What Cardinal Burke really said about 'resisting' Pope Francis

[_Abyssinia]

Both of these pre-dated the Synod in October. Do you have a source from Muller for anything more recent, say, after the synod?

This is not necessarily relating to the Communion issue, but it may be taken as also relating to this issue among others:

Gerhard Cardinal Muller recalled the closely relationship between doctrine and pastoral practice to the opening session of the International Theological Commission. “Any separation of theory from practice of the faith would be a subtle, but serious Christological heresy”, said the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who is also the President of the Commission.

pch24.pl/kard–muller–nie-wolno-przeciwstawiac-doktryny-praktyce-duszpasterskiej–to-herezja-,32477,i.html

torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/cardinal-gerhard-muller-separating.html

This is not from Cardinal Muller, but the secretary in the CDF, ‘three days’ after the end of the Synod:

CDF official affirms teaching on absolution, Communion for the remarried

Canon lawyer Edward Peter also has some things to say about the CDF.

 

[Sirach2]

This is not necessarily relating to the Communion issue, but it may be taken as also relating to this issue among others:

This is not from Cardinal Muller, but the secretary in the CDF, ‘three days’ after the end of the Synod:

CDF official affirms teaching on absolution, Communion for the remarried

Thanks, but I still believe that there is so much more to be discussed. We just have to await the next synod’s findings. I noted these three conditions:

“Verify the validity of the religious marriage in the respect of truth, all the while avoiding giving the impression of a kind of ‘Catholic divorce.’”
“See eventually if the persons, with the aid of grace, can separate from their new partners and reconcile with those from whom they had separated.”
“Invite remarried divorced persons who, for serious reasons (for instance, children), cannot separate from their partner to live as ‘brother and sister.’”

#1 assumes the marriage is proven valid. My concern is for those who cannot obtain such proof, as indicated in my last post. There surely has to be guidance from the Magisterium for pastors to correctly counsel those in this situation. I’m very willing to wait, and meanwhile… pray!

 

[Ender]

I have thought long and hard about this myself … let’s say a couple are the type that BXVI was concerned about – baptized ‘pagans’ who use the Church to have a ‘nice’ wedding, with no real concept of faith in the sacrament. The marriage fails and the abandoned spouse eventually remarries, say 20-25 years later – but not before applying for an annulment. Due to the time lapse, lack of witnesses, etc., the tribunal has little to go on other than the petitioner’s word that he/she did not have a proper sense of marriage at the time of the pretty ceremony, which was more for show and parental approval than real faith. 'Good’ Catholics get married in church, yes?

This person’s conscience was formed after much prayer and certainty before God, they believe that their first marriage was invalid, though no annulment was granted; is this person to go through the rest of their life without the sacraments?

I should have addressed this before since I’ve been asking for someone to present a specific example that could be discussed.

Baptized Christians are married in a church but have no firm understanding of the faith, one spouse abandons the other, the abandoned spouse remarries and applies for an annulment, but the tribunal has insufficient information to pass judgment. If I understand you right, your solution is to allow the spouse to declare the first marriage invalid. Have I described everything accurately?

Are we agreed then that someone divorced and remarried from a valid marriage may still not receive communion? It seems the reason to allow the person involved to make the decision to invalidate the first marriage is to maintain this restriction, otherwise why bother?

I truly believe it would not be wrong for them to receive the sacrament, since the 3 conditions for mortal sin are not present. IOW, it is NOT adultery.

*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.
*Of the three necessary conditions I’m assuming you believe it is “full knowledge” that is absent. Again, does this accurately describe your position?

Ender

 

[Lapey]

Thanks, but I still believe that there is so much more to be discussed. We just have to await the next synod’s findings. I noted these three conditions:

“Verify the validity of the religious marriage in the respect of truth, all the while avoiding giving the impression of a kind of ‘Catholic divorce.’”
“See eventually if the persons, with the aid of grace, can separate from their new partners and reconcile with those from whom they had separated.”
“Invite remarried divorced persons who, for serious reasons (for instance, children), cannot separate from their partner to live as ‘brother and sister.’”

#1 assumes the marriage is proven valid. My concern is for those who cannot obtain such proof, as indicated in my last post. There surely has to be guidance from the Magisterium for pastors to correctly counsel those in this situation. I’m very willing to wait, and meanwhile… pray!

I’m guessing you are speaking of the first Church marriage. The only way to prove anything is to prove the first marriage in invalid. If a tribunal investigates and holds the first marriage valid, then it is valid. This would make the second, no matter what people “feel”, invalid. What people have to be catechized to do is seek the annulment and live by the results, there is no second choice and still live in grace. God through His Church directs this, not a lawyer and/or judge.

If I am missing your point please correct me.

 

[LongingSoul]

I should have addressed this before since I’ve been asking for someone to present a specific example that could be discussed.

Baptized Christians are married in a church but have no firm understanding of the faith, one spouse abandons the other, the abandoned spouse remarries and applies for an annulment, but the tribunal has insufficient information to pass judgment. If I understand you right, your solution is to allow the spouse to declare the first marriage invalid. Have I described everything accurately?

Are we agreed then that someone divorced and remarried from a valid marriage may still not receive communion? It seems the reason to allow the person involved to make the decision to invalidate the first marriage is to maintain this restriction, otherwise why bother?
*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.
*Of the three necessary conditions I’m assuming you believe it is “full knowledge” that is absent. Again, does this accurately describe your position?

Ender

I would add to Sirach’s scenario that these couples are couples who by their lives demonstrate the fruits of the holy love that the Sacrament of marriage indicates. They have embraced the faith with genuine maturity participating in parish life and the Mass, raising their offspring in the Faith and being alive in Christ in their marriage. The couples being addressed by this issue are those now living the faith. Many Catholics immediately go for the annulment because that is seen to be the Catholic way to end the marriage but these couples by their now lives are actually demonstrating the fruits of mature faith and understanding of marriage from the heart.

No one is suggesting that this is just going to be a parish level annulment of any old Catholic who wants it. It very much encompasses the faith witnessed to by the new life in Christ.

 

[Lapey]

I would add to Sirach’s scenario that these couples are couples who by their lives demonstrate the fruits of the holy love that the Sacrament of marriage indicates. They have embraced the faith with genuine maturity participating in parish life and the Mass, raising their offspring in the Faith and being alive in Christ in their marriage. The couples being addressed by this issue are those now living the faith. Many Catholics immediately go for the annulment because that is seen to be the Catholic way to end the marriage but these couples by their now lives are actually demonstrating the fruits of mature faith and understanding of marriage from the heart.

No one is suggesting that this is just going to be a parish level annulment of any old Catholic who wants it. It very much encompasses the faith witnessed to by the new life in Christ.

I understand the concerns and the desire to allow “God’s Mercy” to bring these situations into full communion; but is it false mercy? I say yes, with Church doctrine to back it up. In each and every scenario that has been brought up there were situations with options for the involved parties. Since it didn’t work out, for whatever reason, now in their hearts they know better than the results of the Church, so the Church is being asked to make “exceptions”.

Do I have it figured out? I hate to sound cold, but there are certain truths about our salvation that are not left to our feelings. When we get an answer that is not what we want or feel we are deserving, we must pray for the grace to accept the answer, not ask the church to change the answer.

To put it in simple terms, until the first marriage is declared invalid, or a spouse dies, the person is not available to marry so there can be no second. if there is a civil second marriage then there is scandal or the appearance of scandal because the person was not free to marry. The only way to “make this right” and be admitted to the sacraments is to declare nullity of the first, or get out of the second. If there is physical relations in the second, there is grave sin, fornication. A person may not realize this or believe this, which could cause a reduced level of culpability, but there is still grace sin. Ignorance does not change the grave matter or free will.

If I am so drunk that I cannot know what I am doing and can’t remember it, and kill someone with a hand gun have in my pocket, there is grave sin. My state of “knowing what I am doing” doesn’t matter as to whether it is grave sin. What it does affect is my culpability; to what level will I be held accountable to this sin by God.

 

[Lapey]

I would add to Sirach’s scenario that these couples are couples who by their lives demonstrate the fruits of the holy love that the Sacrament of marriage indicates. They have embraced the faith with genuine maturity participating in parish life and the Mass, raising their offspring in the Faith and being alive in Christ in their marriage. The couples being addressed by this issue are those now living the faith. Many Catholics immediately go for the annulment because that is seen to be the Catholic way to end the marriage but these couples by their now lives are actually demonstrating the fruits of mature faith and understanding of marriage from the heart.

No one is suggesting that this is just going to be a parish level annulment of any old Catholic who wants it. It very much encompasses the faith witnessed to by the new life in Christ.

Demonstrating the fruits of sacramental life would be to follow the prescripts of the annulment process and follow the results of the findings and rulings of the tribunal. This would be a great witness to the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage to see a person who had to divorce a spouse for legit reasons, abuse maybe, then live their life understanding the fact that they are still married sacramentally but separated because of danger the relationship.

My wife has an aunt in this very situation. She is a role model for many!

 

[Sirach2]

Folks, I know a person who lived through what I tried to describe. This person is an administrator of a Catholic Forum. She is very knowledgeable and living a holy life. I could easily link to the posts on that site that describe her terrible trials and difficulty, since the tribunal could not render a judgment of invalidity. Even though it is public knowledge, I should probably contact her first to ask permission to use the story.

I’m really weary of discussing this, since it seems there is no viable solution, other than rigidly to follow the law, rather than its spirit. Seems to me the gospel from Tuesday summed it up nicely, where rigorists refused assistance to their aging parents and justified it with their law of Corban. I cannot rest with laymen’s opinions on an internet, since you are simply going on what you presently understand and know, not what is being hashed out in the synod. Nor can any of us anticipate the outcome, so isn’t it futile to discuss it?

As I said, we need to pray for the participants and Pope Francis to resolve these difficult issues in accord with what they perceive is God’s holy will in our time and culture.

 

[estesbob]

Folks, I know a person who lived through what I tried to describe. This person is an administrator of a Catholic Forum. She is very knowledgeable and living a holy life. I could easily link to the posts on that site that describe her terrible trials and difficulty, since the tribunal could not render a judgment of invalidity. Even though it is public knowledge, I should probably contact her first to ask permission to use the story.

I’m really weary of discussing this, since it seems there is no viable solution, other than rigidly to follow the law, rather than its spirit. Seems to me the gospel from Tuesday summed it up nicely, where rigorists refused assistance to their aging parents and justified it with their law of Corban. I cannot rest with laymen’s opinions on an internet, since you are simply going on what you presently understand and know, not what is being hashed out in the synod. Nor can any of us anticipate the outcome, so isn’t it futile to discuss it?

As I said, we need to pray for the participants and Pope Francis to resolve these difficult issues in accord with what they perceive is God’s holy will in our time and culture.

I know many people in the situation you describe and I think the Synod should address how to handle a situation where the tribunal can not determine the validity of a prior marriage . Right now the default is it is valid but I would like to see some more flexibility in this area.

 

[Lapey]

Folks, I know a person who lived through what I tried to describe. This person is an administrator of a Catholic Forum. She is very knowledgeable and living a holy life. I could easily link to the posts on that site that describe her terrible trials and difficulty, since the tribunal could not render a judgment of invalidity. Even though it is public knowledge, I should probably contact her first to ask permission to use the story.

I’m really weary of discussing this, since it seems there is no viable solution, other than rigidly to follow the law, rather than its spirit. Seems to me the gospel from Tuesday summed it up nicely, where rigorists refused assistance to their aging parents and justified it with their law of Corban. I cannot rest with laymen’s opinions on an internet, since you are simply going on what you presently understand and know, not what is being hashed out in the synod. Nor can any of us anticipate the outcome, so isn’t it futile to discuss it?

As I said, we need to pray for the participants and Pope Francis to resolve these difficult issues in accord with what they perceive is God’s holy will in our time and culture.

I am not a layman and I deal with many in situations much like you describe. Canon 1752 is what is important. The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Not to bring comfort in the name of “pastoral care”, which could and does lead people into laying down their cross of suffering. There is no virtue in not embracing the cross; we are called to carry and even embrace our cross. A minister, priest deacon or bishop, does no person a favor by leading him/her down the path of living outside of truth.

 

[Corki]

I know many people in the situation you describe and I think the Synod should address how to handle a situation where the tribunal can not determine the validity of a prior marriage . Right now the default is it is valid but I would like to see some more flexibility in this area.

I agree they should address it. While the hew and cry is from the west, this is a real issue in less developed countries where it is not so easy to round up paperwork and witnesses.

My perspective is as a catechist and a parent. If we embrace an accommodation, does that mean that we teach that marriage is forever … except when it isn’t? And what about the original spouse. If there is not a tribunal decision, does that person lose all standing? Every time this topic comes up, we hear about the abused wife who leaves her husband and then later finds a good "husband’. But for every one of those situations is one where the innocent spouse is not the one seeking a new marriage but rather the guy who left his wife and kids for a new model and wants to come back to the Sacraments. Maybe he had a true conversion of heart but there is still that pesky issue of the first wife who did nothing to cause the divorce and is ignored entirely.

The role of the “defender of the bond” is supposed to represent that person’s interest. Abandoning the tribunal process could mean abandoning the defense of the bond.

A truly pastor approach MUST address not only the needs of the remarried but also of the spouses they left behind.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I know many people in the situation you describe and I think the Synod should address how to handle a situation where the tribunal can not determine the validity of a prior marriage . Right now the default is it is valid but I would like to see some more flexibility in this area.

You may know many people in that situation, but they must be in a minority of those seeking annulments who have that difficulty, since the number of those seeking annulments and get them is very high, at least in America.

 

[estesbob]

You may know many people in that situation, but they must be in a minority of those seeking annulments who have that difficulty, since the number of those seeking annulments and get them is very high, at least in America.

And yet they occur. So what should be done when the tribunal declares they don’t have enough evidence to rule on the validity of the prior marriage and such evidence is not obtainable?

 

[Sirach2]

I am not a layman and I deal with many in situations much like you describe. A minister, priest deacon or bishop, does no person a favor by leading him/her down the path of living outside of truth.

I meant no disrespect, but Lapey, but you are only a step above a layman, without the advanced studies of a bishop or cardinal. Nor do you have the grace of office belonging to the magisterium in order to ascertain what the synod may determine. Your knowledge is limited to your own training and studies.

Do you truly believe, as I do, that God is guiding the synod, and all of these intricate, troubling issues will be fully debated and decided upon? It may come to naught or it may bring forth a completely new ruling. Prudence would demand that our speculative opinions be put in a drawer for now until the matter is resolved by those entrusted with the office and commission to explore it.

Estesbob:

And yet they occur. So what should be done when the tribunal declares they don’t have enough evidence to rule on the validity of the prior marriage and such evidence is not obtainable?

Exactly!

 

[_Abyssinia]

And yet they occur. So what should be done when the tribunal declares they don’t have enough evidence to rule on the validity of the prior marriage and such evidence is not obtainable?

You don’t mean that there just isn’t enough evidence to declare that marriage valid or not, and therefore they are not given an annulment?

 

[ProVobis]

You may know many people in that situation, but they must be in a minority of those seeking annulments who have that difficulty, since the number of those seeking annulments and get them is very high, at least in America.

That probably should be modified to read that those who PERSISTENTLY seek annulments and get them is very high. Most don’t bother with the process once they find out how involved it can be or for some other reason.

Personally I think all Catholics who divorce should file for annulment, whether they seek a future marriage or not. But I can understand the mental blocks they have against doing that, such as introducing the possibility of the illegitimate state of their children and such concerns.

 

[ProVobis]

A truly pastor approach MUST address not only the needs of the remarried but also of the spouses they left behind.

Precisely.

Those who have found a new spouse (or roommate, for that matter) at least have their support if not the Church’s. The left-behind spouses are the ones who need help.

 

[twf]

Maybe I didn’t explain very clearly. I shared with you the sense Benedict argued, but I also shared the scenario where this “invalid” marriage cannot be “proven” to a Tribunal judge, and the party is convinced beyond a doubt in the “internal forum” --their conscience – that the first marriage is invalid. If they had no faith in the sacrament at the time of their marriage, then it is not a mortal sin since the second marriage is not adultery, and potentially able for the party to receive the sacraments.

If the Church allows those who, in consultation with their bishop, truly believe their first marriages to be invalid to receive, I can perhaps see that. Theologically the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage remains intact. A judgment is made that the first marriage was invalid…it just becomes a decision between the bishop and the individual rather than the decision of a tribunal.
It is my understanding, however, that some are going beyond this…allowing those with decidedly valid first marriages to receive, despite the objectively invalid nature of their second marriages, as a pastoral concession in certain cases.

 

[estesbob]

You don’t mean that there just isn’t enough evidence to declare that marriage valid or not, and therefore they are not given an annulment?

Yes

 

[_Abyssinia]

If the Church allows those who, in consultation with their bishop, truly believe their first marriages to be invalid to receive, I can perhaps see that. Theologically the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage remains intact. A judgment is made that the first marriage was invalid…it just becomes a decision between the bishop and the individual rather than the decision of a tribunal.
It is my understanding, however, that some are going beyond this…allowing those with decidedly valid first marriages to receive, despite the objectively invalid nature of their second marriages, as a pastoral concession in certain cases.

Archbishop Charles Palmer-Buckle from Ghana supports a case by case basis with a Bishop, from that Crux article I posted. What then happens to the annulment process? There is already a process in place to distinguish whether a marriage was valid or not.