Cardinal outlines possible paths to Communion for divorced, remarried - Catholic Caucus

http://www.catholicnews.com ^ | February 28, 2014 | Cindy Wooden, CNS

[BlatherNaut]

The State of North Carolina might say that, but the Catholic Church would not say that: because her so-called spouse demonstrated from the very inception of the attempted marriage, that his vows were a fraud. That's the law of the Church: no intention, no vow; no vow, no bond; no bond, no impediment for her present, real and final marriage with a man who really did and does intend what the Church intends.

No intent, no vow? How can one marry without intent? If they're drunk or something? Kind of like that old cliche about going to Vegas and waking up married? As far as accepting as fact that the ex made fraudulent vows based on testimony from only one side, how is that fair? There are almost always two sides to every story. The only way to find out is to investigate. And how are parish priests now supposed to find the time to undertake a thorough investigation in cases like this? Aside from the fact that most are currently overloaded with crushing duties, they are simply not trained for this.

[BlatherNaut]

The "option" of going to another parish where nobody knows them, is just an evasion. I'm sure people do this, and that's down to their own conscience, I suppose (what the Church calls the "internal forum") However, the Holy See has ruled out the internal forum solution as a valid way of resolving marital validity questions. Such issues must be submitted to the Church's canonical processes (a marriage tribunal).

I think you may have misunderstood my post. I was not suggesting evasion or "internal forum". The point of going to another church is to avoid causing scandal at their present church where their situation is known (only if they chose the Josephite marriage option, of course).

Do you --- seriously--- think relying on the "internal forum", already excluded as a solution by the Holly See, is to be preferred to a reform of the marriage law in which their pastor could make a Declaration of Nullity under certain circumstances?

Of course not. And a "reform" of the marriage law that effectively undermines the Sacrament doesn't seem like a good idea either.

For Sally to impose this on her husband unilaterally would be a violation of the spousal debt

Perhaps if he were actually her "husband" that would be relevant. However in the eyes of the Church that is not the case.

[BlatherNaut]

“Benedict XIV in his famous Dei Miseratione, introduced into matrimonial judgments, the principal of a double and equitable, judiciary decision. This praxis guards the search for the truth, guarantees the outcome of a just trial, and demonstrates the importance which the Church attributes to the Sacrament of Marriage and its indissolubility. Kasper’s proposal places in cause the objective judgment of the ecclesiastical tribunal, which would be substituted by a ordinary priest no longer called on to safeguard the good of marriage, but to satisfy the needs of individual consciences.”

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3128694/posts

[Mrs. Don-o]

"No intent, no vow? How can one marry without intent?"

The "I can make you disappear" husband, mentioned before, had no intent to enter into marriage as the Church understands it: a union which is exclusive and faithful, and which persists until death.

Yes, "being drunk or something" would render the vow null. Also being on drugs, insane, mentally incompetent because of grave mental incapacity, or being a sociopath who is perpetrating fraud.

".. based on testimony from only one side, how is that fair?"

It's not fair, but the "ex"'s whereabouts have been unknown to the petitioner for 20 years.

"And how are parish priests now supposed to find the time to undertake a thorough investigation in cases like this? Aside from the fact that most are currently overloaded with crushing duties, they are simply not trained for this."

Absolutely true. But in this case, the parish priest is in an excellent position, a superior position to assess the overall soundness of the petitioner's commitment to Catholicism as well as to observe whether she is shows signs of being a liar, flaky, a manipulator; he has also the testimentary evidence of people who have known the petitioner for many years, if not all her life.

The Diocese, here, is in no position to conduct investigations. What you say about the pastor is even more true of the Diocese. Ours has 2 seminarians (two!) running around getting testimony and straightening out cans of worms all over the whole Diocese. Did you notice I said two? Seminarians? I don't believe they would ever, ever be able to come up with more information than petititioner has already provided.

Understand that that which is well and truly impossible, cannot be morally obligatory. If it is well and truly impossible to get more information about Sally's ex, it cannot be obligatory. Therefore, somebody has to make a judgment on the basis of her known character, her sworn statements and her supportingdocuments.

At this point, Fr. Pete would be in the best position to do that.

I maintain my opinion (and it's only an opinion) that in a very limited number of well-defined, distinctly defined cases, the pastor should be empowered by the bishop to make the decision to grant or deny the petition.

[ebb tide]

I fully accept your point that the Church rightly treats marriage very seriously, and I understand the necessity of the Marriage Tribunal to gain an objective assessment of the validity or invalidity of the bond. We're both on the same side here.

But consider well how unjust it is to prevent a person from "second" marriage when the "first" union was a fraud, when he or she really wasn't Sacramentally married to their ex at all.

Do you not see the contradiction in the above statements? Is it not up the Marriange Tribunal, not an RCIA instructor, to determine a marriage to be a fraud?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Egad, where do you get that?? I didn't say that I, a RCIA instructor, have the authority to make a ruling on marriage validity. Yikes!!

I have my opinion of course, but I am not -- ahem --- a canonical judge.

My lowly opinion is that in the case I described, the pastor would be in a better position to render a just judgment even than the canonical judge over in the chancery, because he is in a position to closely observe the petitioner's life and character, and assess the credibility of her testimony and that of others who have provided letters confirming her deposition as true.

He can't make a canonical ruling now, of course. Bishops don't, can't, delegate such authority to pastors. It would be contrary to the present iteration of canon law. But there's no prima facie theological reason why the bishop couldn't entrust that judgment to a pastor, rather than to a canonical judge.

Not that that's going to happen. It's speculative. Purely theoretical. Just my VVHH opinion.

[Mrs. Don-o]

From a practical point of view, I can see that if you opened up the possibility of the judgment of marriage validity being made by a pastor rather than by a diocesan tribunal judge, it would be (1) very hard to limit this only to certain particularly difficult cases (there would be mission creep), and (2) very hard to be sure the pastor was not letting the petitioner's suffering trump objective judgment.

It's mighty hard, either way.

One consolation about the upcoming marriage powwow in Rome, is that Pope Francis has shown signs of wanting to give the liberals the satisfaction of being "respected and heard," and then coming out with his own ruling quite in line with canonical continuity.

I cribbed this from Fr. Z's com box:

"Remember, Pope Francis also renewed now-Cardinal Mueller as head of the CDF, (made him a cardinal) ordered his long article clarifying the Church’s teaching on marriage to be published in L’Osservatore Romano, told Card. Brandmueller that the divorced and remarried may not receive communion (in December). Pope Francis was also the main author of the Apparacida Document while cardinal which also says that the divorced/remarried may not receive communion.

"I think that Pope Francis wants “open discussion” – how wise this is another matter. But this is part of his “messy” style. Remember that the talk of Card. Kaspar was not supposed to be published originally."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - We may be approaching a "Humanae Vitae" moment. Get together a "panel" or "board" or "advisory committee". Talk, talk, talk. Then -- enter Holy Spirit.

As Brent Bozell (senior) exclaimed when Pope Paul VI came out with HV: "Habemus Papam" . Oremus.

[Albion Wilde]

Thank you for your explanation of the Church’s policy on recognizing other Christian marriages.

As for Sally, what a shame. I will pray for her. FWIW, the picture that keeps flashing in my mind as I read your posts about her is one from my Psych 101 class of two infants who were put into a stressful, confined situation. The boys typically looked for ways to get out. The girls sat and cried, apparently hoping to be rescued.

[Salvation]

I disagree with Kasper. This needs to stay as it is. If people can’t stay married and get a divorce how can we know that they will keep promises to not remarry?

[NKP_Vet]

Kaspar does not call the shots. His opinion is just that, an opinion. The Synod of Bishops on the family in October and the world Synod of Bishops will make a recommendation to Pope Francis. No way 2,000 years of Church teaching, AND the Word of God will be disregarded. The Pope’s job is to safeguard the truth.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Very often it was a contested divorce, with one spouse who didn’t want to get divorced at all.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Boy, is that true in this case!! This woman is almost disabled with tears.

[sitetest]

Dear Mrs. Don-o,

Where to begin?

How about, this is a terrible idea.

Plain and simple.

I don't know many pastors who could make just judgments in these matters. Many parish priests are really swell folks who really want what's best for the members of their flock. I think that's actually a good thing. But what it means is that these priests are on the side of each parishioner, is the cheerleader for each parishioner. The likelihood that this sort of parish priest is going to reject the entreaties of a sincere-sounding parishioner who seems so kind and considerate and dedicated and devout against the [non-present, mean, ogre-of-an-] ex-spouse seems to me to approach zero.

I'm not sure that “defense of the marriage bond” obtains any meaning under such a regime anymore.

I think most cases would turn on the level of sympathy the priest had for the petitioner, who is also his parishioner, rather than on the matters of theology presented by the specific case. In my mind, and, at least in the past, in the mind of the Church, this is a bad thing.

Most parish priests I've met, if you walked through their deepest theological thought, you wouldn't get your ankles wet. This is especially true of priests ordained in ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70s, and even the ‘80s, and priests who are late vocations, no matter when they were ordained. Especially the late vocation priests, often, these men seem to have been given the “Cliff Notes” version of Catholic theology. A lot of these fellows can tell you what the teaching is, but don't understand why the teaching is what it is.

Thus, I've known wonderful parish priests who know the Church teaches women can't be ordained, but because they HAVE NO CLUE as to the deeper theology, they don't understand why, and can imagine the Church changing the teaching someday.

Marriage tribunals are staffed by folks who are highly knowledgeable in a variety of disciplines, including canon law, moral theology, matrimonial theology, psychology, and others. And even then, even with folks like these sitting on the tribunals, the system is far from perfect.

As to the long waits, because the system is swamped, there are actual ways to alleviate the problem, but empowering pastors to do the jobs of tribunal judges is not one of them.

As to the temporary solution of living in continence, I guess I'm not sure I see the problem. If both parties to the putative "second marriage" desire marriage in the Church, then both would be willing to endure this hardship, and thus, neither would be unlawfully denying the other. If one of the parties doesn't really want this in his/her heart of hearts, then it is questionable, in my own mind, as to whether that party should be free to marry in the Church, anyway.

The reason why we have so many failed marriages in the Church is that we bless with Church sanction the marriage of too many “baptized pagans” in the Church - folks who are nominally Catholic, but who don't recognize the importance of the Third Party (or really, the First Party, the Generative One) in their marriage. But that's another rant.

The bottom line is, you want to reduce wait times? Open the system to market forces. Attract more folks into the practice of canon law by paying them better, meaning, higher rates for the costs of the annulment process. Folks will willingly spend thousands for a divorce lawyer, but begrudge the diocese five hundred or a thousand bucks for the parallel judicial process involved in annulments.

If you try to provide a product or a service at a price below that of which it costs to actually produce the product or the service, you will increase demand, and it is likely that you will lose money on every single sale. If, in order to minimize your losses, you restrict what producers of the product or service may charge for it, you will decrease supply.

And then you will have a shortage.

I know that the Marxists who often traipse about in episcopal garb would be scandalized by my proposal, but there it is.

sitetest

[Mrs. Don-o]

Lots of wisdom in your remarks. Now I'm persuaded that the priest's "pastoral" heart may well trump the "ecclesial" mind, if for no other reason than because he knows that if he upholds the bond, he'll see this angry petitioner in the second pew weeping, or glaring at him until Christ comes again --- or worse, the petitioner will leave the Church, and pull their whole family and coterie of friends out along with them.

(That could happen with a Tribunal finding for the bond, but it wouldn't be so personal. And --- though it sounds strange--- what we're looking for here is "the impersonal", the objective verdict on marriage validity.)

Sigh. Very challenging.