Posted on 05/30/2015 5:44:50 PM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis’s vision is that of a Church for all, because Christ really did die for all men, without exception, not just for some.” The “law of gradualness” does not mean “gradualness of the law” or relativism. It is possible to consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis, admitting remarried divorcees to the sacraments, without changes to the doctrine. This is according to Dominical theologian Jean-Miguel Garrigues, Professor of Patristics and Dogmatics at the Institut Supérieur Thomas d’Aquin, at the Dominican House of Studies in Toulouse and at the Seminaire International St Cure'd Ars. He and his confrère, Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn, the current Archbishop of Vienna, composed the Catechism of the Catholic Church prepared under the supervision of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Fr. Garrigues discussed the issues of the Synod with Fr. Antonio Spadaro, Editor-in-Chief of La Civiltà Cattolica and the transcription of their conversation appears in the latest issue of the periodical. Although he does not refer to him directly, at one point the Dominican theologian pulls apart the theory put forward by US Jesuit Joseph Fessio, who wrote that contraception can be more serious that abortion.
The Dominican theologian does not indulge in any form of relativism or laxism: “In my view, losing our understanding of the foundations of the couple and the family would mean proceeding without a compass, driven simply by sentimental compassion that is doomed to turn into unrealistic sentimentalism. For instance, it is an insurmountable truth that all Christians live according to Christ’s law and that the indissolubility of marriage applies to everyone. There isn’t therefore a “gradualness of the law”, a moral objective which would depend on the situation of the individual subject”. But, he adds, “asking those who are unable to follow this commandment given by Christ, not to add to the sin of infidelity the sin of injustice – for example by not paying maintenance following a civil divorce – does not mean denying or relativizing the aforementioned truth”. As Louis XV told a courtier who mocked him because he continued not to eat meat on a Friday while keeping a lover at the same time: “Committing a mortal sin does not give you the licence to commit another.” This is where the “law of gradualness” comes in: it asks people who are not able to suddenly put an end to a sin and progressively abandon this incorrect behaviour to start the good deeds they are capable of, which are still insufficient but nevertheless realistic. There is a case history that focuses on what I would define as the “progressive exercise of good”. This does not in any way contradict the principle according to which natural law and Christ’s law specifically, apply in equal measure to all Christians.”
With regard to the Synod’s final document, Garrigues observes: “Significantly, one of the points that has caused the most concern, is the statement which claims that there is human goodness in people who have entered a common-law union which cane either not be considered the same thing as marriage, same-sex unions for example, or imperfectly fulfil the prerequisites of marriage, as in the case of civil unions or unions between one or two divorced individuals who have remarried. Here we see how a certain Jansenism risks slipping towards support for a “Church of the pure”.
The Dominical theologian therefore criticises the theory put forward by Fr. Fessio, although he does not mention him specifically: “Doctrinal rigidity and moral rigourism can lead theologians to adopt extremist positions that go against the sensus fidei of faithful and simple common sense. A recent news story praises a letter written by an American theologian who makes the following nonsensical statements: “Which then is the graver evil? To prevent the conception – and very existence – of a human being with an immortal soul, desired by God and destined for eternal happiness? Or to abort a child in the womb? The latter is certainly a grave evil, "Gaudium et spes" calls it an “abominable crime”. But a child exists who will live eternally. In the former circumstance a child God intended to be will never exist.” This reasoning therefore considers abortion to be more acceptable than contraception. Incredible!”
According to Garrigues, this current wanted the reference to the “law of gradualness” to “be removed” from the Synod’s final declaration on the family issued in October 2014. “As I was saying before,” the “law of gradualness” “must certainly be explained as a gradual exercise by the subject and differs from “gradualness of the law” in terms of description. But this was already very much present in St. John Paul II’s post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (1981) and is practiced by the majority of confessors and spiritual fathers who want to offer pastoral guidance to “those wounded by life” as John Paul II used to refer to them.”
Finally, the Dominican theologian gives two important examples, proposing an exception to the sacramental discipline that prevents remarried divorcees from accessing the sacraments. “I am thinking of a couple, in which one of the partners was previously married, a couple with children that lead a real and recognised Christian life. Let us imagine that the previously married person has turned to an ecclesiastical court regarding their previous marriage. This court has decided that it is impossible to annul the marriage on the grounds of insufficient proof, despite the fact that those involved are convinced of the opposite but have no way of proving it. On the basis of testaments to their good faith, Christian life and sincere bond with the Church and the sacrament of marriage, particularly if said testaments come from an expert spiritual father, then the diocesan bishop could readmit them to the sacraments of Penitence and the Eucharist without pronouncing a marriage annulment, showing discretion. He would therefore be granting an immediate dispensation to couples in these kinds of situations, based on the good faith the Church already reserves for divorcee couples who commit to living in continence.” It should be noted, that in the case of the latter situation, there is already an act of clemency in the application of the law, in a specific case: Garrigues explains that “while continence eliminates the sin of adultery, it does not get rid of the contradiction between conjugal breakup with consequent formation of new couple – that has forged emotional and cohabitational ties – and the Eucharist.”
The other type of situation proposed, is “undoubtedly of a more delicate nature”, the theologian points out. “In this case, following divorce and civil marriage, united divorcees experience a real conversion to Christian life, which their spiritual father, amongst others, can testify to. They still believe that their sacramental marriage really was sacramental and if they could they would try to repair their breakup because they are sincerely repentant: but they have children and also don’t have the strength to live in continence. What should be done in such cases? Should continence be demanded of them, a continence that would be rash without a special charisma from the Holy Spirit? These are questions that require reflection.”
“For the Church,” Garrigues concluded, “this would be an immediate exception to a traditional discipline based, of course, on the strong link between the Eucharist and marriage, on the grounds of a reasonable doubt with regard to the validity of the sacramental marriage forged or the impossibility of returning – for de facto reasons not to do with a person’s wishes – to the marital situation that existed prior to divorce. In both cases, this exception would be granted for the benefit of a solid Christian life.”
The theologian says he is against the introduction of laws for all remarried divorcees: “There are many cases of couples who are very detached from Christian life and religious practice who call for changes to the Church’s rules on remarried divorcees – creating a stir in the media – calling above all for it to grant social recognition to the new union and accept the principle of a new marriage following a divorce, in one way or another. Creating laws for them implies the risk of compromising the meaning of faithful and indissoluble marriage which many Christian couples put a great deal of effort into, and would mean encouraging another form of “spiritual worldliness” which the Holy Father has rightly pointed out. I would call it “religious worldliness”.
may it be proper to add something that is in the river and chewing on a piece of grass ... tell us Joe ... how long must I stay here? I know ... there is no cair or moonshine ...
Or, we could just go by what Christ had to say on the subject.
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Who’s Bible are your reading, Luther’s?
From Mark; Chapter 10:
[2] And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. [3] But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you? [4] Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. [5] To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept.
[6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. [7] For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. [8] And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. [9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [10] And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.
[11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Matthew 19: 9
(NIV) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
(Douai) And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
In Mark the exception to the general rule is not mentioned, in Matthew it is.
The keys to loose and bind sins were given to whom?
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
…22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23”If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
Is there a limit on that?
Sorry, but I don’t believe the Pope was given authority to overrule Christ.
I realize others disagree, and that’s fine. Someday we’ll find out who is right.
No Catholic, except maybe for Kasper, Maradiaga, Marx or Francis, thinks any pope can overrule Christ.
From Mark; Chapter 10:
[9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
You guys are always so full of deception...
Here's your Catholic bible by Jerome...Reads the same as Luther's bible...
Matthew 19:9
(DOUAYRHEIMS)
9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
The porneia referred to is anterior to the union in question: our Lord is saying one may leave a spouse whose unchastity is discovered to have been to a degree that throws into doubt his/her intention to commit to a permanent and exclusive union.
And what of the deserted Catholic? Who intended to enter into a lifelong Catholic marriage, did it in the Catholic Church and was abruptly abandoned because spouse “fell in love with another”?
Apparently that is what your religion wishes it said...And what your religion twists it to say...But it doesn't say that does it...
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
It means what it says...Divorce is allowed when the wife is unfaithful during the marriage...
I've said this before. I think what will happen is there will be exceptions delineated in canon law to allow for certain divorced and remarried to receive communion. We already have non-Catholics receiving communion with the 1983 Code of Canon Law which was never allowed before then.
Now we can add allowing divorced and remarried to communion to the non-Catholic laws. And then all the Modernist apologists here and elsewhere can say, "well it's JUST discipline, not doctrine! Discipline can change!"
In that case, one can generally assume the spouse has committed adultery with her new lover, and the deserted spouse is free to remarry.
Or at least that’s how I see it.
That makes absolutely zero sense.
Unchastity prior to the marriage can make it invalid, but sexual infidelity after the wedding is irrelevant?
The Greek work translated in KJV as fornication refers to any sort of sexual misconduct. The English word fornication implies misconduct by an unmarried person, but the Greek word is a much broader term.
Most modern versions translate this verse as: sexual immorality, infidelity, unchastity or some similar term.
Here’s how the Expanded Bible reads: “The only reason for a man to divorce his wife is if his wife has sexual relations with another man.”
Here’s a discussion of the Greek word porneia.
I believe the only reason the pope is even considering the issue is because there are so many people whinnying that they are not allowed to take communion.
Or maybe many clergy are wanting more people in the Church for financial sake
The question I would ask is this: does the Church teach that you have to take communion to be saved?
If you do and these people believe it why would they not also believe the rules concerning taking communion?
And if they don`t have to take communion to be saved what could be the problem unless they just want to whine?
I believe these are just a bunch of whinnying hypocrites who are most likely children of hell who are the same thing regardless if they take communion or not.
If the Pope really believes he is the successor of the Popes who were successor of St Peter who got his teaching from God himself then he must believe God was wrong if he caves in to these people..
Personally I do not take communion and do not believe that will save any one but if I did I would still not take it because it would make a liar out of me.
Paul said examine your self, you can examine your self all day long but can you change your circumstance? some things you may change but others you can not, those things you can not change may prevent you from taking communion.
live with it.
There are many circumstances we get our selves into that can not be changed with out doing more wrong and possibly even worse wrong than what we did to begin with.
We are going to have to live with it and pray that we have enough faith for Gods grace to reach us when the great day comes.
John 6
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
That an interesting comment. It appears to be a resignation to the sin of despair, with a little bit of presumption thrown in.
Do you believe in Hope? As in Faith, Hope and Charity?
Yeah, but there is also reality.
If a wife divorced a man ten years ago and he remarried and has five children with his second wife ne can not leave his wife and children and go back to his first wife with out doing much more wrong than he may have to begin with.
But he also should not take communion.
Do you believe in it or do you just like to ask that of others?
1. The man should have never remarried without a valid annulment.
2. If the man is repentant, he could continue to live with his "mistress" as brother and wife.
That's reality. One can't rationalize oneself out of sin. God knows all.
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.