Skip to comments.Antinomianism in High Places is Still Antinomianism
Posted on 12/05/2013 8:16:42 PM PST by marshmallow
We live in pervasively antinomian times, and basic unawareness of law is all around us. Yet ignorance of what law is, of why we have it, and even of how one needs to talk about law in order to make good sense, hampers the cause of clarity and reform.
The recent comments of Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, new Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, regarding possible changes in the canonical discipline of withholding holy Communion from Catholics divorced-and-remarried outside the Church, seem a good example of antinomianism. But, while several recent Roman statements benefit by interpretation secundum leniorem (in particular, not taking every unhappy phrase as a harbinger of doctrinal disaster), I think that Archbishop Baldisseris remarks require something more. They require, I suggest, direct response.
A new approach needs to be taken with respect to the administration of the sacraments to remarried divorcees.
Simply put, there is no pastorally plausible middle-ground between admitting one to holy Communion and not admitting one to holy Communion. (What is one to suggest? Allowing divorced-and-remarried Catholics to take Communion every other Sunday?) Setting aside some rare fact patterns that even now would countenance divorced-and-remarried Catholics going to Communion (e.g., living in a brother-sister manner), the only new approach to prohibiting Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics would be to permit Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Trying to pass off a reversal of discipline by describing it as a new approach is a disservice to this important issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawblog.wordpress.com ...
All but about fifteen of American bishops are antinomian.
Wuerl, Dolan, Chaput, George, Gomez, and others, have made public statements that Canon 915 is not binding. They hold themselves at liberty to disobey it. Not one of these bishops has written a response to Cardinal Burke’s famous article, which proved that disobeying Canon 915 is a mortal sin.
So we have the spectacle of dozens upon dozens of American bishops living in manifest mortal sin. And the Pope says nothing.
But the law presumes validity until decreed otherwise, and to act otherwise is to act apart from and with disregard to the law.
Read this earlier today—Brilliant, as was the linked piece by Mueller mentioned as brilliant in the article.
The examples that you give argue against yourself.
One can claim one’s spouse is emotionally unstable-—isn’t it evident—she’s a woman-—but (1) substantiating that one’s subjective perceptions are objectively true and (2) that the problems actually were serious enough at the time of the marriage to prevent consent from being given are two things that can’t be established without close objective investigation.
How the thing would be irresponsible and sinful, I have no idea.
I have no idea about countless priests and bishops—I do know that many say whatever will please other people when off the record.
The system may be a bit more sophisticated than you are aware of—there are ways of working with and around people’s problems within the law.
Yes, and the “pastoral solution” is within Church law.
Besides which, formal annulment decrees are not published. You really don’t know the status of any marriage, 99% of the time. You have no real right to know.
I must have missed that in my Canon Law Class. “Pastoral Solution,” as commonly used, means either the professional involved doesn’t want to or can’t do his job and hopes that everyone will feel good and go away.
If you can cite a specific Canon mentioning pastoral solution, I will happily be corrected, but if it is in Church Law then a CIC number, or a decree number, can be referenced actually containing the concept. Otherwise, it is not in Church Law.
Matthew 19:3-9 DRA
And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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.
Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world. (I Cor. 11:28-32)
In this day and age of rampant divorce and extra/pre-marital sexual intercourse, we as Christians should be presenting the mercy, grace, love and forgiveness of Christ and encourage believers to live as Christ would have us live. Denying Communion to a person because of past sins when there is ample evidence of a changed/repentant heart and a willingness to walk with the Lord in obedience to Him, seems like a punishment that can never be lifted - to the detriment of the Christian - and to the body of Christ. If Catholics cannot see the merit in this, send your discouraged and broken people our way - we will not turn them away just as Christ wouldn't. We, like Him, can say neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.
I suggest you read, “With Open Arms” by Father Hosie, it has a valid imprimatur.
http://www.amazon.com/With-Open-Arms-Catholics-Remarriage/dp/089243810X Yes, what GOD has joined, no man can undo. However, that is the valid point here, IF THE FIRST UNION WAS NOT VALID FROM THE START REMARRIAGE WITHIN THE CHURCH IS NOT PROHIBITED!
Countless divorced Catholics KNOW that their first marriage was not valid. No "second opinion" in the "public forum" is required. The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican II CLEARLY state that the Church must respect matters of PERSONAL CONSCIENCE and the INTERNAL FORUM is clearly recognized.
Yes, such solutions can be abused.
So what? Formal Annulments are often little more than a cheap “Catholic Divorce” these days and they are rarely ever denied. And, as stated, putting friends and family through the process can, in itself, be a sinful or vindictive exercise on the part of the petitioner. I know of a petitioner who is not even a practicing Catholic anymore, and, knowing her Ex had very ill parents, filed for an annulment and had intrusive questionnaires send, by the Tribunal, to the cognitively implored parents of her Ex husband. This is a woman who was dating an Atheist at the time she filed for a formal annulment. Yes, Annulment filings can be sick and vindictive and sinful.
The final arbiter of marriage validity is moi.
Is that the essential point here?
When Jesus healed the leper, he sent him to the priests to offer what the law required for ritual cleansing. I’m sure the leper was 100% confident. But there have been times when I’ve been 100% confident and also wrong. The way the annulment process runs in North America annoys me nearly whenever I think about it, but as marshmellow points out, the big question is whether or not in the end I am my own judge. And I don’t think I can be that, and certainly do not want to be that for that which is most monumental, so I consider what has been given to be a grace.