Skip to comments.ĎAbyssí Between Church Teaching and Many Family Situations Must be Bridged, Says Cardinal [Kasper]
Posted on 03/12/2014 6:09:36 AM PDT by marshmallow
In its approach to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, the Church needs to find a middle ground that does not destroy or abandon doctrine, but offers a renewed interpretation of Church teaching in order to help those whose marriages have failed, Cardinal Walter Kasper has said.
I propose a path that goes beyond strictness and leniency, the German cardinal and theologian told Vatican Radio yesterday.
An approach that avoids the two extremes isnt against morality, it isnt against doctrine, but rather, (is meant) to support a realistic application of doctrine to the current situation of the great majority of people and to contribute to peoples happiness, he said, speaking in Italian.
The cardinal was referring to a lengthy talk he had given to introduce a February 20-21 discussion by the College of Cardinals on family life. The talk, entitled Gospel of the Family, was to be published in March in German and Italian by private publishing houses.
Cardinal Kasper told Vatican Radio that the responses to a widely distributed Vatican questionnaire about Catholics family life drawn up in preparation for Octobers Synod of Bishops on the family showed there is a difficulty, an abyss between Church teaching and the actual situation of many people.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
Yes, it is.
In the end NOTHING will change regarding divorce. Our Lord's strictures on divorce are pretty clear.
I imagine that the core causes for the "annul-able" marriage will be expanded thus opening the door a little wider for more annulments.
Though quite honestly, the situation right now is not all that different.
Those who have the money to pursue an annulment (and are willing to subject themselves to the difficulties of the process) generally get their annulment.
Many others never pursue one and just walk away. Either because they don’t have the money or they do not want to subject themselves or family members (i.e. kids testifying against their mom) to the process.
Can’t defend it, but in reality that’s how things are working at present.
...like become a practicing Lutheran perhaps?
It is dangerous, but not necessarily wrong. While recognizing behaviors are wrong, and being firm in that, there has to be a ‘what do we do from here’, for things that are done and finished and can’t reasonably be undone. The danger relies in accepting the sin, rather than figuring out a way to move past the one previously done.
The Church didn't have to alter doctrine to deal with the devastating effects of widespread slavery on families so why does it have to change to deal with the effects of Self Worship destroying families?
You are correct that annulments do much of what the Cardinal is proposing. I'll add that some annulments are granted for specious reasons, and this is a scandal. However, that there is a formal process to getting an annulment at least underscores the seriousness of the teaching about marriage. If the objective process gives way to a subjective one, things really will fall apart.
Here's an analogy: before Roe v Wade, many women got abortions from their gynecologists, who would claim they were performing D&Cs after miscarriages. Yes, it was wrong that these doctors did this. However, the world — doctors, the law, churches — still at least maintained the belief that abortion was verboten. Once the argument, “People are doing it anyway” prevailed and the laws were changed, abortions increased dramatically and not just for practical reasons related to the availability of abortion. Once “the system” stopped arguing that abortion was objectively immoral, the tide turned dramatically and women who never would have considered abortion no longer were sure it was wrong.
I propose going back to an approach that contributes to people's eternal salvation. What can we expect? Cardinal Dolan goes on TV in November and confesses that he never speaks about the Church's teachings on such things as abortion and contraception. Then he goes on TV this past weekend to say "Bravo!" and "who am I to judge?" to the latest celebrity sodomite.
If there is an abyss between Church teaching and many family situations it is because for the past 50 years the hierarchy has failed to do its duty to teach, rule and sanctify the members of the Church.
This is the same thing as the recent change in how the SAT will be graded... if you can’t meet that standard, change the standard.
From what I know, money is not an issue at all. Annulments do not cost thousands of dollars and those who have difficulty with the cost are helped out.
Explain why one of the Kennedy’s can buy their way into an annulment just so he can (re)marry in ‘the church’. It is NOT that annulments are ‘too expensive’, it is that they can and are bought by those with money. Too bad you can’t see mockery when it occurs
Why should they cost anything at all?
The fee for a formal-annulment case is $400 with at least $150 being due at the time the petition is submitted; or you may pay in full. The remainder can be paid off in monthly payments. The Tribunal is heavily subsidized by the Diocese of Austin. There are many expenses involved in the process and to help defray these expenses you are asked to pay part of the actual costs involved. If a judge determines that a psychological assessment is needed in a case, there will be an additional charge of $90.
It is not our intent to impose any financial hardship on anyone. If you cannot pay the full amount, please let us know. There is a procedure form in the packet explaining what do to in cases of hardship. No case will be turned down due to a person's inability to pay the fee! Your case will be heard just like any other, and in the same amount of time. Money will never influence the work of justice.
I suspect divorce attorneys have costs too. The difference being that they probably require their clients to pay fees way above cost. The diocese only asks for a portion of the cost involved. I think it's fair.
I have nothing good to say about any of the Kennedys, but this has nothing to do with them, or with any other fake Catholics who use their money to buy what they want — inside and outside the Church.
You are incorrect when you allege I don't recognize mockery. I am appalled by many annulments, but that does not make me leap to the conclusion that we should just make it easier for EVERYONE to weasel out of marriage vows, or that we should say that marriage is no longer “til death do us part”. If we try to rejigger church processes because it is “unfair” that Kennedys can manipulate these processes, that is no different than arguing, “Abortion should be legal because rich women will always be able to get abortions.” (That is what many pro-choice people do argue, by the way.) Well, because rich men may be able to hire hitmen to bump off their wives, should the Church declare murder “ok if you think it is necessary”?
They are approaching the situation from the wrong direction.
The problem is actually not in the breakdown of marriages, but in the formation of improbable marriages in the first place.
Just “counseling” is rarely enough to reach an amicable marriage, as the relationship has to exist at many levels.
So instead the church should sponsor chaperoned adult social gatherings, providing many ways for couples to objectively evaluate each other and both as a team. A lot of these can be like written tests, and things like “team building” exercises.
Essentially, this process is not intended to “put them together”, which it may do, but to find “fatal flaws” that would likely propel them towards divorce. The notorious “irreconcilable differences”.
The irony is that “irreconcilable” after marriage, might very well be “reconcilable” before marriage, and not just by deciding to not get married.
“The most controversial “marriage that never was” in recent U.S. political history is back. Sources tell TIME that the Vatican has reversed the annulment of Joseph P. Kennedy II’s marriage to Sheila Rauch. The annulment had been granted in secrecy by the Catholic Church after the couple’s 1991 no-fault civil divorce. Rauch found out about the de-sanctification of their marriage only in 1996, after Kennedy had been wedded to his former Congressional aide, Beth Kelly, for three years.”
One shouldn’t have to 1) be surprised by an annulment or 2) have to appeal it all the way to the vatican.
This initial decision was a travesty and it is outrageous to not acknowledge it at all
The bishops of the past sixty years, or more, stopped teaching Catholicism. The result is that hundreds of millions of nominal Catholics are in illicit marriages and other illicit relationships.
The “solution” is for those people to repent and give up these illicit situations.
A small number will. The majority will not.
The Church will not change its teaching.
No one is denied an annulment on account of money.