Nihil Obstat Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I find, like many things, that with prudence and discernment it is a useful resource. And with that being said, the article I posted above is, by my estimation, made up by about 95% of writings by Msgr. Benson, and the remainder being only an introduction for context. To impugn the entire article because one does not care for Rorate's editorial stance is, as far as I can tell, a classic example of poisoning the well. I daresay that few, if any Phatmassers have read these particular writings of Msgr. Benson, so unless one is alleging that Rorate invented those quotes - which is easily fact-checked - then there should be no reason whatsoever to cast aspersions on the quotes and source I provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 And with that being said, the article I posted above is, by my estimation, made up by about 95% of writings by Msgr. Benson, and the remainder being only an introduction for context. To impugn the entire article because one does not care for Rorate's editorial stance is, as far as I can tell, a classic example of poisoning the well. I daresay that few, if any Phatmassers have read these particular writings of Msgr. Benson, so unless one is alleging that Rorate invented those quotes - which is easily fact-checked - then there should be no reason whatsoever to cast aspersions on the quotes and source I provided. I didn't read what you posted, but I do agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 OK, so let's assume that Kasper is acting with 100% full support from Pope Francis. Good. That only makes all the people hating on Kasper look like they do not support the pope. Nice job Catholics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 On the other hand, the Church has always infallibly taught that to attempt a second marriage is gravely sinful, and relations in such a union constitute adultery. It is not so black and white. What if the first marriage was not Catholic? What if it was simply a common law marriage, or a "sign this piece of paper" legal marriage? Today, Catholics who have rediscovered their faith are not receiving communion even though their first marriage wasn't even a marriage at all. Is it wrong to discuss these issues? Is it wrong to let the Holy Spirit work in the magisterium to figure out the best way to approach all these complicated scenarios? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 It is not so black and white. What if the first marriage was not Catholic? What if it was simply a common law marriage, or a "sign this piece of paper" legal marriage? Today, Catholics who have rediscovered their faith are not receiving communion even though their first marriage wasn't even a marriage at all. Is it wrong to discuss these issues? Is it wrong to let the Holy Spirit work in the magisterium to figure out the best way to approach all these complicated scenarios? But many of those cases can be resolved through the current church process successfully, but many don't for whatever reason. The major hurdle, as far as I can see, is posed by those who have a valid marriage, divorce in civil court and remarry in a civil union (or in another denomination) without getting an annulment for the first marriage (or remarry despite an annulment being denied for the first marriage). The problem is how the church wants to define and handle the issue of adultery. If someone has committed adultery, and remains in that relationship, should they be allowed to take communion? The issue then is isn't the church allowing those in a state of sin to receive communion? Then, if this is allowed, how does this reflect on other situations where people are denied communion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 OK, so let's assume that Kasper is acting with 100% full support from Pope Francis. Good. That only makes all the people hating on Kasper look like they do not support the pope. Nice job Catholics. How much do you know about Card. Kasper's proposals? I pray and hope for the sake of the Church Kasper is wrong when he states the Pope fully supports him, Card. Kasper's proposals are in direct conflict with our Blessed Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Benedictus beat me to it. Petrine and Pauline privilege, radical sanations, etc and the canons themselves on freedom to marry all need to be applied. People need to be educated that there are avenues to explore before they go and contract a second (or more) relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 “And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.â€- Jesus (Matthew 19:9)“It’s now a new situation of a marriage. They are living together, they love each other, and to say every sexual act is sinful, that’s different. If you tell people who do it this way, and they do it in a responsible way, to tell them that’s adultery, permanent adultery, I think they would feel insulted and offended.â€- Cardinal Walter Kasper, CNS News Interview, October, 2014Source: http://www.onepeterfive.com/the-troubling-case-of-cardinal-kasper/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 It is not so black and white. What if the first marriage was not Catholic? What if it was simply a common law marriage, or a "sign this piece of paper" legal marriage? Today, Catholics who have rediscovered their faith are not receiving communion even though their first marriage wasn't even a marriage at all. Is it wrong to discuss these issues? Is it wrong to let the Holy Spirit work in the magisterium to figure out the best way to approach all these complicated scenarios? Card. Kasper purposes that Catholics who were really truly married in the Church but divorce their true spouse should be allowed to marry again and receive communion. This is a clear rejection of what our Blessed Lord teaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Card. Kasper purposes that Catholics who were really truly married in the Church but divorce their true spouse should be allowed to marry again and receive communion. This is a clear rejection of what our Blessed Lord teaches. Source? Because I found this: Cardinal Kasper said that the Church “cannot propose a solution that is different from or contrary to the words of Jesus. The indissolubility of sacramental marriage and the impossibility of a new marriage during the lifetime of the other partner is part of the tradition of the Church's binding faith that cannot be abandoned or undone by appealing to a superficial understanding of cheapened mercy.†http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-kaspers-speech-on-divorce-remarriage-and-communion/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Source? Because I found this:Cardinal Kasper said that the Church “cannot propose a solution that is different from or contrary to the words of Jesus. The indissolubility of sacramental marriage and the impossibility of a new marriage during the lifetime of the other partner is part of the tradition of the Church's binding faith that cannot be abandoned or undone by appealing to a superficial understanding of cheapened mercy.â€http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-kaspers-speech-on-divorce-remarriage-and-communion/ Post 53 and http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-kasper-continues-campaign-for-allowing-communion-for-divorced-and/#.VErD90wpCSw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Post 53 and http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-kasper-continues-campaign-for-allowing-communion-for-divorced-and/#.VErD90wpCSw Can you show me specifically where he says Catholics should be allowed to have a second sacramental marriage? I can't find that, and this is what you told us he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Can you show me specifically where he says Catholics should be allowed to have a second sacramental marriage? I can't find that, and this is what you told us he said. 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. What he purposes however in the end is very much like a sacramental marriage because that second union would receive the Church's blessing and recognition. This second marriage would be blessed sacramentally in a "Christian way" by allowing the couple to receive communion, and other sacraments that have always been forbidden to the divorced by the Church. Which is done to protect the Blessed Lord in the Eucharist. He purposes that it is wrong to call the second marriage adultery, that persons who are divorced should be able to receive absolution for the acts adultery while continuing to commit the act of adultery with persons who are not their true spouses, so long as they live together in a "Christian way". Having the Church bless these unions with communion, absolution and other sacraments as well as no longer calling the union adulterous is very close to a sacramental marriage. Different means but the same end, the Church would bless the union, perhaps in a lesser manner that true Sacramental Marriage but it would still be said to be in way a "Christian" second marriage. http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3128/the_confounding_and_curious_pontifications_of_cardinal_kasper.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now