Posted on 06/04/2015 6:32:59 AM PDT by marshmallow
The German cardinal appears to backtrack on earlier comments in interview with EWTN
Cardinal Walter Kasper has clarified that Pope Francis did not approve his proposal to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion after a period of penance.
The cardinal made the remarks in an interview with EWTN during a visit to the United States.
He said the Pope wanted him to “put the question”, and that afterwards he “expressed his satisfaction with my talk”. But he added: “I wouldn’t say he approved the proposal, no, no, no.”
The remarks appear to represent a backtracking from earlier comments. Last October he told the Catholic News Service:.....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
Watch this space for daily updates on the papal game of "Good Cop, Bad Cop"......
The cardinal appears to have gotten ahead of the process. But I fully expect the Pope to approve this proposal, because a lot of divorced and remarried Catholics are exiting for more congenial churches. This really needs to be addressed.
Bingo, that’s the issue. I know many Catholics who are divorced through no fault of their own. Their spouse ran off, had an affair, developed severe mental problems, etc. They did not want to put themselves or their children through the ordeal of an annulment, so they moved to a different church and remarried. And raised their children in that church. And tithed to it.
Those last two are what is really putting heat on the Vatican.
So are the gays and lesbians -— they’re going off to other churches to get married. And so...?
You've hit on what makes this such a tough issue. In the age of no fault divorce a devout person could find himself divorced despite his objection to it and doing everything they could to prevent it. This is not to imply I'm taking the Kasper side here, I'm not. I've also seen the issue come up in the protestant church with regard to divorced and remarried parishioners serving as Deacons.
Same-sex activity is very clearly defined as sin (as is fornication and adultery). But as some others on this thread have already pointed out, divorce and remarriage ought to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, which is something that church leaders (Catholic and otherwise) dread having to do. Having a one-size-fits-all policy takes the pressure off leaders who are reluctant to address cases. So the policy tends to be either no to all or yes to all. More and more, however, people are realizing that neither of those is the biblical way to proceed.
Annulment is probably not a big deal in such situations.
In our archdiocese, you meet with your pastor, fill out a form telling the story of what happened, ask a couple of family members or friends to fill out a questionnaire and turn it in. You are assigned an advocate who walks through it with you, making sure you have what you need in the way of paperwork, and interviewing you by phone if there is something that needs to be explained better. If the other party doesn’t respond after being notified, or decides not to participate, that doesn’t adversely affect your case. If the other party does want to put in a word, a lot of times it ends up supporting your position.
Yes, there is a time delay of 6-12 months if there is a backlog of cases, but there are also times when there is a rush case that can be done in a month or two (such as when a military deployment is imminent).
At the end of the process, the petitioner (who requested the annulment) usually feels as though something has been resolved, or even healed.
Some people have a problem with the concept of “annulment,” as if to say that their original marriage was invalid. They want the church to own up to the idea that there are biblical grounds for divorce.
Only the first marriage may not have been "null" --- the vows may have been validly made in which case no "annulment" finding can be made. In which case, the Church has to respect you by upholding your vow.
It's all because the Catholic Church is stuck with Jesus.
Luke 16:18 (also Matthew and Mark) “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
I think that’s why the Catholic Church puts petitions for annulment in the hands of Diocesan tribunals. That way your pastor doesn’t have to make a ruling, and you’re petitioning 3 judges who are probably not even in your parish. It’s more objective that way.
Matthew 5:32
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful (porneia), causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 19:9
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful (porneia), and marries another commits adultery.
Mark 10:11-12
He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
That was Jesus. So we're stuck with it.
We crossed. What translation are you using to get “unless the marriage is unlawful”? The Greek has “except it be for fornication.”
Ping
That's why I wonder whether entering into marriage with the intention to commit sexual impurity (e.g. contraception, sodomy , and other deviant sexual practices within the marriage) would suffice for a judgment of nullity from the canonical tribunal.
It seems that that intent would render the vow dishonest, and thus, whoa, well over 80% of marriages would be canonically null, i.e. invalid.
Now that's a troubling thought.
I wonder what's the canon law scoop on that? Arthur?
If the intercourse in the first marriage was unlawful because it was perverted from the very purposes of natural intercourse --- then that first marriage was not marriage it all, it was porneia
Or if the vows were not valid --- the vow was fraudulent from the git-go (say, the husband concealed the fact that he already had a wife down in Guanajuato) --- then the (re)marriage in question was itself unlawful. It was porneia --- bigamy.
No cigar. (Not a Monica joke. At least, not when I first wrote it.)
It must always be remembered that no priest or canon lawyer will even discuss the issue of nullity unless a civil divorce has taken place, so it is pure speculation how many marriages that HAVEN’T broken down are in fact “null.” It is entirely possible, even likely, that many couples form the intention that brings a true marriage into existence some time after their wedding. But it’s all speculation. Purest metaphysics.
The intention to have NO children renders a marriage invalid, but not the mere intention to commit various sins, including contraception. Although constant adultery, beginning soon after the wedding, is evidence of nullity.
The Pope could well echo the late Senator Everett Dirksen (and this is always misquoted by the P.C. crowd):
“When I feels the heat, I sees the light.”
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.