Vatican to debate teachings on divorce, birth control, gay unions

[FollowChrist34]

Well said.

I think what it ultimately comes down to is simple: is the doctrine going to change, or is it just pastoral directives and policies that will change?

If doctrine changes, the Church has defected from the Truth. If its just pastoral policies that change, I probably won’t like or agree with the changes, but ultimately the Church would retain the Truth and it would be “ok”.

At this point, I think the most likely outcome is that the doctrine will technically be upheld, but pastoral policies will be adopted that will “stretch” the doctrine. The idea they (the hierarchy) seem to keep coming back to is this idea of “taking individual circumstances into account”. For a long time I couldn’t figure out what they meant, but I think it’s basically that they want the anullment process to be quicker, easier, and to happen closer to home. My guess is that the end result will be that they will move the responsibilities of the anullment process to national Bishops Conferences, or even to Diocese’s. I wouldn’t be happy with this (because I think it would basically be an excuse to make anullments easy to get), but if it happened I would be happy to breath a sigh of relief that the doctrine stayed intact.

The problem is that since some current proposals DO involve changing doctrine, we have to just wait and see, which, for me at least, is pretty agonizing.

Thanks for the info. No, I don’t know a lot about the annulment process so I probably shouldn’t speak to that part. I just watch it all unfold from afar. The other thing is the squabbling. It seems like the Bishops are clearly butting heads over this (and with good reason in my view). It’s like we’re watching a hockey game. Crazy!

 

[migueltojose]

Thanks for the info. No, I don’t know a lot about the annulment process so I probably shouldn’t speak to that part. I just watch it all unfold from afar. The other thing is the squabbling. It seems like the Bishops are clearly butting heads over this (and with good reason in my view). It’s like we’re watching a hockey game. Crazy!

More “Hope and Change”…
People get used to it.
It creates expectations.
Especially with the young and/or under-catechized.
Which most of us are.
They get excited and enthusiastic.
Hope we could all be so excited and enthusiastic about changing lost souls to found souls.
“For the sake of his sorrowful passion.”

 

[NextElement]

All I know is that if the Church made these changes in attempt to get more people back or be “politically correct”, I guarantee they would lose FAR more. I hope the Bishops understand that…

 

[Tigg]

Well said.

I think what it ultimately comes down to is simple: is the doctrine going to change, or is it just pastoral directives and policies that will change?

If doctrine changes, the Church has defected from the Truth. If its just pastoral policies that change, I probably won’t like or agree with the changes, but ultimately the Church would retain the Truth and it would be “ok”.

At this point, I think the most likely outcome is that the doctrine will technically be upheld, but pastoral policies will be adopted that will “stretch” the doctrine. The idea they (the hierarchy) seem to keep coming back to is this idea of “taking individual circumstances into account”. For a long time I couldn’t figure out what they meant, but I think it’s basically that they want the anullment process to be quicker, easier, and to happen closer to home. My guess is that the end result will be that they will move the responsibilities of the anullment process to national Bishops Conferences, or even to Diocese’s. I wouldn’t be happy with this (because I think it would basically be an excuse to make anullments easy to get), but if it happened I would be happy to breath a sigh of relief that the doctrine stayed intact.

The problem is that since some current proposals DO involve changing doctrine, we have to just wait and see, which, for me at least, is pretty agonizing.

Hello!

Please know that you are not alone - that there are many silent sufferers who follow your thought. It has been speculated again and again that the results of this synod may be similar to the response we had from certain quarters after Humanae Vitae was proclaimed. We have been warned through prophecy (which is always contingent) and have heard from the mouths of popes themselves the danger that is present within the Church. We are aware of the struggle among the bishops and how they disagree among themselves. Christ is present in their midst and clearly knows both his friends and his enemies just as He did at the Last Supper. Seems as though man throughout history has a knack for attempting to undo God’s salvific plan and the present Church is being likened to the passion and death of Christ, although our crucifixion is and will be mystical.

A few years ago a wonderful article came out in which the agony of the apostles was analogized as they watched their Master’s death on the cross. At every single stage of the crucifixion from the nailing of the body to the cross, to the lifting up of the body, to the agony suffered in even trying to breathe, the apostles anticipated after every single outrage…….that now……Jesus will show His power and in a blaze of glory strip Himself of the nails and come down from the wood. They waited and waited for this to happen (in vain) until finally Christ bowed His head and said it is finished. They did not realize then how absolutely necessary His death was. They could have realistically spent the next two days in the throes of grief, despair and doubt over the death of the one they had come to know. And then came the Resurrection!! This is a test of faith for us, but we are not in isolation as we have the entire Kingdom of Heaven to pray for us. JESUS, we trust in You!

 

[Peebo]

Obviously many of you don’t believe the Catholic Church is still being guided by the Holy Spirit…if…and I say if…the church decided that there is someway to accommodate divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion…many who have suffered emotionally and spiritually… it will be through the mercy and guidance of the Holy Spirit…why so many Catholics on CAFare so against these people being able to once again partake of the precious body and blood of our savior is just plain judgemental hypocricy…like I said…if it does change in some form or another it will be through the Holy Spirit which has guided the Catholic Church for 2000 years…what business is it of yours…or mine… what God may or may not allow.

 

[Joe_5859]

Obviously many of you don’t believe the Catholic Church is still being guided by the Holy Spirit…if…and I say if…the church decided that there is someway to accommodate divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion…many who have suffered emotionally and spiritually… it will be through the mercy and guidance of the Holy Spirit…why so many Catholics on CAFare so against these people being able to once again partake of the precious body and blood of our savior is just plain judgemental hypocricy…like I said…if it does change in some form or another it will be through the Holy Spirit which has guided the Catholic Church for 2000 years…what business is it of yours…or mine… what God may or may not allow.

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think people’s opposition to such a proposed change is motivated by wanting to deny people the sacraments. It’s more about what such a move would imply about the permanence and indissolubility of marriage, in addition to what it would mean about the conditions for receiving the sacraments.

If Communion is allowed for the divorced and remarried, does that constitute an implicit affirmation of the second marriage which – by the Church’s own sacramental theology – does not exist? If it is okay for them to receive the Communion in such a state, then why not any Catholic regardless of what they do and whether or not they go to Confession?

Even Cardinal Kasper’s initial speech was very measured in what he said. He was not advocating an unqualified opening of the doors. I can understand his arguments. But personally, it strikes me as uncomfortably similar to the arguments in 1930 where the Anglicans allowed contraception only for married couples and only in certain circumstances. It did not take long for those qualifications to be completely forgotten in practice.

I do trust the Holy Spirit. If such a change occurred, it will be laid out in a clear way. I do not believe such a change is possible, though. I cannot see how it would be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on the indisollubility of marriage and the Eucharist. But, hey, what I don’t know can fill many books.

 

[Tomdstone]

At this point, I think the most likely outcome is that the doctrine will technically be upheld, but pastoral policies will be adopted that will “stretch” the doctrine. The idea they (the hierarchy) seem to keep coming back to is this idea of “taking individual circumstances into account”. For a long time I couldn’t figure out what they meant, but I think it’s basically that they want the anullment process to be quicker, easier, and to happen closer to home. My guess is that the end result will be that they will move the responsibilities of the anullment process to national Bishops Conferences, or even to Diocese’s. I wouldn’t be happy with this (because I think it would basically be an excuse to make anullments easy to get), but if it happened I would be happy to breath a sigh of relief that the doctrine stayed intact.

Is that an honest approach - making annulments even easier to get than they are now and at the same time saying that divorce is immoral?

 

[McCall1981]

Is that an honest approach - making annulments even easier to get than they are now and at the same time saying that divorce is immoral?

In my opinion, no, it would not be entirely honest, which is why I would be “unhappy” with it.

But, as I see it, the question of whether the doctrine stays intact is a much more important issue. As long as the doctrine remains, then ultimately, the Church has the Truth, even if that Truth is not being applied very prudently in the real world.

 

[shelby_sun]

Well you know much more than I do, but I think the Church is seeing a better understanding of why people end up divorced in the world. Temptations today are much greater than they were 2000 years ago so of course the Church as to consider many more things, just as the governments do.

I don’t think as many couples take it lightly as some have suggested. All the people I know that have gone through a divorce have suffered a great deal in many ways, as have their children. Then, after recovering from that terrible pain, the Church has them annul their marriage in order to remarry and find happiness and possible stronger faith not only in God but in everyday life. Even if I someday divorced, I could never accept that my marriage was invalid. That to me would just dismiss all good time with the bad. I can see changing this; although like you, I don’t thinks going to happen.

With the divorce rate what it is these days, I don’t think it will get worse.

 

[McCall1981]

Sandro Magister posted this, which I think is a pretty good read:

“MY TAKE” ON COMMUNION FOR THE REMARRIED
by Carlo Buzzi

Dear Sandro,

Here in Bangladesh we teach the catechism and to be clear we say that every sacrament has four elements: the minister, the matter, the formula, the miraculous event.

In baptism the minister is any person, the matter is water, the formula is “I baptize you. . ." and the miraculous event is that one becomes a child of God.

In confirmation the minister is the bishop, the matter is oil, the formula is “I baptize you. . ." and the miraculous event is that one receives the power of the Holy Spirit.

In confession the minister is the priest, the matter is sin, the formula is “I absolve you. . ." and the miraculous event is the forgiveness of sins.

In the Eucharist the minister is the priest, the matter is bread and wine, the formula is “This is my body. . ." and the miraculous event is that bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus.

In marriage the ministers are the spouses themselves, the matter is their bodies and souls, the formula is the promise and the miraculous event is that they become as one person.

We teach that the sacrament is called this because it produces a supernatural event that cannot be seen with our eyes but is grandiose and real in the eyes of God.

With regard to marriage, we explain precisely that the miraculous thing is that after the promise before God the two spouses become united in one person as if they had been put together with superglue or fused at a thousand degrees.

Now, if this miraculous reality is taken away from Catholic marriage, what should we put in its place?

I have made a reflection of my own.

We know very well that there exists the baptism “of blood” and also the baptism “of desire,” just as valid as that of water.

Those who have remarried, if they are truly aware of their situation, can make the communion of desire.

In the reception of the sacraments there is the objective part and the subjective part. It is known that the most important thing is the great grace connected to the sacrament. But I could ruin this grace and even commit sacrilege if I approach communion casually or unworthily.

Now for these remarried, who all told have trampled a bit on the Christian meaning of suffering, of sacrifice, of forbearance, of penitence, and have forgotten that Jesus went up upon the cross and that the cross, when it comes, is the way for every Christian to drawn near to the Redeemer, it is a bit presumptuous to appeal to the mercy of God when before they have taken it so little into account.

In the subjective sense, I think that for them it is much more essential that they limit themselves to the desire for communion, instead of receiving communion itself.

The voluntary acceptance of this fasting will be very good for their souls and for the sanctity of that Christian community which is the Church.

But taking the route traced by Cardinal Kasper would cause serious harm:

1. It would make the Church superficial and accommodating;
2. One would have to deny the infallibility of the chair of Peter, because it would be as if all the previous popes had erred;
3. One would have to take as fools all those who gave their lives as martyrs to defend this sacrament.
   Perhaps I have made my contribution to this diatribe, which I hope will end soon.

So long and many warm greetings from Bangladesh, which is emerging in so many things and is no longer a country to be shoved aside.

Father Carlo
Sirajganj, May 5, 2014

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350792?eng=y

 

[shelby_sun]

Is that an honest approach - making annulments even easier to get than they are now and at the same time saying that divorce is immoral?

Divorce is not immoral, it is unfortunate. Do you really think that all the marriages that take place in all the Catholic churches around the world that every single one of them are suppose to be successful even if they are blessed by God when you bring in the elements of two human beings? Really that is a bit naive don’t you think. Yes God is capable of that success but humans are not, not when there are millions of marriage taking place in the Catholic church a year.

 

[Tomdstone]

In my opinion, no, it would not be entirely honest, which is why I would be “unhappy” with it.

But, as I see it, the question of whether the doctrine stays intact is a much more important issue. As long as the doctrine remains, then ultimately, the Church has the Truth, even if that Truth is not being applied very prudently in the real world.

How credible is the adherence to the doctrine, if there are huge loopholes set up, making it easy to get around it?

 

[Tomdstone]

Divorce is not immoral, it is unfortunate. Do you really think that all the marriages that take place in all the Catholic churches around the world that every single one of them are suppose to be successful even if they are blessed by God when you bring in the elements of two human beings? Really that is a bit naive don’t you think. Yes God is capable of that success but humans are not, not when there are millions of marriage taking place in the Catholic church a year.

What I think is naïve is the belief that nothing has changed and the teaching is the same as it was in 1930, when in the USA, there were about 10 annulments granted per year. Recently, it has been going as high as 60,000 annulments per year in the USA. Why are so many marriages in the Roman Catholic Church invalid, but in the Eastern Orthodox Church you have so very few. As the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true Church, a person might think that their rate of invalid marriages would not be the highest compared to any other Christian community? What other Christian ecclesial community has so many invalid marriages? A Lutheran lady appeared on a TV news program and said that she did everything that the Roman Catholic Church required and raised her children Catholic and educated them in Catholic schools and took them to Church for 16 years, when all of a sudden out of the blue, her husband said he was applying for an annulment. Of course, this never would have come up, except that he had been unfaithful to the marriage with a younger woman. So he got the annulment and she said that she had been deceived by the Roman Catholic Church since as a good Lutheran, she never would have lived with a man without the benefit of a valid marriage. She said that she was outraged at the Roman Catholic Church for deceiving her into believing that she had been in a valid marriage for 16 years, when now, that her husband has been having an illicit affair with someone else, the Catholic Church says that there really never was any valid marriage.

 

[McCall1981]

How credible is the adherence to the doctrine, if there are huge loopholes set up, making it easy to get around it?

Well, depending on what the loopholes were, probably not very credible, certainly less credible than I would want, or hope for.

Given the choice, would you rather be in a Church that doctrinally retains the Truth but applies that Truth imperfectly, or a Church that doctrinally deviates from the Truth and thus doesn’t apply the Truth at all?

 

[shelby_sun]

What I think is naïve is the belief that nothing has changed and the teaching is the same as it was in 1930, when in the USA, there were about 10 annulments granted per year. Recently, it has been going as high as 60,000 annulments per year in the USA. Why are so many marriages in the Roman Catholic Church invalid, but in the Eastern Orthodox Church you have so very few. As the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true Church, a person might think that their rate of invalid marriages would not be the highest compared to any other Christian community? What other Christian ecclesial community has so many invalid marriages? A Lutheran lady appeared on a TV news program and said that she did everything that the Roman Catholic Church required and raised her children Catholic and educated them in Catholic schools and took them to Church for 16 years, when all of a sudden out of the blue, her husband said he was applying for an annulment. Of course, this never would have come up, except that he had been unfaithful to the marriage with a younger woman. So he got the annulment and she said that she had been deceived by the Roman Catholic Church since as a good Lutheran, she never would have lived with a man without the benefit of a valid marriage. She said that she was outraged at the Roman Catholic Church for deceiving her into believing that she had been in a valid marriage for 16 years, when now, that her husband has been having an illicit affair with someone else, the Catholic Church says that there really never was any valid marriage.

Well just think if they had not allowed those annulments how many people would have left the Church over the years, many more than the Church is losing right now.

 

[shelby_sun]

One thing I have found interesting is that people are willing to believe that God has inspired the Church over 2000 years to know the truth and could not have been wrong because inspired by God, yet babies, created by God, can have birth defects, die in the womb, or be born with huge complications. Is not each child created by God, yet not all are born “perfect”. The human element, times, and outside elements are involved in both.

It isn’t that the Church is infallible, it is that fact the it is still standing and existing after so much time and changes in the world. Do we really need to believe that every single thing it has ever come up with has been right? And if so why?

 

[shelby_sun]

One thing I have found interesting is that people are willing to believe that God has inspired the Church over 2000 years to know the truth and could not have been wrong because inspired by God, yet babies, created by God, can have birth defects, die in the womb, or be born with huge complications. Is not each child created by God, yet not all are born “perfect”. The human element, times, and outside elements are involved in both.

It isn’t that the Church is infallible, it is that fact the it is still standing and existing after so much time and changes in the world. Do we really need to believe that every single thing it has ever come up with has been right? And if so why?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Obviously many of you don’t believe the Catholic Church is still being guided by the Holy Spirit…if…and I say if…the church decided that there is someway to accommodate divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion…many who have suffered emotionally and spiritually… it will be through the mercy and guidance of the Holy Spirit…why so many Catholics on CAFare so against these people being able to once again partake of the precious body and blood of our savior is just plain judgemental hypocricy…like I said…if it does change in some form or another it will be through the Holy Spirit which has guided the Catholic Church for 2000 years…what business is it of yours…or mine… what God may or may not allow.

Well, let’s remember that the Church is deeply divided on where the Holy Spirit is taking us, right up to the top. I think a majority of the bishops in the world oppose the changes and would argue that the Holy Spirit is giving us the strength and courage to hold fast and not give in. (as would I)

Do you know St Athanasius? He had to correct Pope Liberius to retain orthodoxy. You should be very thankful he did; that’s why you’re in the Church you are in today - same one he was in.

newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm

 

[Tomdstone]

Given the choice, would you rather be in a Church that doctrinally retains the Truth but applies that Truth imperfectly, or a Church that doctrinally deviates from the Truth and thus doesn’t apply the Truth at all?

I understand your question. However, part of the right way of doing things, IMHO, is to be honest with what you are doing and not claim it is something else. BTW, according to what I have heard from some E. Orthodox Christians, they say that their Church allowed for divorce and remarriage early on, before the split of 1054, and that Rome did not object.,

 

[Tomdstone]

Well just think if they had not allowed those annulments how many people would have left the Church over the years, many more than the Church is losing right now.

And what about the objections of this poor Lutheran woman who followed all of the Catholic rules that she was asked to, including going to Mass every Sunday with her children? Now she is told that while she was living with this Catholic man that she thought was her husband, she really was never married, which she considers to be a great insult to her integrity and character as a decent Christian lady.