Posted on 03/14/2014 8:08:26 AM PDT by ebb tide
Interesting parallels are being suggested between, on the one hand, Paul VI’s dithering over contraception in the 1960s (which, though reversed by his reassertion of Church teaching in Humanae vitae, contributed to widespread repudiation of that teaching by Catholics), and Francis’ recent mixed signals (or what are widely perceived as mixed signals) over the future of Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage and the reception of holy Communion. Notwithstanding some important differences between the two men and situations, I write to suggest that the stakes for all might actually be higher this time around.
Consider two points:
First, Church teaching against contraception had to be teased out over the centuries from natural law theory and what we call now ‘theology of the body’. It rests today largely on conclusions of logic, philosophy, and theology. Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage, in contrast, is expressly proclaimed in the New Testament and any literate Catholic can read Jesus’ strong words about it in the Bible. This teaching was heatedly and repeatedly defended by the Church Fathers, was reiterated consistently in numerous Councils, and has been expounded by all major theologians.
Second, short of personal admission, there is no way to tell whether this Catholic couple or that is practicing contraception, and so there are virtually no ecclesiastical consequences possible in the external forum for disregard of Church teaching by pew Catholics. Indeed, with exceptions too rare to mention, there weren’t even official consequences for high-profile Catholics defending contraception in the ’60s. But cohabitation and post-divorce ‘marriage’, in contrast, are public acts falling squarely with the parameters of well-established (if inconsistently applied) public consequences (withholding of Communion being the best known). Millions of Catholics abide by this consequence. The millions of others who do not abide by it pretty much know they do not.
What does this mean?
It means, I suggest, that the complexity of the arguments underlying Church teaching on contraception allowed for the ecclesial equivalent of “plausible deniability” in regard to acceptance of that teaching by rank-and-file faithful, and the nature of the contraceptive act virtually excluded public enforcement measures. But Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage is utterly obvious to any but the deliberately blind and the appropriateness of public consequences for public violation of that teaching has been unanimously upheld, and usually observed, for two millenia. Those factors combine to imply, I think, higher stakes in the divorce debate today than those confronting the Church over contraception a generation ago.
Now I think Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage will, in the end, be squarely upheld in principle. My concern is different: what if Church teaching is duly upheld but, as happened after Humanae vitae, that teaching is allowed to twist slowly in the wind? For ecclesiastical officialdom to look the other way on contraception was, in a sense, possible; but for it to do so in regard to divorce, remarriage, and the reception of holy Communion would be immediately recognized as the practical abandonment of a major doctrino-disciplinary point.
The Catholic Church should just surrender now.
A priest can take a vow and leave the priesthood and still receive the sacraments.
Six Billion plus people and climbing. There are many parts of the world that need some serious birth control. Whatever they are using now, if anything, is not working.
Would he want you to live with a philandering husband? A drunk, a beater, a criminal? Of course not. No reason you should be denied the sacraments.
There was a time when divorce was available to only the wealthy and well connected, i.e. families with clergy on the “payroll”.
Should we go back to that?
“Six Billion plus people and climbing. There are many parts of the world that need some serious birth control.”
And yet Greece, Russia and other countries have a replacement rate of less than they need. This may mean they’ll have serious demographic problems that might lead to losing the entire country to a group that will kill the remainder. The US is at replacement of 2.1, but only because of people flooding in from other countries. China has a demographic that’s horrifying, with the bulk of the population reaching non-working old age at effectively the same time.
OK, assuming your premise is correct regarding over population which of course has been a mantra of the progressives for over a hundred years. We have also had some pretty serious and available contraception for that long. Whatever the intention of the promotion of artificial contraception, its not working. What works is what Jesus taught and his holy church teaches which is that the love and respect of one man and one woman towards one another is the best way to control population.
You can divorce and still receive the sacraments. However, you can not remarry and be in good standing enough to receive the sacraments.
*Citation needed*
Almost all areas of the world, including the US, are below replacement birth rates.
Expect the world population to make it to about 9 billion, and then begin to decline.
Unfortunately, it is primarily Muslim countries that have the higher birthrates. I don’t think I want anyone to encourage Christians to use birth control.
Jesus said clearly and unequivocably that divorce is NOT allowed and that anyone who divorces and remarries is commiting adultery. That's not the conclusion of some Council or Synod. That's a direct statement by Jesus Christ who IS God.
Then why is there the practice of having anullments given in the Church?
An annulment is not a divorce. An anullment claims that the conditions for a sacramental marriage did not exist at the time of the marriage and therefor the marriage is nul. It never happened.
The American Catholic Church annually grants over 60,000 annulments, three-quarters of the total granted throughout the world. In roughly 90% of all cases that come before the American Church councils, or tribunals, officials rule that 'in the eyes of God the marriage never truly existed.' As more than one observer of religion has noted, 'The United States has become the Nevada of the annulment world.' Another expert in canon law boasted, 'There isn't a marriage in America that we can't annul.'
"Annulment is now a form of divorce in every way but name, and the church [hierarchy] refusal to acknowledge this is deeply corrupting. Moreover, the Catholic annulment procedures hurt children, are cruel to former spouses, force applicants to misrepresent the past, mock well-meaning priests, and drive many thousands out of the church. It is a disaster."
No reason you should remarry and live in adultery, either.
There are situations when a couple must separate for the sake of the safety of one spouse and/or the children. This is understood. Remarriage is not allowed as Our Lord clearly stated.
I think Dr Peters has a very valid concern, but I think that the train has already left the station and that we’ve already “crossed the Rubicon” (as well as any other cliches that come to mind after hitting the “post” button.
Most “Catholics” actually cared what the Church thought, back in the 60s. Even if they dissented, they did so with some anger just as a child did when told “no” by a loving parent. These days, I don’t think that most even care enough to feel anger as they dissent. They’ve either abandoned the Church altogether or they’re communicating now and have been doing so all along. Face it, they’re about as likely to hear a homily about artificial contraception as they are about divorce, remarriage, and Canon 916. Even if they did hear such a homily, they will be more concerned with their emails on their blackberry than about the content of the homily.
And those who do care, the few of us that still do, would never consider having a second civil union in disobedience to Holy Mother Church. We already would seek the benefit of a declaration of nullity and subsequent sacramental marriage and aren’t waiting with baited breath for the Church to change on this, in the first place. It’s a non issue for any of us.
If the Church proposes some sort of "pastoral" arrangement which in effect, if not in word, nullifies the teaching about divorce, this will come to be seen eventually, if not sooner, as uncertainty about its own teaching at best and at worst, a capitulation to the spirit of the age.
The real danger here is that this raises the question of what else the Church is wrong about. If the Church has been pastorally inept or even damaging with its approach to this issue for the past two millenia, what else needs to change?
The approach to homosexuality, for instance?
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.