The Catholic Church, Divorce, Remarriage and Communion

I'm going to start another thread on my growing sense that Pope Francis' efforts in this area have the makings of a first-class debacle.

This thread, however, is about the theology of the thing. What can the church "do" about:

* divorce and remarriage
* communion for the divorced and remarried
* all others "living in sin" (cohabitation, same-sex relationships, etc.)

For my part, I agree that "something must be done." The solutions seem to revolve around three basic, potentially-interrelated options.

1. Cardinal Kasper's call to mercy, "tolerate, though not accept" second unions.
2. A thorough-going resourcement of Orthodox theology of marriage.
3. A shift in communion law, focusing on the "internal forum," or the judgement of a parishioner's conscience.

The most attractive to me is the second, the Orthodox solution, for it is simply impossible to charge the eastern church of heresy on this score. These are ancient traditions of apostolic churches in full communion for a millennia before the split.* But the Orthodox solution is so far from that of the Latin west. It would be one thing to allow the eastern churches to return to an Orthodox theology of marriage--something I gather they actually maintained for many centuries after union. But, even if the theology is judged non-heretic, I don't see how the western church as an institution can "change horses."

Anyway, what say you? What change is possible here?

---

* That situation is an odd one. Catholic conservatives today are saying more and more that, if the church embraced the Orthodox solution, it would "not be the church Jesus Christ founded." This strikes me as manifestly false--the church classifies as saints and doctors many who held to this theology! But it is a ticklish case. Is there any other seeming-doctrinal issue on which the eastern and western churches disagreed from the start, and which still stands between them? Or are we to imagine that theologians will lay aside divorce and remarriage as no more consequent than leavened and unleavened bread at communion?

Tim, without getting into the issues at this stage, I'm just curious what leads you to say that "Pope Francis' efforts in this area have the makings of a first-class debacle".

Argh. I somehow posted this to the "Catholic Apologetics" group, which is dead, not the "Catholic Tradition" group. (I think we should have one group with a more general name than either!) Anyway, taking advantage of my unique powers, I have moved it here. Reply coming.

1.

Interesting topic. Tim, can you expand for me what the second solution is? I am wholly ignorant on the subject.

Here's my "why a debacle?" thread. I apologize for the length.
https://www.librarything.com/topic/173697

On the Orthodox theology, see http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1303358.htm . I've seen better explanations. But in brief—and conceding my ignorance—the Orthodox understand Christ's words against divorce to be a commandment—"don't do this"—not a statement about the impossibility of divorce. They believe marriages can die. They argue that, because Christ allowed divorce for adultery (Mat. 19.9), the church can--and can expand this to analogous situations. They believe only one marriage can be truly as God intended. But they permit remarriage with the church, in a somber, penitential rite, as a concession to human weakness and in light of God's mercy. Remarriage can, I gather, be granted by a priest, not shot up the chain of command. Third marriages are also fine. They balk at ever granting a fourth marriage.

Here's an new interview with Kasper, in Commonweal. I haven't read it yet, but I can see he goes into some depth.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/kasper-interview-popefrancis-vatican

Orthodox theology in relation to marriage seems to combine their two worst traits, caesaropapism (again on display in Russia and the Ukraine, and in respect of marriage because the source of their practice seems to have been imperial civil law) and handwaving (i.e. economia).

I hope we do not go down that road.

A better approach would seem, at least to me, would be for us to realise that "divorced and remarried" people are such a big issue due to the Church being inconsistent. I can commit as much adultery as I like, and no one will deny communion (though they should advise against the reception of communion), but if I get a piece of paper confirming my sin there is all of a sudden a big canon law issue.

Now receiving communion in either case is likely to be to my own judgement rather than a source of grace (following St Paul). However, in an age of frequent communion and private confession, removing the inconsistency might at least keep more people within the field hospital for sinners (following Pope Franics), from which grace and repentance might flow.

And with the added benefit of not pretending a valid marriage can be dissolved!

Annulment procedures are starting to look like the way the Synod will go - Further comments from Cardinal Rodríguez here: http://ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/rodr-guez-critiques-papal-critics-talks-...

"The doctrine is not going to change because indissolubility of marriage comes from Jesus," he continued. "It's the word of God that says what God has united men do not separate."

"This is the key," he said. "It's not a matter of giving or not giving the communion, that's another subject. It's not the most important. The main concern is: Is there a sacrament or there is not?"

>8 hf22: It's not a matter of giving or not giving the communion, that's another subject. It's not the most important.

I find that an encouraging statement. Whether or not to give communion has nothing per se to do with the sacramentality of marriage nor its indissolubility. It's a pastoral decision for the Church to make, and indeed one which is already being made all over the world in the internal forum.

When reading the article I note that for Cardinal Rodriguez the most important issue appears to be poverty, and the way in which the western Church is out of touch with the situation of the majority, rather than marriage. I would have expected no less from him! And of course I agree with him (and Pope Francis) on it.

> 9

John,

I did not read Cardinal Rodríguez as making that point about communion - He seems more to be redirecting the discussion to annulments, and away from the admission of people to communion who are in second unions after valid marriages.

The reception of communion has its own doctrinal issues, seperate from marriage per se, regarding sin etc. However, as you say, that may very well be better dealt with by putting the onus back on the individual lay faithful in the internal forum (like we do generally, outside the issue of second unions).

However I agree entirely about the need to place a greater pastoral emphasis on poverty, rather than the very much smaller issue of people in second unions, which seems to be focused in very rich countries (such as the US and Germany).

Very interesting article - Bishop Athanasius Schneider: ‘We are in the fourth great crisis of the Church’

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2014/06/06/bishop-athanasius-schneider-...

The subject of communion is raised here.

In the autumn, the synod of bishops will meet in extraordinary session to discuss the family, in the light of the questionnaire which Pope Francis invited the faithful to complete, giving their views on marriage and sexuality. Expectations are growing that rules will be relaxed on a range of sexual matters and in terms of divorced people receiving Communion as a sign of “mercy” from the Church.

Such views, according to Bishop Schneider, reveal the depth of the problem. “I think this issue of the reception of Holy Communion by the remarried will blow up and show the real crisis in the Church. The real crisis of the Church is anthropocentrism and the forgetting of Christo-centrism…

“This is the deepest evil: man, or the clergy, putting themselves in the centre when they are celebrating liturgy and when they change the revealed truth of God, for instance, concerning the Sixth Commandment and human sexuality.”

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350851?eng=y

Thank goodness we have a cardinal and perhaps some more, to put the brakes on any novelty that might be dreamed up in the Synod around changing the divine dogma of marriage and sacrament.

>12 LesMiserables: "the divine dogma of marriage and sacrament"

You do know that it took more than 1,000 years for the Church to even think of marriage as a sacrament, right?

One wonders what was going on with the "divine dogma" for the first half of Christian history, when marriage was not considered a sacrament...

>13 nathanielcampbell:

Just because it is a development, does not mean it is not a dogma.

In related news, there are two new contributions contra Kasper, being:

1. An article from some conversative Dominicans - http://nvjournal.net/files/essays-front-page/recent-proposals-a-theological-asse...; and

2. A soon to be published book from apparently at least five Cardinals - http://www.amazon.com/Remaining-Truth-Christ-Marriage-Communion/dp/1586179950/re....

While I am not sure either will be the final word, and I can see some issues and flaws in the Dominican article, together with the extra intervention by Cardinal Müller referred to at >12 LesMiserables: I think it gives a sense of how this issue is moving within the Church.

Instead of the ground swell of interviews, blogs, articles and books supporting the Kasper proposal one might have expected from progressive bishops and academics after a Pope supported reform address to a consistory, the tide is all going the other way.

So let's be clear--the church was not whole until the Schism. The Orthodox left the church almost immediately, if not immediately. And the Popes who recognized and were in communion with the the other patriarchal sees were in error and at best ignorant if that fact.

>16 timspalding:

Well in the Dominican article, the idea seems to be the modern Eastern Orthodox practice was a relatively late development under pressure from Imperial civil law, which was not fully formalised until the 10th Century (i.e. approaching the time of the schism).

The earlier eastern stirrings of its current practice are then treated as never attaining a consensus position amongst the early fathers, and thus not a doctine accepted in the undivided Church (i.e. the same as you can get a lot of one off or minority quotes from the early fathers, which support positions which have since been formally rejected).

Now, I am not sufficiently qualified to assess if the Dominican authors are correct in their argument from a historical perspective, but if you accept their historical analysis your conclusion (i.e. earlier Eastern schism / heresy) does not follow.

In terms of the other book, it has not been released, so I don't know what its argument will be. However the suggestion seems to be the chapter contra the Eastern Orthodox has been written by an Eastern Catholic Cardinal, so its argument is likely to be both different and interesting.

>17 hf22:

Another article which casts doubt on how early the idea of divorce / remarriage was tolerated in the Christain East, with particular reference to the examples given by Cardinal Kasper - http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3234/cardinal_kasper_and_the_church_fath...

This article suggests the early references, which Cardinal Kasper indicated related to tolarance of bigamy (i.e. divorce / remarriage), actually related to tolarance of digamy (remarriage after the death of a spouse).

As it happens, from my own reading of the Church Fathers, it has always been my understanding digamy rather than bigamy was the issue subject to controversy and comment in the early patristic period.

>14 hf22: "Just because it is a development, does not mean it is not a dogma."

Doctrine develops; the revelation of dogma (the depositum fidei) was final with the end of the apostolic age.

>19 nathanielcampbell:

True. And yet the Church gains an ever-deep understanding of the deposit of faith that had been "once for all delivered" to it by Christ and the apostles.

Mind you, I only just noticed Les Mis added "sacrament" to the idea of the dogma of marriage, which is what you were objecting to#. So apologies and don't mind me - You were right all along. I'll learn to actually read what people write eventually. Sigh.

# Which was not in Cardinal Müller's quote, which runs as follows, and was what I was thinking of:

Not even an ecumenical council can change the doctrine of the Church, because its founder, Jesus Christ, has entrusted the faithful custody of his teachings and his doctrine to the apostles and their successors. We have a well-developed and structured doctrine on marriage, based on the word of Jesus, which must be offered in its integrity. The absolute indissolubility of a valid marriage is not a mere doctrine, but rather a divine dogma that has been defined by the Church. In the face of the de facto rupture of a valid marriage, another civil “marriage” is not admissible.

>20 hf22: "I'll learn to actually read what people write eventually. Sigh."

There's no need to apologize -- the sleep deprivation of new parenthood has me making mistakes left and right lately.

Good news on the Synod (http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/15/vatican-official-says-communion-for-divorced-remarried-unlikely/?s_campaign=crux:email:daily)

ROME — The Vatican’s top official for the family says that October’s Synod of Bishops will debate altering church rules barring divorced and remarried Catholics from communion, but considers its emphasis will probably be on practical strategies for helping couples rather than changing doctrine.

Italian Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, said that with regard to divorce and remarriage, the synod is more likely to look at better marriage preparation and wider access to church courts for requesting annulments, a process that declares a marriage invalid, rather than changing the current discipline.

>22 hf22: Good news on the Synod

Not good, IMHO. Rather, an indication that the Holy Spirit has much work to do.

>23 margd:

The Holy Spirit always does - He just does not work against the words of Christ and the apostles.

Anyway I am hopeful that thoughtful reform of canon law regarding annulments and related matters will address much of the pastoral hurt which currently exists, without disregarding the faith of the Church. I am much pleased that this is the approach it looks like the Synod will adopt (cf http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/15/annulment-reform-is-a-smart-bet-at-loom....

>24 hf22:

I don't really understand annulment reform. Yes, it would be nice if annulments were handled at the local level more often; it's crazy that a tribunal in Rome needs to be involved. But—fundamentally—the traditionalists have it right that many annulments are really "Catholic divorces." The problem does not seem to me that Catholics are living in sham marriages, but that the only way the western church can process marriage failings and the human need for love and family as realities that do not exclude us permanently from communion is to wave a wand and declare nullity. The opposite of pastoral care and mercy doesn't seem to be "strict," it seems to be encouraging a more generous application of "abracadabra."

Ministries to divorced, remarried strive to echo pope's call for mercy

Does the Church have it right on family teachings in India?

Both from Catholic News Service.

>25 timspalding: Or, alternatively, give up the "abracadabra" and do a better job of forming individuals/couples for marriage in the first place. It amazes me how many places think an afternoon workshop and a scantron quiz are sufficient to cover the emotional/psychological/sacramental aspects of matrimony.

>27 sullijo:

Right. But therein lies a problem too. The theory is that marriage is a basic human thing. If two sixteen year-old New Guinea islanders who've never heard of Christianity marry, their marriage is a reality. If two atheists marry in front of a statue of Darwin, their marriage is a reality. No "courses" required. Marriage is basic. People get it.

Of course, some of their marriages really have been forced, or one of the parties mentally deranged, or whatever. But the Catholic must believe that marriage is a human institution, not a specifically Christian or Catholic one, and that most marriages in human history had to have been real.

In that context, it's odd that Catholic ones are different. If two Catholics—no matter how nominal—marry in a civil ceremony, their marriage is a dead letter. Catholics can pledge fidelity before God, live together for years and have ten kids, and their marriage is meaningless, unless they have a priest and a marriage-prep class to get the priest. Now some, including the Pope, say most of those marriages are meaningless.

The gap is already illogically large. Cranking up the marriage-prep still more just makes it worse.

>25 timspalding:, >28 timspalding:

I think issue that canon law reform can address is the reality that, while people have the natural right and ability to marry outside the Church, they generally don't exercise it.

That is, many people enter into marriage on the understanding they are able to divorce, and therefore are not consenting in their vows to an indissoluble union. And I have a hard time trying to justify holding people to vows they never made (i.e. a don't think the two athiests are very likely to be married on a Catholic understanding, though it remains possible that they are).

Accordingly a sensible canon law reform might be to change the rebuttable presumptions, such that a marriage without canonical form is presumed to be (but not made to be) invalid for both Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

This solution can not be applied to marriages with canonical form, as that would mean we are willfully celebraing invalid sacraments, and thus is where (pace >27 sullijo:) better marriage prep comes in.

>29 hf22:

So, to be clear, no (or virtually no) Protestant is really married, because they did not enter into marriage on the understanding that there is no divorce. Ditto no Muslim, Hindu, Jew… oh, the list goes on and on. And about half of Catholics.

Is anyone married?!

>30 timspalding:

So, to be clear, no (or virtually no) Protestant is really married, because they did not enter into marriage on the understanding that there is no divorce. Ditto no Muslim, Hindu, Jew… oh, the list goes on and on. And about half of Catholics.

Like I said, I have a hard time trying to justify holding people to vows they never made, so that fairly summarises the implications of my position. I think it is also behind the Pope's comments about half of (Catholic?) marriages being invalid.

Cardinal Muller has also noted that "many Catholics' first marriages might be invalid, and thus eligible for annulment, if the parties have been influenced by prevailing contemporary conceptions of marriage as a temporary arrangement".

Is anyone married?!

Only if they consent in their vows to an indissoluble union.

In related news, it appears Cardinal Kasper is starting to realise he will not be getting his way at the Synod (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403860.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter).

As a side note, when a theologian whose argument on a matter (reception of communion) ignores the most relevant scriptural teaching (not dismiss, or comes to a different view of, but ignores) can say the following it is time for his arguments to be ignored themselves from now on:

"They claim to know on their own what truth is, but Catholic doctrine is not a closed system, but a living tradition that develops," German Cardinal Walter Kasper told the Italian daily Il Mattino. "They want to crystallize the truth in certain formulas ... the formulas of tradition."

How about noticing that they actually want to understand and be faithful to the revelations of Christ provided in Scripture and Tradition, which can then be creatively applied to our own historical circumstances? Or is that too closed?

I have a hard time trying to justify holding people to vows they never made

Right. But that can't the Catholic position--that it's fundamentally a contract, so if you didn't promise X, it's not part of marriage.

Only to the extent they consented in their vows to an indissoluble union.

That seems a shift, again. Which is it—marriage requires a consent to indissolubility, or marriage between people without that conception is also real.

Are the Orthodox married?

ignores the most relevant scriptural teaching

The argument is that Jesus said that those who divorce and remarry and committing an adultery, right?

>33 timspalding:

Right. But that can't the Catholic position--that it's fundamentally a contract, so if you didn't promise X, it's not part of marriage.

I think I am saying that if you did not consent to an indissoluble union, you did not consent to be married. And consent is well accepted as necessary for marriage.

But I am working a little beyond my comfort zone here, so suggestions on flaws in my concept are welcome.

That seems a shift, again. Which is it—marriage requires a consent to indissolubility, or marriage between people without that conception is also real.

The first I think. Which one does not need to be Catholic to have, but is perhaps not likely for non-Catholics.

Are the Orthodox married?

Contra current canon law, I think on this view maybe only Orthodox third marriages would be valid, depending on which explanation for the Orthodox practice you accept (there seems to be a couple).

I also suspect that problem might be a logical outworking of the Western acceptance and Eastern rejection of annulments and the need for the parties' consent.

The argument is that Jesus said that those who divorce and remarry and committing an adultery, right?

No, I think Cardinal Kasper is on the right side on the debate about the indissolubility of marriage. His error IMO relates to the reception of communion more broadly, and thus 1 Corinthians 11:29 etc needs to be addressed.

Cardinal Kasper, and also those who talk about the fact communion should not be used as a reward for good behaviour, do not engage with this teaching (i.e. that communion is the wrong medicine in these circumstances).

Though as I have said before, I would be comfortable with saying (as with all other sinners) the "remarried" should not receive communion, rather than saying we will prevent them from doing so (which we don't do for other sins today, even if public). I think this would be reasonable accommodation of discipline to a world with frequent communion and private confession, which is a reasonably novel combindation.

That is, saying to receive communion in a state of serious sin would be a further sin, but that it is not up to the Church to physically protect people from that sin.

I'm unclear what one can do with Matthew 5:32:

"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." ( http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-32.htm )

What do you say about "except for sexual immorality"? Or are you ignoring it?

1 Corinthians 11:29

Paul goes on to conclude that therefore the Corinthians should eat and drink together. "Discern the body of Christ" means literally that--Christians who are holding the eucharist apart from other Christians. Sure, you can decide the principle is deeper, but that's the way the passage reads.

I think I am saying that if you did not consent to an indissoluble union, you did not consent to be married.

Yeah, I don't think that can be the theology. It's certainly not how the church understands non-Catholic marriage. If two Protestants marry, they're married. If they get divorced, and one wants to marry in the Catholic Church, they need an annulment.

>34 hf22:

What do you say about "except for sexual immorality"? Or are you ignoring it?

"Porneia" is well considered in the Tradition (i.e. that it allows divorce but not remarriage, relates to betrothal and/or invalid marriages under Leviticus). The controlling factor appears to be the weight of Jesus' teaching about divorce and remarriage, which indicates how this exception should be interpreted (i.e. the context).

Also, I am reading these passages in the context of the Tradition, and not just by itself. This further guides how it must be interpreted.

Paul goes on to conclude that therefore the Corinthians should eat and drink together. "Discern the body of Christ" means literally that--Christians who are holding the eucharist apart from other Christians. Sure, you can decide the principle is deeper, but that's the way the passage reads.

Once again, not a Protestant. The interpretation of scripture is in the context of the Tradition (particularly the Early Fathers), and thus not on a de novo reading.

The other point regarding Cardinal Kasper, is while there is perhaps an argument why St Paul's teaching does not apply I as think it does, he did not make one. Just ignored it, despite the fact it was the first thing which came to my (and others) mind when his talk was published.

If his job was to make the best case for admission to communion - He has failed by not treating the obvious objections which were always going to be raised.

Yeah, I don't think that can be the theology. It's certainly not how the church understands non-Catholic marriage. If two Protestants marry, they're married. If they get divorced, and one wants to marry in the Catholic Church, they need an annulment.

Well no, we currently assume they are married, which is an assumption that can be rebutted in an annulment procedure.

This is why I talk of reversing the rebuttable presumptions - On my view this would lead the presumptions being closer to reality in more cases.

ETA: BTW I am finding this a good discussion - It is helping me get these ideas clearer in my head before the Synod, which will be helpful when trying to understand the Synod debates and the various arguments which will be made.

I'm curious: what is the basis for releasing a priest from his vows? Must they be declared invalid from the beginning?

>37 margd: My own understanding of laicisation, especially when requested by the priest, is that the ordination was deemed flawed in some way from the start, so it is like an annulment. An annulment means you were never actually married; laicisation means that you were never actually a priest. I know many former priests who have declined laicisation for that reason. They are not prepared to accept that thirty or forty years of their lives in which they were good and committed priests somehow didn't officially exist simply because they have discerned a call from the Holy Spirit to a different vocation later in life.

However I'm not 100% certain and am open to correction on that. I'm also not sure what the implications are if a priest is laicised as a disciplinary measure, eg for child abuse. Is he also deemed never to have been a priest?

>37 margd:, >38 John5918:

Having a look at the relevant canon law (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/__PY.HTM), both cases can happen. That is some may have their ordination declared invalid like an annulment, but others can be restricted from all ministry while still permanently being a priest.

This article at Crux was written by a person who was dispensed from his vows (http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2014/09/17/a-former-priest-now-married-on-the-trouble-with-annulments/), and seems to indicate dispensation of vows (i.e. not an annulment of ordination) is more common (which is also my understanding).

Doctrinal wars? Both sides fire over Communion for divorced, remarried (NCR)

Twitter from Grant Gallicho:

"This is right. Allen is wrong. MT “@JohnThavis: War of words on Communion for divorced Catholics."
https://twitter.com/gallicho/status/512993704538554368

The article:
http://www.johnthavis.com/war-of-words-heats-up-as-vatican-counts-down-to-synod#...

>41 timspalding:

I tend to agree with John Thavis - Cardinal Kasper's comments bring this to a whole new level of disagreement. We now have different groups of Cardinals accusing each other of serious error (heresy basically) in public - You don't see that every day (or even every decade).

I also think Cardinal Kasper must have misread the Pope - The idea that Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Muller have not discussed their positions with the Pope more than Cardinal Kasper's two times is laughable. The Pope clearly authorised Cardinal Kasper to make an argument for reception of communion by the "remarried", but that hardly means he accepts the argument or is going to require its adoption by the Church.

Cardinal Muller put an earlier version of his article in L'Osservatore Romano a few months ago for crying out loud - It is not like that could be done without discussions with the Pope either before or after publication.

The reform of annulments commences (http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-establishes-commission-to-reform-marr).

The Synod outcome seems to have been determined.

And not a single married person amongst them. Nor a female theologian or canon lawyer.

>44 John5918:

You will have to take that up with Pope Francis - I have no idea why that is the case give the suggestions from the Pope that women and lay people should be included where ever appropriate.

While clerics have traditionally dominated the rank of canon lawyers, there is no reason why lay or female members could not have been appointed. Indeed the President of our local Canon Law Society, at least last time I checked, is a religious sister (Sister Maria Casey RSJ - https://www.sydneycatholic.org/news/latest_news/2012/2012928_230.shtml).

I did also note Cardinal Burke is missing from the list, which may suggest the rumors that he is leaving his current post are true.

Ignoring Sandro Magister's colour commentary, Cardinal Scola has a proposal which might work (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350876?eng=y).

It also might be the kind of proposal which the new annulment commission might seek to recommend.

I can not see any doctrinal issue with this proposal, except perhaps for the concern about weakening the "messaging" about the indissolubility of marriage. However I am uncomfortable about using the lives of real people just to make a point in public, and I don't see this giving rise to scandal in the modern context, so that concern does not stop me from being able to support this proposal as an valid option.

The leaks continue (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicnews/2014/09/spanish-bishop-pope-says-he-will-not-change-communion-rule/).

The Synod could use a woman's touch (UCA News)

What good is a family synod comprised of post-middle age celibate males?

Synod on the family to open amid high expectations, doubts about process

Priests' mistresses and wives remind the Vatican: Don't forget about us

Both from NCR

Church needs to hear from wounded faithful at family synod (NCR)

>50 John5918: Church needs to hear from wounded faithful at family synod

Those of us "in the pews" in our diocese never even saw the survey. A newsletter informed us that it arrived too late, and so input was sought from members of some committee or another, i.e., the choir.

Our diocese never did nothing about it whatsoever, at least publicly. Maybe they had a secret meeting of priests, or something. And emails asking why were never replied to.

>51 margd:, >52 timspalding: One of the great weaknesses of it seems to have been that it was implemented so patchily from episcopal conference to episcopal conference and from diocese to diocese.

To be fair, I don't think that survey was ever intended to be a public one. It looked to be intended for Bishops to complete, but everyone got excited at the concept and it was therefore placed online by some dioceses.

If it was intended for everyone, it was not written very well, that is for sure.

Cardinal Kasper speaks again, and shows he lacks even the most basic understanding of why his proposal will be rejected (http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/cardinal-kasper-some-fear-domino-effect-synod-family).

Extracts:

"Q. Some cardinals and bishops seem to be afraid of this possibility and reject it even before the synod meets. Why do you think there is so much fear of a development in the church’s discipline?

A. I think they fear a domino effect, if you change one point all would collapse. That’s their fear. This is all linked to ideology, an ideological understanding of the Gospel that the Gospel is like a penal code."

Then, of course, there is also a lack of theological hermeneutics because we cannot simply take one phrase of the Gospel of Jesus and from that deduce everything. You need a hermeneutic to see the whole of the Gospel and of Jesus’ message and then differentiate between what is doctrine and what is discipline. Discipline can change. So I think we have here a theological fundamentalism which is not Catholic.

"Q. So you mean you cannot change doctrine but you can the discipline?

A. Doctrine, in so far as it is official binding doctrine, cannot change. So nobody denies the indissolubility of marriage. I do not, nor do I know any bishop who denies it. But discipline can be changed. Discipline wants to apply a doctrine to concrete situations, which are contingent and can change. So also discipline can change and has already changed often as we see in church history."

A few points of my own:

1. No one is arguing a slippery slope / domino effect. They are arguing Cardinal Kasper's proposal is in error in and of itself, not undesirable because of any potential further knock on effects.
2. No one is arguing the Gospel is a penal code regarding access to Communion. They are arguing Communion is the WRONG medicine.
3. The critics are applying a theological hermeneutic, indeed they are applying the basic Catholic one, the consistent Tradition of the Church. They are not involved in Protestant proof texting without context.
4. There are doctrines in relation to Communion, not just marriage. Therefore just because a proposal does not impact on the doctrine of marriage, does not make it a matter of discipline, if it impacts on the doctrines surrounding the Eucharist.

In short Cardinal Kasper chooses to ignore the criticisms made of his proposals for many of his fellow Cardinals, and instead decides to refute straw men of his own making. The actual criticisms are not engaged with at all.

Cardinal Kasper's contribution to this debate continues to be deeply unimpressive IMO. There might be a valid argument for the outcome he wants, but he is incapable of making it.

Another Bishop Theologian puts forward a deeply unimpressive argument, basically for Catholic acceptance of divorce (http://www.globalpulsemagazine.com/news/bishop-offers-a-solution-on-catholic-divorce-and-remarriage/114).

It makes being a following of Jesus pretty pointless if you just redefine his words to get the result you want. In this case, the Bishop's argument seems to be that indissoluble marriage can't mean indissoluble marriage, because the marriage has been dissolved by divorce.

The Bishop should have also credited the Orthodox - As this is basically (one of) the reasons the Orthodox give for their practice. The view of at least some Orthodox (and this Bishop implictly) is that Jesus did not teach that marriage could not be dissolved, just that it should not be. Therefore the sin is dissolving what should not be dissolved, rather than continuing adultery as against the still existing and indissoluble first marriage.

But this has never been Catholic teaching, and can not be assumed in. It would have to be argued against the Catholic authorities in the Tradition which clearly take Jesus teaching that marriage is indissoluble to mean that it is in fact indissoluble (i.e. can't be dissolved).

Instead, we have impermissable conclusions assumed as premises, and a declaration that a Catholic solution has been found. Absolute rubbish, and unlike Cardinal Kasper's proposal, this one actually does destroy the doctrine of marriage (rather than just being a matter of access to Communion).

Is all progressive theology this poorly done at the present time?

But this has never been Catholic teaching

What does "Catholic" teaching consist of, exactly? I would have thought it was the teaching of the church, including fathers and others in the east hundreds of years before there was any schism. This is how the term is used in many other contexts. Yet somehow here "Catholic" acquires a specifically western, Roman meaning long before the church was divided. It would be one thing if you admitted that teaching differed, but that the western church now gets to say what's what. That would be consistent at least.

>58 hf22:

Apologies. I was using a sloppy short hand#.

However as you rightly note, the Eastern practice is different from that in the West, and more particularly that accepted by the Bishops of Rome. You don't just get to assume it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church.

You might be able to argue it in, on the basis say an eastern practice better represents apostolic tradition, which has been successfully done with practices such as married priests and communion under both kinds. But I don't think that applies with eastern marriage practices, which appear to me to have deviated from the eariler tradition which was maintained in the West, due to pressure from civil governments.

But in any case, the Bishop here did not even try to make such an argument, which was the thurst of my criticism. Cardinal Kasper, for all the problems with his argument, at least had a go at bringing the witness of a handful of eastern Church Fathers to bear.

# I do of course think that the Pope in and out of Council gets to say what is what, which is why I must for consistency prefer the teaching accepted by the Popes over any particular eastern Church Father. So I am happy to admit your clarification.

One thing I have to agree with in Kasper's interview is this:

"Q. Some have proposed to have an easier and quicker process of annulment of marriage. The Pope has now set up a commission to look at the annulment process.

A. Well, there are situations in which such annulments are helpful and can be made. But take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way."

The same goes, I think, for far more extreme circumstances--the husband goes completely insane, the husband abandons the family, the husband fools around with a dozen women, etc. The church has a duty to be merciful. In such cases, I think the church should err on the side of trusting a wife who says that the marriage was defective from the beginning. And I think it would be good if annulment did not require a tribunal in a far-away city. But overall the effort to "solve" the issue by radically scaling up annulment is dishonest.

Similarly, I think we need to get rid of the canonical requirement for a Catholic wedding. It's crazy that marriages between Protestants is presumptively valid, although everyone knows that Protestants believe in divorce, yet a Catholic who marries outside of the church is not married at all, and therefore free to divorce and marry again whenever they please.

Unfortunately, both of these push things away from any resolution of the problem.

Lastly, I think we should think seriously about the distinction between whether someone should approach the sacraments and whether the church should refuse it. There is something very odd about a world in which everyone knows that large portions of the congregation are cohabiting, with another sex or the same, not to mention having casual sex, but the only people who get dinged are the honest, faithful couple in a second marriage, whose misdeeds have an official form somewhere. The point is apparently not subjective states of mortal sin, but scandal the faithful. But most parishioners are far more likely to know what unmarried people are sleeping together than they are that someone was married elsewhere once, and did not go through the appropriate hoops to annul it. The faithful know full well that people take communion in all sorts of states of sin. Why is this so singularly important to separate out?

>59 timspalding:

In such cases, I think the church should err on the side of trusting a wife who says that the marriage was defective from the beginning. And I think it would be good if annulment did not require a tribunal in a far-away city.

A simplified process is to be encouraged.

But overall the effort to "solve" the issue by radically scaling up annulment is dishonest.

I agree there are circumstances annulments are just not going to cover, and trying to make them cover all circumstances is going to be dishonest.

Similarly, I think we need to get rid of the canonical requirement for a Catholic wedding. It's crazy that marriages between Protestants is presumptively valid, although everyone knows that Protestants believe in divorce, yet a Catholic who marries outside of the church is not married at all, and therefore free to divorce and marry again whenever they please.

I would go the other way. I see no reason why Protestants marriages SHOULD be presumptively valid. They in general do not intend to do as the Church does, so I would say they should be treated as presumptively invalid (i.e. they never promised an indissoluble marriage, so there can not be one, as I outlined at >34 hf22: and >36 hf22:).

Lastly, I think we should think seriously about the distinction between whether someone should approach the sacraments and whether the church should refuse it.

This is I think the answer. I see no reason why remarried people should be singled out - It is inconsistent with our treatment of all other sins, even very public ones. And I have previously outlined here (refer >34 hf22:)# why I think the approach to other sins is an allowable discipline (i.e. private confession and frequent communion, a combination not previous seen in Church history, at least on any kind of scale). It is an approach within our doctrines, and the facts have changed enough to justify a revised discipline.

Nice to see we have reached a consensus!

Cardinal Kasper however, in his latest interview, argues against this view (i.e. sacraments aren’t only private events but public celebrations of the whole Church). But we don't have the early Church's strict eucharistic discipline, so I can't see why remarried people have to be subject to the last vestige of that approach.

# I first found this idea from a very conservative and logical Catholic commenter of the Ship of Fools forum, IngoB, some time ago. I can find no deal breaker objections, and I tried reasonably hard to do so.

In particular, the Canon Law appliable here (915) is a general one, which states that anybody who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin must be excluded from communion. But outside remarried people, it is very rarely used (maybe a few pro-choice politicians and gay rights people in rainbow sashes at Mass). And in the type of environment we have now, where most people would have no idea of the marital history of their fellow parishioners, I can't see how the grave sin of the remarried is any more "manifest" then a list of others despite the Government paperwork they possess (or any more likely to cause scandal). Certainly not as manifest as the publicly proclaimed political positions of politicians and activists.

Particularly if we accept the definition of manifest provided by canonist Dr Ed Peters (http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/a-brief-thought-on-the-phrase-manifest-sin-in-canon-915/), who is no ones idea of a progressive.

The change would not even require a change to the relevant Canon Law - Just a revision of the last declaration on the matter which indicated the sin of the remarried is per se manifest (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html).

Talking about public and private manifestations of sin, the option of the remarried agreeing to live together as brother and sister in order to receive Communion has always seemed weird to me. Almost like inviting lies, another sin, to look the other way to avoid scandal.

>60 hf22:

Yeah, there is a point there. It could be a way to make the sin private, or at least be seen that way, which means the same potential for scandal exists.

On related note, does anyone know what happens if you just cohabitate with a new person after divorce, and do not get the new civil marriage licence? That has to be common enough now days, and without the piece of paper, maybe it does not count as public?

That would be a very odd result, and really show up the inconsistency in the current approach.

>60 hf22: Am I right in my interpretation of this post that you accept the age-old pastoral internal forum solution whereby a divorced and remarried couple can receive communion in consultation with their confessor or pastor?

I do remember sitting through a pastoral meeting where a bishop insisted that a prostitute could receive communion as long as she went to confession regularly whereas a woman who through no choice nor fault of her own was a second wife in a polygamous marriage couldn't. He was normally much more pastorally-minded and we suspect someone had just given him a copy of the code of canon law and he might even have read it.

>63 John5918:

Am I right in my interpretation of this post that you accept the age-old pastoral internal forum solution whereby a divorced and remarried couple can receive communion in consultation with their confessor or pastor?

No, not at all. I think all priests should be required to inform people who are remarried without an annulment they SHOULD NOT receive communion, in accordance with the principles expressed in Canon 916 (and St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:29-31). Nor do I think the internal forum can replace external forum annulments, though I agree external forum annulments should be streamlined.

I just don't think priests should be required to say they CAN NOT receive communion under Canon 915 (as I do not think their sin is anymore manifest, i.e. a cause for scandal, then a large number of other public sins). That is, in Tim's words, the distinction between whether someone should approach the sacraments and whether the church should refuse it.

The internal forum is not a solution in general (excepting a few narrow circumstances where it might be applied - miscarriages of justice in the external forum etc). It suffers all the same problems as Cardinal Kasper's proposal.

Whereas a woman who through no choice nor fault of her own was a second wife in a polygamous marriage couldn't

Such a women would not however, in the Church's eyes, be married at all. Right?

CNS: Dueling videos, Kasper and Burke
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcRSxXfDzTxYuIHSxrGEET7u0LGZwtrax

Have we had this one from NCR already?

Upcoming Synod of Bishops is about more than just marriage and family

>59 timspalding: "Similarly, I think we need to get rid of the canonical requirement for a Catholic wedding."

For what it's worth, the eminent canonist Dr. Peters (who is currently flabergasted by Cardinal Kasper) agrees with you: http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-orientation-to-the-question-of-c...

BBC take on the synod at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29495835

For those who are so blindly liberal and modernist on here and who criticise the Cardinals for being homogenously too male, celibate and unmarried, I might just remind you that the universal truth on marriage has been provided by our Lord Jesus Christ.

End of story.

Welcome back, Stephen.

I wish I could find a simple, unbiased recounting of the history of marriage, divorce and remarriage in the church and its theology. It's weird that there isn't one.

I recently had occasion to read some of Remaining in the Truth of Christ, which admits the the orthodox practice happened in the early church, but calls it a condemned and marginal practice. The evidence presented didn't strike me as very good, even from that side. This got me looking into the attitudes of the two schisms before the Catholic/Orthodox split—the Nestorian and monophysite, separate at Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) respectively. The Nestorian Syrians, the monophysite Syrians, Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox and Armenians all allow what the Orthodox allow, although I gather their standards vary somewhat. That strikes me as rather good evidence this is more than an imperial Byzantine distortion. Cladistics have a way of showing the ancientness of something.

That said, while i think I would be up to researching this if I were sitting at the LC or Widener, I'm not, nor do I have the time, and I'm not seeing anything that measures up online.

Anyone got a suggestion?

>71 timspalding:

If you speak German, you might have better luck in that language's scholarship. I had a reasonable look some time ago in English language theology journals, and could not find anything that was not very narrow in scope, but German language stuff was suggested as more promising (except I can not read German).

Also, as no call for further study of the Orthodox practice found its way into the final Synod document, we are unlikely to get anything new in the foreseeable future.

However I am not sure modern non-Chalcedon practice is a sure guide to their historical practices. Those Churches, just like the Eastern Orthodox and the reformed communities, have faced pressures to relent on Christ's teaching on marriage.

For example the Copts, which I know most about, have had pressure for much of their history from the threat of conversion to Islam (i.e. if you don't let me remarry, I will convert, and they will let me remarry). Indeed, this pressure still exists, for example here (http://www.christianpost.com/news/coptic-christians-threaten-to-leave-denomination-over-divorce-remarriage-laws-55819/).

What does Jesus really say about marriage and divorce? (NCR)

>73 John5918: "Readers, what emerges in your prayers?"

Jesus allows for divorce in cases of sexual immorality. It seems to me that a person abandoning a marriage assumedly for new relationships, leaves the first spouse rightfully divorced and free to remarry.

74

Not true.

>74 margd:, >75 LesMiserables:

It seems to me that a person abandoning a marriage assumedly for new relationships, leaves the first spouse rightfully divorced and free to remarry.

Yeah, Christ is pretty clear that is not how his teaching works. In the relevant passages (i.e. Mark 10:11ff, Matthew 5:32ff and Luke 16:18ff) it is clear that an abandoned spouse can not remarry, and indeed that partly why the abandonment is such an issue.

For example, if we take Luke's version, he states: "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Excerpt from NCR article: "...Jesus makes an exception for marriages that are "unlawful." This seems to provide the basis for the Catholic idea of the annulment -- although Jesus has in mind cases of porneia (sexual immorality), which is generally not among the reasons the church allows for annulment. It is the traditionalists, then, who have already gone beyond Jesus' (ambiguous) specifications, not progressives..."

Also, interesting discussion on translation and interpretation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:32

Jesus has in mind cases of porneia (sexual immorality)

Let's have a special exception for people who've watched pornography.

>77 margd:

The NCR articles gives what is a common Protestant and sometimes Eastern interpretation of the text, but it is not one which Western and Catholic Tradition allows#.

The Catholic Tradition gives a couple of available options, which are briefly outlined here (http://www.diocs.org/Default.aspx?TabID=784&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 or http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=59&art....

Basically the options are:

1. It allows separation / divorce for adultery, but no ability to remarry.

2. It relates to the breaking of a betrothal, such as Joseph proposed in respect of Mary.

3. It relates to invalid marriages under levitical law (i.e. close blood ties etc).

There may also be other allowable interpretations which people could come up with in future.

# If for no other reason, it was declared anathema at the Council of Trent, in Canon VII of Session 24 as follows:

"If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema. "

Anathema--something dedicated to evil and thus accursed.

>80 margd:

Well, that is one meaning.

In the documents of Popes and Councils it generally just means an idea does not and can not form part of the Catholic faith.

>79 hf22:, >80 margd:, >81 hf22: let him be anathema

Does it not usually mean "let him be excommunicated?"

>82 John5918:

Yes, to the extent you are talking about people. So directly, these types of canons say "we excommunicate any person who holds this idea". But the person for these purposes is more or less imaginary - The point is excluding the idea (which can not be excommunicated per se).

So the point is to define the faith by a negative (at least in format). The faith is not X.

Though in this case, they are really defending a positive definition i.e. "the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties", so the anathema is just an artifact of the format used.

Today we might, to effect the same intention, say something like "It is to be definitely and infallibly held as a dogmatic truth of the Catholic faith that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties".

Pope: Marriage Is Under Attack Now More Than Ever Before (Zenit)