habit can act to reduce culpability.

Well, you have to admit missing Mass every Jan 1 is a little difficult to put into the force of habit category. Just sayin…

 

[otjm]

Well, you have to admit missing Mass every Jan 1 is a little difficult to put into the force of habit category. Just sayin…

I dunno - is it intentional?

 

[Ender]

The essence of what you have posted is that there really is no such thing as sin so habitual as to reduce culpability.

That really is not at all what I said. The question is not whether habit reduces culpability but whether it eliminates it entirely and permits one to persist in habitual sin. Even with deeply ingrained habits one is still required to resist the temptation and to acknowledge the sin involved. And this is really the point: there is still grave sin involved that cannot be ignored or absolved with a wink and a nod.

Ender

 

[ProVobis]

I dunno - is it intentional?

I think I’d ring it (-]not/-] never going to Mass on Jan 1) up to plain laziness.

 

[otjm]

That really is not at all what I said. The question is not whether habit reduces culpability but whether it eliminates it entirely and permits one to persist in habitual sin. Even with deeply ingrained habits one is still required to resist the temptation and to acknowledge the sin involved. And this is really the point: there is still grave sin involved that cannot be ignored or absolved with a wink and a nod.

Ender

That is how you come across. And the question is whether or not habit reduces culpability because the discussion was whether or not that might be a circumstance where a couple in a long term irregular marriage might at some point be readmitted in some fashion to Communion. Nor have I said that habit removes culpability or that sinners are not required still to resist temptation.

How about you let the sinner deal with their confessor and their sin? You and I know that adultery is a serious sin; but your prior post seems to say that it is not possible that someone in an irregular marriage could ever be found to have reduced culpability, Since that is not your business to determine nor is it mine, perhaps we can let the confessor make that decision?

And should they do so, then it is between the confessor an the penitent as to the admission to Communion, and whether or not that is a case by case basis, and what the parameters are.