Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Backs Us on Communion for the Remarried, Says German Official
The Catholic Herald (UK) ^ | 11/28/13 | Jonathan Luxmoore

Posted on 11/29/2013 7:01:56 AM PST by marshmallow

Church officials in Germany have defended plans by the country’s bishops’ conference to allow some divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion, insisting they have the Pope’s endorsement.

Robert Eberle, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Freiburg: “We already have our own guidelines, and the Pope has now clearly signaled that certain things can be decided locally.

“We’re not the only archdiocese seeking helpful solutions to this problem, and we’ve had positive reactions from other dioceses in Germany and abroad, assuring us they already practice what’s written in our guidelines.”

Mr Eberle’s comments followed the disclosure by Bishop Gebhard Furst of Rottenburg-Stuttgart on November 23 that the bishops’ would adopt proposals on reinstating divorced and remarried parishioners as full members of the Church during their plenary in March.

In an interview with Catholic News Service, Mr Eberle said “many points” in the Pope’s apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”) suggested the German Church was “moving in the right way” in its attitude toward remarried Catholics.

Uwe Renz, spokesman in the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, also defended the bishops’ stance. He said he believed the bishops were acting “in the spirit of the Pope’s teaching.”

(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/29/2013 7:01:56 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Bookmarked for a later read.


2 posted on 11/29/2013 7:06:18 AM PST by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Good people should not be denied communion. It's common sense.

Vows....Priests take vows and leave and marry etc etc.

The church made a problem where there was no problem. They gave everyone a way out....pay....and you can get an annulment.

3 posted on 11/29/2013 7:09:05 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

A Pope should be keenly aware that there are always forces of chaos at work in the Church and in the world. This Pope doesn’t seem to be aware of that.

I think history will pronounce him somewhere between a “caretaker Pope” and a disaster.


4 posted on 11/29/2013 7:09:10 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The notion that all you need to do is pay a fee and get an annulment is a slur.

In most of the world, most Catholics ignore the Church’s marriage law and the annulment process. The U.S. is unusual in its observance of these things.

It is true that people decide to marry whoever they choose—then try to patch it up with the Church. If they really believed that the Church is Christ, they would take the Church’s marriage laws into account BEFORE getting married civilly and having children, etc.

In the age of pro-abortion “Catholics,” the Church should be emphasizing that Communion is NOT for anyone in the state of mortal sin.


5 posted on 11/29/2013 7:14:35 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
They gave everyone a way out....pay....and you can get an annulment.

I know a number of people who "paid" and DIDN'T get their annulment. Even the originally poorly handled Rausch-Kennedy annulment ultimately was reversed.
6 posted on 11/29/2013 7:20:33 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There's no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

That’s why it should be left to the people and their conscience.


7 posted on 11/29/2013 7:21:31 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
That’s why it should be left to the people and their conscience.

A rightly informed conscience accepts the sacramental indissoluble nature of a properly contracted Christian marriage. I personally know a man who cheated on and left his blameless wife and children, contracted a couple of phony marriages, and is in one now, and attempted to get an annulment. He was denied. This was the correct decision. The man does not need yet need Communion, he needs contrition, amendment of way of life (including not living the lie that he is in a third marriage), confession, and THEN Communion.


8 posted on 11/29/2013 7:30:00 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There's no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Why stop at people who are divorced and have attempted to remarry illicitly? If Adam and Steve think they're "married" to each other, shouldn't they be able to receive communion, too?

(/s for those who need it)

9 posted on 11/29/2013 7:31:30 AM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
the Church should be emphasizing that Communion is NOT for anyone in the state of mortal sin

Yes that's correct.

The issue is the nature of the "adultery" in question. Is it more like Matthew 5:28 adultery, or is it more like 10 commandments adultery?

There are many, many divorced and remarried Catholics with stable second marriages and children. It's difficult to believe that their objective salvation status is the same as a guy hitting a motel with a stripper a couple of times a month (granted, it could still be true. His ways are not our ways).

It's also difficult to believe that the Eastern Orthodox are so far wrong about this as to be participating in a scheme to give communion to thousands and thousands of adulterers.

I bet you that, within a year, the Pope and the bishops are going to come up with some sort of "sacramental economy" scheme to allow communion in certain cases.

After all, many if not most annulments granted in the US are invalid because of perjury. Is it better (in terms of restoring access to the Eucharist) to suborn perjury on a massive scale than to proclaim sacramental economy?

10 posted on 11/29/2013 7:41:03 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

**Pope Backs Us on Communion for the Remarried, Says German Official**

I doubt that.


11 posted on 11/29/2013 7:48:08 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Good people should not be denied communion.

What makes a person "good" - if you think he is nice?

Or is there an objective standard of morality?

Vows....Priests take vows and leave and marry etc etc.

You cannot abandon the priestly vow of celibacy and be a priest again.

You cannot abandon the marriage vow of fidelity to one spouse and then take a vow of fidelity to a different spouse.

Be serious.

The church made a problem where there was no problem.

Christian marriage is a "problem" that should never have existed?

Really?

They gave everyone a way out....pay....and you can get an annulment.

A comforting lie, I'm sure.

But still a lie.

12 posted on 11/29/2013 8:25:40 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
That’s why it should be left to the people and their conscience.

In other words, anyone should be allowed to do whatever he wants to do without consequences - as long as he really "feels" in his "heart" that it is OK.

And every priest should be forced to bow to his whim.

Hmm . . .

13 posted on 11/29/2013 8:28:33 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
It's difficult to believe that their objective salvation status is the same as a guy hitting a motel with a stripper a couple of times a month

Who is objectively better off?

The man who is weak but acknowledges his sinfulness?

Or the man who refuses to acknowledge that he has actually done something wrong?

It's also difficult to believe that the Eastern Orthodox are so far wrong about this

It is very hard to pin down when exactly this practice of remarriage began in the Eastern churches.

It is unknown in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church and was never a matter of controversy in the attempts to repair the schism. At the Council of Florence (the 1430s) many fine points of doctrine and morals were discussed by both sides and remarriage wasn't involved.

It seems to be something very new.

14 posted on 11/29/2013 9:16:10 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I doubt that.

That was my first thought, too. What makes this "German official" believable?

15 posted on 11/29/2013 9:39:25 AM PST by Tax-chick (Are you getting ready for the Advent Kitteh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

From what I have read, one of the grounds for an annulment is that if one or both parties enters in to the marriage with no intent on living up to the vows they took.

Now keep in mind that I have been married to the same woman for 45 years, and that’s not going to change in the foreseeable future.

However, she vowed to love, honer and OBEY me, I vowed to love honer and cherish her. I have to say, she had no intention what so ever of obeying me. Neither did any other women who made that vow... IMHO


16 posted on 11/29/2013 9:45:48 AM PST by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

The problem with the annulment system isn’t the money, it’s the lying.


17 posted on 11/29/2013 9:50:55 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

I understand the concern: an oathbreaker taking an oath not to lie about the substance of the broken oath.


18 posted on 11/29/2013 9:55:49 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
In other words, anyone should be allowed to do whatever he wants to do without consequences - as long as he really "feels" in his "heart" that it is OK.

Why of course it is. The Pope says so.

“Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good. … Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.” Pope Francis

19 posted on 11/29/2013 10:09:50 AM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I understand the concern: an oathbreaker taking an oath not to lie about the substance of the broken oath

It's not just that. There's a whole mini-industry that has grown up to assist people who "need" annulments - they can tell you what to say, how to say it, etc.

It's my conviction that there are very few married people, never mind married Catholics, who did not INTEND marriage on their wedding day. And yet, defective intent is annulling 60 000 marriages a year?

I think the bishops who preside over this would just as soon be done with it.

20 posted on 11/29/2013 10:10:25 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good. … Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place

That's an interesting use of ellipsis.

Can you supply the text you carefully omitted?

21 posted on 11/29/2013 10:13:21 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
It's my conviction that there are very few married people, never mind married Catholics, who did not INTEND marriage on their wedding day.

That's an interesting conviction.

It is my conviction that a large number of married Catholics in the US have apparently had zero intention of following Church teaching on contraception when they said their vows.

Are you arguing that this glaring defect of intent is not common?

22 posted on 11/29/2013 10:17:07 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Good people should not be denied communion. It's common sense.

Good people do not abandon their spouses and then take up with someone else in a make believe marriage. If you have a problem with "until death do us part" take it up with Jesus.

23 posted on 11/29/2013 10:36:00 AM PST by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; Sacajaweau
Good point.

Also note Sacajaweau's implied view: that the sacrament of communion is something a person is just naturally entitled to, and daring to inconvenience someone on this point is clearly some kind of grave injustice.

No one should ever be troubled by the merest hint of personal sacrifice, apparently.

24 posted on 11/29/2013 10:45:32 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I’m sure you are right about that. I don’t think practicing birth control, or intending to do so, is grounds for an annulment - at least not if you have any children.

It’s an interesting angle, though, one I’ve never run across.


25 posted on 11/29/2013 10:46:31 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
It’s an interesting angle, though, one I’ve never run across.

I know a woman who received an annulment because her husband sterilized himself.

26 posted on 11/29/2013 10:55:58 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Yes, I think that voluntary and permanent lack of consent to children (on the day of your wedding or before) is grounds for annulment.

When I wrote about defective intent, that was not what I was thinking of.


27 posted on 11/29/2013 11:18:41 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
This occurred after the wedding.

A couple of years after.

28 posted on 11/29/2013 11:21:15 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Take care that your solutions don't raise more problems than they solve.

"Good people should not be denied communion. It's common sense."

Who would decide who's "good people"?. Andrew Cuomo living with his concubine is a "good" person in his own eyes. Nancy Pelosi ("Catholic Mother of Five!") is a "good" person in her own eyes.

You know darn well that the smiling "brides" Sherry Rose and Valerie Garden are "good," and getting better all the time as the Misses Rose-Garden get inseminated by the very same Mr. Mililiter at the Women's Clinic.

We live in an age where almost any personal failure can be covered up with a positive self-image.

"Vows....Priests take vows and leave and marry etc etc."

Aside from the fact that the sacramental issue is different (celibacy is not a constitutive element of Holy Orders, but lifelong fidelity is a constitutive element of Matrimony) how would vowbreaking in one instance justify vowbreaking in another?

Incidentally, marriage to clerics or religious not dispensed from their vows, is invalid.

"The church made a problem where there was no problem. They gave everyone a way out....pay....and you can get an annulment."

There is no "way out" of a valid marital bond, except the death of one of the spouses. If you don't think you had a valid marital bond from the git-go, you can take your case to a tribunal for judgment: but that doesn't mean they'll rule in your favor. The Tribunal may find that the bond was valid from the beginning.

"In the US, 6 percent of ordinary-process cases are renounced by those seeking an annulment, while an additional 6 percent are abated because the parties failed to follow through with the procedural acts necessary for a trial to take place. Of the remaining 88 percent of cases in which sentences are given, 96 percent of sentences are in favor of nullity."(LINK)

As for money? It doesn't depend on money. People who have the means, must pay their court costs. People who are not economically able, can have the court costs prorated, or even written of entirely. I've seen this numerous times with my RCIA students --- adults preparing to enter the Catholic Church.

29 posted on 11/29/2013 12:54:09 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("In Christ we form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." Romans 12:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?

"Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good."

Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that's one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.

"And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

The Pope: how the Church will change

This same interview had been posted on the Vatican's website, and defended by Lombardi as having been vetted by Pope Francis, for close to two months until somebody more orthodox than Lombardi or Francis made the wise decision to remove it.

30 posted on 11/29/2013 1:17:17 PM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

31 posted on 11/29/2013 1:29:14 PM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Well, according to the actual rules, annulment turns on the moment of consent, not what happened afterwards.

This is quite clear, but, as with many aspects of US annulment practice, there is much variation. What I think about the status quo is that it is a process, meant to encourage reflection but also subject to abuse, that in the end is meant to accomplish the same thing as the EO practice.


32 posted on 11/29/2013 1:43:23 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"Well, according to the actual rules, annulment turns on the moment of consent, not what happened afterwards."

So if the wife is already taking the pill on the day of the marriage she's not genuinely committed to the marriage at the moment of consent.

I'm glad we cleared that up so it's clear the annulment process isn't nearly as corrupted as some folks like to pretend it is.

33 posted on 11/29/2013 2:18:31 PM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide; wideawake

Good thing you cleared up that carefully placed ellipsis.

/s


34 posted on 11/30/2013 11:52:37 AM PST by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

The matter at issue was that his attitude was: “Sure I did it. Why is this even a problem?” His attitude betrayed that he simply had no conception of what a Christian marriage was when he took his vows.


35 posted on 11/30/2013 12:28:38 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
That was a half-hearted attempt to evince context.

Your trite graphic was less so.

So your argument, then, is that the Pope should encourage people to engage in acts that they believe to be evil?

36 posted on 11/30/2013 12:47:03 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
His attitude betrayed that he simply had no conception of what a Christian marriage was when he took his vows.

If this was correct, then protestant marriages in a church which professes that divorce is OK would be automatically null, which, I can tell you, is not the case.

Look, I respect what the Church is trying to accomplish with the annulment process. However, the enormous demand for annulments has created a new situation, which the Church in the US has tried to manage by making divorced and remarried persons go through the process, but with virtual certainty that the annulment will be granted, as long as the plaintiff professes defective intent and unless doing so would cause scandal.

If the only annulments that were granted were for judirically null marriages, tens of thousands of Catholic and would-be Catholic families would be denied the sacrament. If current practice keeps up, the cynicism and hypocrisy involved will corrupt the persons involved.

IF the pope and the bishops want to get rid of the status quo, can you blame them?

37 posted on 11/30/2013 12:58:37 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Divorce is a sin. However, ‘spiritually’ speaking The Heavenly Father gave the house of Israel a bill of divorcement.

Jeremiah 3:8 and I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce: yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Wonder what would this church require of the Heavenly Father to be acceptable?

Strange few modern churches ever self-examin their doctrines to see if they have followed in Israel and Judah's footsteps.

38 posted on 11/30/2013 1:17:42 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Divorce is a sin. However, ‘spiritually’ speaking The Heavenly Father gave the house of Israel a bill of divorcement.

Jeremiah 3:8 and I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce: yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Wonder what would this church require of the Heavenly Father to be acceptable?

Strange few modern churches ever self-examin their doctrines to see if they have followed in Israel and Judah's footsteps.

39 posted on 11/30/2013 1:17:43 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
You realize that this is a metaphor, correct?

This is about the worst exegesis I have ever read.

40 posted on 11/30/2013 2:04:20 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Nope; the Pope has already done so: to each, his own!


41 posted on 11/30/2013 3:35:13 PM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
Nope; the Pope has already done so: to each, his own!

So based on a quote in which Francis says that people should pursue what they believe to be good, you assert that he really said that they should pursue what they believe to be evil.

Such a transparently ridiculous argument can only proceed from malice or cognitive inadequacy.

42 posted on 11/30/2013 3:51:36 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

43 posted on 11/30/2013 4:06:15 PM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“I like the Pope,” Pelosi said. She added that “the Holy Spirit did a really good job this time” picking the Pope and that Francis is “very nun-like in his attitudes, in his statements.”

Francis has gained a reputation as being somewhat progressive in his public statements on abortion, atheists and gays.

Pelosi is a practicing Roman Catholic.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/11/20/pelosi-i-like-the-pope/


44 posted on 11/30/2013 4:10:17 PM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
You deliberately misrepresent someone, and when you are called to account you cite Nancy Pelosi to vouch for you?
45 posted on 11/30/2013 4:18:26 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Nope. Pelosi and NARAL, not I, are vouching for the Pope. You’re not doing too bad a job yourself.


46 posted on 11/30/2013 4:20:47 PM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

You asked for full context and you got it. Who’s doing the misrepresentation here?


47 posted on 11/30/2013 4:22:08 PM PST by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

See now the only relevancy is what the Heavenly Father established from the beginning. It is His grace that amounts to eternity, not man made tradition to hold His sheep in their sheep pens.

Ephesians 6 was penned as instruction and warning as what to do and expect.


48 posted on 11/30/2013 4:46:43 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

My question has always been no fault divorce..... I get married, have a kid and the spouse up and leaves and gets a divorce....

so now a 30 year old is to spend the next 50 years alone, or remarry and not be in communion with the church, all due to no fault of their own...

does not make sense..


49 posted on 06/25/2014 1:43:52 PM PDT by joe fonebone (a socialist is just a juvenile communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson