Posted on 10/11/2014 2:21:48 PM PDT by ebb tide
Two more cardinals and an archbishop have offered their agreement with the German Cardinal Walter Kasper that the Church should offer Holy Communion to Catholics in “irregular” marital situations.
U.S. Vaticanist John Allen, writing on Crux, quoted Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, the president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, the office that interprets Church law, saying that in cases of “urgency and necessity” Catholics who have divorced and civilly remarried, should be readmitted to Communion.
Coccopalmerio gave the “hard case” example of a woman civilly married to a man who had been abandoned by his wife and who cares for three children. “She cannot abandon that union or those children,” he said. “In these cases, we have to do something.”
The cardinal suggested that cases could be examined individually “by a bishop or group of bishops.” He cited the Gospel story in which Christ asked, “Whose son or ox falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?”
“You can respond two ways,” Coccopalmerio told John Allen. “You could do nothing in order to respect the law, or you could act because it’s a case of necessity and urgency.”
“Does acting risk breaking the law of the Sabbath? Absolutely not, that law remains, but there are cases that force me to act,” he said.
Pat Buckley, who is in Rome for the Synod representing Voice of the Family, responded to Cardinal Coccopalmerio saying that the suggestion disregards basic understanding of Catholic theology as it is presented in the scriptures.
Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!
These, he said, “tell us that from the beginning God made them male and female, and that whatever God joins together must not be separated. Irrespective of whether someone is abandoned or not, the marriage is still in existence, and is indissoluble.”
Buckley said the particular situation cited “certainly presents a difficult situation but nevertheless the sacramentality of their marriage is intact.”
“We’re also told in scripture that someone who is living with a person not their spouse is committing adultery – which of course is a grave sin, and persons in this state should not present themselves to receive the Eucharist.”
With Cardinal Coccopalmerio, John Allen related that the former Cardinal archbishop of Milan, Dionigi Tettamanzi, also indicated his openness to allowing the change in practice as long as “confusion is avoided about the indissolubility of marriage.”
John Allen listed the cardinal’s conditions, including that the couple is “involved in Christian formation for adults.” Allen notes that while the two statements could indicate support for a change in the practice of the Church, “strong opposition” still exists among the Synod bishops.
Earlier this week, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, told the Italian daily paper La Stampa, “I have an idea on how to break the deadlock.”
Asked bluntly whether he would favor allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion, Fisichella advocated a “return to the primacy of conscience.”
He said, “I don’t want to start judging and theorizing based on specific cases. But who in today’s world can say they have not had cases of members of their own families living together or divorcing?”
“Unfortunately, we are immersed in a reality in which the beauty of marriage has been wounded. There has been too much emphasis on the canonist, or legal, dimension of marriage, which has led us often into the waters of legalism,” he said. “Recuperating the sacramental dimension would make it easier to find different solutions, in continuity with original doctrine. Here we return to the primacy of conscience. Nothing and no one can intervene in this.”
“Of course, it must be a conscience that is illuminated by the Word of God, that is reflected upon and that accepts the obedience of a path,” Archbishop Fisichella said.
Matthew McCusker, a spokesman in Rome for Voice of the Family, said that Fisichella is not sufficiently distinguishing between “a well-formed and an ill-formed conscience.”
“The Church would not be acting mercifully or pastorally if she changed her teaching or practice to accommodate ill-formed consciences,” McCusker said. “Her pastors would in fact be neglecting their clear duty to assist Catholics to form their consciences in accordance with the truth.”
Ping
Why even belong to the Catholic Church if they’re just an adjunct of Superfun Rock Band Church? I can just give my money to Benny Hinn and be done with it.
Marriage has been wounded -- by the dereliction and faithlessness of the shepherds.
“Of course, it must be a conscience that is illuminated by the Word of God, that is reflected upon and that accepts the obedience of a path,” Archbishop Fisichella said.
Absurd on its face. A conscience "illuminated by the Word of God" would not approach Holy Communion before rejecting and repenting of a lifestyle condemned by the Word of God.
"Go, and now sin no more."
These bishops are so grossly misapplying the example and words of Jesus it hardly seems worth responding. But:
Jesus, the Church, the natural law, and civil law all recognize the priority of saving a human life, or property, over strict observance of particular laws.
These people who are unable to receive Communion ARE NOT DROPPING DEAD as a result.
That was just the situation with my cousin Bobby. His wife abandoned him, leaving him with two babies; ultimately the marriage was annuled in fairly short order because of testimony that she never really intended the "faithful" and "lifelong" part at all; Bobby later married a much better woman, with the blessings of the Catholic Church.
How do you know she was lying at the altar?
Couldn’t she have been truly in love and planning to be faithful but later got bored and changed her mind? Was your cousin Bobby’s wife regularly going to Mass and Confession?
If it were to come out, for instance, that she was secretly meeting up or dating other men when she and Bobby were engaged, or shortly after they were married, that would indicate she didn't intend an exclusive marriage relationship. Or if she said to her parents, "If this doesn't work out, I can always get a divorce." Or "I wouldn't rule out breaking up if I don't feel happy."
Was Bobby's wife regularly going to Mass and Confession? That's just the kind of question the Tribunal might ask. It might furnish evidence as to whether she had an intent of true Catholic fidelity.
On the other hand, if it looks like she was mature, understanding of what constitutes a marriage commitment, consenting and sincere at the time she made her vows, the marriage would be considered valid.
This was a long time ago. I remember that Bobby's mother, my Aunt Sophie, never from the first though his first wife was sincere. I don't know her grounds for doubting her, but Sophie voiced her opinion that the woman was using Bobby and deceiving him from the start.
Do you not think many people, rather than lying at the altar, lie at their tribunals to get out of a valid sacramental marriage?
Why make it easier for them?
A reasonable question. It's an easy (and convenient) claim to make that someone was lying at the altar, but impossible to prove without being a mind reader. If annulments are granted on that basis, it's no wonder they're widely viewed as "Catholic divorce".
My impression (just an impression) of our Tribunal here in Diocese of Knoxville is that their default position is an favor of the Marriage Bond and they take this seriously. I have observed how they deal with my RCIA students who want to be received into the Church at Easter and get pushed back a year, two years or more -- maybe indefinitely --- because they re-married after a busted-up marriage years back.
It's pretty tough. I can tell you there's no rubber-stamp.
No all cases are so complicated. Say a man was validly married to someone else before he married the petitioner, but lied to his wife, the second marriage will be nullified on the grounds of "prior bond." These cases are settled quickly: it's essentially an administrative process which involves collecting simple documentary evidence.
Similarly, when Catholics marry outside the Church. This is called a declaration of nullity based on a "defect of form." The couple did not exchange vows before a priest and two witnesses in a Catholic church as is required by canon law. When Catholics fail to observe this law, the marriage is invalid. These "defect of form" cases account for more than half of all the annulments granted in the Catholic Church.
That is possible only if (at least) one party is Catholic. There are an amazing lot of people out there who were "baptized Catholic" but were never instructed nor received the Sacrament of Confirmation. Their previous busted-up non-Church marriages would be annulled under "defect of form."
I understand the validity of declarations of annulment in such non-complicated cases as you have quoted.
But when tribunals grant “annulments” to couples who have been married 20+ years and have raised six kids in the church, bells go off that some, if not a lot of, people are lying at the tribunal.
But with what’s happening at Francis’ Sin-Nod, I think this discourse between us is fruitless.
It will either be Communion for Adulterers or EZ Pass “annulments”. All in the name of “mercy” at the expense of charity.
We should pray more and bitch less. I'm speaking to me.
I’m both praying for, and bitching about, the Sin-Nod; the two acts are not incompatible.
Some of us have to expose the evil being proposed, so more can pray that it be conquered.
It's not a prophecy; it's already a concrete proposal from some of the Sin-Nod fathers.
N.B. Pope Francis has appointed the above-mentioned Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmiero, along with Donna Wuerl, and other flaming liberals to help write the revised relatio for the Synod of Bishops.
Nobody needs the gift of prophecy to know where Francis is trying to direct this Sin-Nod.
Doctrine isn’t up for a vote.
Lousy, uninformed, article title.
I thought that divorced Catholics have always been able to receive. It’s the remarried bit (without a decree of nullity) that causes issues.
Catholics misapplying the Word......now that’s rich.
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.