Pope Francis - Closing Address To Synod

[KnightofChrist]

Taken for the article in post 60

 

As John Paul II writes in Familaris consortio, 84: “If these people [divorced and remarried Catholics] were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.”

[dUSt]

I actually did not say "second sacramental marriage," I said he wants Catholics who are really truly married in the Church but who have left their true spouse to be allowed to have another union and still receive communion. 

 

Bro, this is not at all what you said. "Another union" is what you are saying now. You originally said "allowed to marry again". Can we at least be honest in our criticisms? All this does is make you look like a liar, which invalidates everything else you say.

[dUSt]

I believe Cardinal Kasper's specific proposal was one in which the second, presumed-to-be-invalid second union would be "tolerated but not accepted", wherein the adulterous couple would be re-admitted to Holy Communion after a period of counselling and penance.

However, this ignores the clear meaning of canon 915, it ignores our very weighty and very serious disciplines regarding the Eucharist, and it ignores that a firm intention to "sin no more" is required for the validity of confession.

His proposal has no basis in Catholic tradition, nor in the Gospel, nor as a matter of justice.

 

What is your proposal for a couple who have been in their second marriage for 10 years, have many children together, recently rediscovered their faith, and have a deep desire to be in full communion with the church? Assume that their first marriage was valid.

[Credo in Deum]

[KnightofChrist]

Bro, this is not at all what you said. "Another union" is what you are saying now. You originally said "allowed to marry again". Can we at least be honest in our criticisms? All this does is make you look like a liar, which invalidates everything else you say.

 

I am honest, I am not lying, and I am Catholic. I did say second marriage, but I did not say second sacramental marriage. But a second marriage, which would be civil, that is blessed by the Church by allowing the divorced to receive communion and other sacraments, which is what Card. Kasper proposes would effectivelly be like a sacramental marriage, and as Pope Saint John Paul II states in Familaris consortio, this proposal would lead the faithful to "confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” Because it is would bless the second union, the second marriage, the second civil marriage.

 

Edited October 24, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[dUSt]

I am honest, I am not lying, and I am Catholic. I did say second marriage, but I did not say second sacramental marriage. But a second marriage, which would be civil, that is blessed by the Church by allowing the divorced to receive communion and other sacraments, which is what Card. Kasper proposes would effectivelly be like a sacramental marriage, and as Pope Saint John Paul II states in Familaris consortio, this proposal would lead the faithful to "confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” Because it is would bless the second union, the second marriage, the second civil marriage.

 
I can't keep this up with you.
 
You said, "Kasper purposes that Catholics who were really truly married in the Church but divorce their true spouse should be allowed to marry again"

 

That totally implies that you were intending us to believe that Kasper wants to allow a second "really truly" marriage.

 

Let me know when you want to discuss things intellectually honestly.

[Benedictus]

When this is all is said and done, I believe there will be nothing decided or concrete. Just be more confusion and we will still be debating it.

 

To be fair, I'm often wrong about a lot of things. But this is just what I'm expecting.  :unsure:

 

Well what it says, or not, from the front is one thing. What concessions it allows and eases in from the side is another. Of course it would need to use theology and play semantics as it goes. But I'd say not to look at what a person, or the church, says alone but look at what it does in practice (or intends to do). When doing both, at least to me, it becomes clear that the church has shifted a notch on its tone of theology over the centuries, despite claims it doesn't by some.  I expect the same tactics going forward despite denials by some that this never happens.

[KnightofChrist]

 
I can't keep this up with you.
 
You said, "Kasper purposes that Catholics who were really truly married in the Church but divorce their true spouse should be allowed to marry again"

 

That totally implies that you were intending us to believe that Kasper wants to allow a second "really truly" marriage.

 

Let me know when you want to discuss things intellectually honestly.

 

No, it implies that I stated the first marriage that happened in the Church was really truly the real true marriage and that Kasper seeks to allow a blessing of a second marriage. I may have not been clear enough for you Sir, but I did not lie.

[Nihil Obstat]

What is your proposal for a couple who have been in their second marriage for 10 years, have many children together, recently rediscovered their faith, and have a deep desire to be in full communion with the church? Assume that their first marriage was valid.

Ceteris paribus, and under the assumption that the presence of children makes a new separation problematic, they should be counselled to resolve firmly to "live as brother and sister", i.e. observe perpetual continence, i.e. not commit further adultery, as well as make a good, valid confession. At that point, being careful to avoid any appearance of scandal, such a couple could be readmitted to Communion.

[Benedictus]

Ceteris paribus, and under the assumption that the presence of children makes a new separation problematic, they should be counselled to resolve firmly to "live as brother and sister", i.e. observe perpetual continence, i.e. not commit further adultery, as well as make a good, valid confession. At that point, being careful to avoid any appearance of scandal, such a couple could be readmitted to Communion.

 

The theory may be necessary in the abstract, hoops and loops. But do you really believe most would follow that understanding, even among those who claim they would?

[Nihil Obstat]

The theory may be necessary in the abstract, hoops and loops. But do you really believe most would follow that understanding, even among those who claim they would?

May I answer rhetorically?

 

John 6:

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

[Nihil Obstat]

Ok, so people here do not appreciate Rorate Caeli. Guessing most do not like The Remnant. How about The Wanderer, and Msgr. Pope? Is he a little more acceptable for the more sensitive?

 

 

http://thewandererpress.com/featured-today/musings-and-concerns-on-the-synod-2/

 

 

I was speaking of this matter recently on the phone with someone (not a parishioner) and she scoffed at the notion of asking celibacy of people in these situations. She shifted the terms and asked me somewhat rhetorically:
“How can you go on denying something as important as Holy Communion to people just because they are in what you consider a bad marriage?”
I told her that I would answer her question if she would answer mine:
“How is it that many have come to regard having sexual intimacy as more important or necessary than receiving Holy Communion?”
I went on to add:
“While Holy Communion is important (and I surely think that it is), I wonder why the people you describe as seeing it as so important wouldn’t choose to live celibately in order to be able to receive our Lord. You suggest I’m being cruel by denying it, but it isn’t really I who is making the choice here. The choice is really theirs.
“I am not the master of the Eucharist; I am His servant. Given Jesus’ description of second marriages as adulterous (Matthew 19), and Paul’s clear warning against receiving Communion in an ongoing state of serious sin (1 Cor. 11), it doesn’t seem that I have any choice. The choice is and remains theirs: either to so value Holy Communion and intimacy with the Lord that they are willing to forgo sexual intimacy, or to seek solutions in the annulment process, or to continue refraining from Holy Communion.”
Though I was being accused of somehow denying Holy Communion, I am not really doing any such thing. I celebrate Holy Communion every day for God’s faithful who are not impeded to receive. If they are somehow impeded, I will do what I can to help them overcome this impediment. If at the end of the process there can be no way to address the impediments, then the choice returns to them: Live celibately and receive Communion, or choose not to and refrain from Communion.

[dUSt]

Ceteris paribus, and under the assumption that the presence of children makes a new separation problematic, they should be counselled to resolve firmly to "live as brother and sister", i.e. observe perpetual continence, i.e. not commit further adultery, as well as make a good, valid confession. At that point, being careful to avoid any appearance of scandal, such a couple could be readmitted to Communion.

 

So, as long as they don't have sex, they can stay married, live together, and receive communion.

 

And then, every now and then they may give in to temptation and have sex (because we are sinners after all) -- but then, they just confess again so they can receive communion again.

 

So, in practicality, the only difference between a second-marriage couple who can receive communion and a second-marriage couple who can't receive, is the former agrees to not have sex (but occasionally does anyway), and the later doesn't agree to refrain from sex.

 

And what you are saying is none of this should be discussed by the cardinals because it's doctrine.

 

Is that an accurate summary?

[Nihil Obstat]

So, as long as they don't have sex, they can stay married, live together, and receive communion.

 

And then, every now and then they may give in to temptation and have sex (because we are sinners after all) -- but then, they just confess again so they can receive communion again.

 

So, in practicality, the only difference between a second-marriage couple who can receive communion and a second-marriage couple who can't receive, is the former agrees to not have sex (but occasionally does anyway), and the later doesn't agree to refrain from sex.

 

And what you are saying is none of this should be discussed by the cardinals because it's doctrine.

 

Is that an accurate summary?

They are not married, they do not 'stay married'. It is certainly not a perfect solution, but it has been employed for some time now.

 

If a couple in an irregular, i.e. adulterous union does not agree to avoid sin, then they cannot receive a valid absolution. That is super basic, man. You cannot be absolved if you do not fully intend to avoid sin in the future.

[Benedictus]

So, as long as they don't have sex, they can stay married, live together, and receive communion.

 

And then, every now and then they may give in to temptation and have sex (because we are sinners after all) -- but then, they just confess again so they can receive communion again.

 

So, in practicality, the only difference between a second-marriage couple who can receive communion and a second-marriage couple who can't receive, is the former agrees to not have sex (but occasionally does anyway), and the later doesn't agree to refrain from sex.

 

And what you are saying is none of this should be discussed by the cardinals because it's doctrine.

 

Is that an accurate summary?

 

You could say that's exactly how the church, at least in some countries, views how same sex couples living together (or in civil unions) should operate if they want to receive communion. A second 'marriage' without an annulment and a same sex union are both seen as illicit.
 

[dUSt]

If a couple in an irregular, i.e. adulterous union does not agree to avoid sin, then they cannot receive a valid absolution. That is super basic, man. You cannot be absolved if you do not fully intend to avoid sin in the future.

 

Not disagreeing.

 

What I am disagreeing with is the hard line stance some seem to be taking about how the Cardinals should not be allowed to discuss such matters to confront the reality of what is happening in the world. I don't think such people, in their hearts, want to harm the Church, but to me, they are doing about as much good for the Church as Al Sharpton and Bill Maher do for liberals, or Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do for conservatives.

 

Lots of grandstanding, no actual solutions.

[dUSt]

You could say that's exactly how the church, at least in some countries, views how same sex couples living together (or in civil unions) should operate if they want to receive communion. A second 'marriage' without an annulment and a same sex union are both seen as illicit.
 

 

Well, if two Catholics get married in a court, and then get divorced, they can get married in the Church without an annulment--because the first marriage is not recognized by the Church.

 

Now, if two non-Catholics get married in a court, get divorced, then become Catholic, they cannot get married in the Church unless they get an annulment--because the first marriage is recognized as valid.

 

So, these things cannot be discussed? Case closed? Set in stone. Done deal? Legit question.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, I think I will take a bit of a break. In my experience, getting on Dust's bad side rarely turns out well for me. ;)

[BarbTherese]

Is denial of Holy Communion to those in a state of mortal sin a disciplinary matter or doctrinal.  Or is it both?  I think that disciplinary matters can change for sound theological reasons which can be deeper insight into Scripture, but not doctrinal matters?  Questions only.  In our past history, the faithful were denied daily Holy Communion and children of 7yrs being able to receive Holy Communion came in I think with St Pius X.

 

http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=9&l=13#x

"[11] And the Pharisees seeing it, said to his disciples: Why doth your master eat with publicans and sinners? [12] But Jesus hearing it, said: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill. [13] Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners."

 

 

I am not making any statements, rather seeking answers to questions.

 

_______________

Pope Francis did express his hope that the recent sitting of the Synod would be an  "open and fraternal exchange of views"

 

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404105.htm

Insofar as I am aware, it was to focus on pastoral matters.  To my way of thought, if a member of the Synod is aware of problems amongst general Church membership,  then it is a pastoral matter.

I tend to think too that where media is reporting what those in the Synod are saying, it can be presented as a direct challenge to doctrinal matters, when it may well be, or have been, an honest discussion or presentation on existing pastoral matters that can be twisted into a challenge on doctrine by those reporting.

To my mind again, it is plainly ridiculous to demand that pastoral matters and problems that MIGHT POSSIBLY present a challenge to doctrine or existing disciplinary matters cannot be discussed.  That would be, to my mind, a Church without a heart.  It would also be a fearful Church sensing possible threats to its own perceived foundational matters - perfect love casts out fear.  Problems that do exist because of our doctrinal or disciplinary matters can and should be discussed without (what is to me) hysterical fear of heresy etc.

After all, it is possible that pastoral problems related to doctrinal matters can be met positively in quite new ways without changing doctrinal matters.  I don't know how, but I do see it as a possibility that probably can only arise and be revealed in open and honest discussion.  Our God of The Surprise!

 

____________You're always ok by little ol' moi, NO - even thought I don't always agree with you! :)

[truthfinder]

It's not that these things can't be discussed, but it's the wisdom of discussing the nitty gritty of intellectual questions that sometimes isn't best done in the spot light of the media. In some ways, these questions have been answered by Divine law, natural law, and canon law.  The latter can be changed but only in reference to the two others.  In some of the cases being discussed, it's purely an administrative  thing - how many hoops have to be jumped.  In others, such as homosexual unions, much more nuance is needed because there is the potential to give scandal to the faithful (which I think in some places has now been realized).  "Welcoming" and like words are so very ambiguous as well.  Where the clergy may see "welcoming" as making sure chaste homosexuals are able to have a place in the church, or that Courage is available, is one thing; the media picks it up in quite another.