Posted on 10/19/2015 3:00:20 PM PDT by markomalley
The idea that Catholics should be allowed to remarry and receive communion did not begin with the letter signed by Cardinal Kasper and other members of the German episcopate in 1993. Another countrys episcopate Englands pioneered this experiment in Christian doctrine nearly 500 years ago. At stake then was not just whether any Catholic could remarry, but whether the king could, since his wife had not borne him a son.
As with those who advocate for communion for the civilly remarried, the English bishops were uncomfortable with embracing divorce and remarriage outright. Instead, they chose to bend the law to the individual circumstances of the case with which they were confronted, and King Henry VIII was granted an annulment on a fraudulent basis and without the sanction of Rome.
If heroism is not for the average Christian, as the German Cardinal Walter Kasper has put it, it certainly wasnt for the King of England. Instead, issues of personal happiness and the well-being of a country made a strong utilitarian argument for Henrys divorce. And the King could hardly be bothered to skip communion as the result of an irregular marriage.
Englands Cardinal Wolsey and all the countrys bishops, with the exception of Bishop John Fisher of Rochester, supported the kings attempt to undo his first and legitimate marriage. Like Fisher, Thomas More a layman and the kings chancellor, also withheld his support. Both were martyred and later canonized.
In publicly advocating that the kings marriage was indissoluble, Fisher argued that this marriage of the king and queen can be dissolved by no power, human or Divine. For this principle, he said, he was willing to give his life. He continued by noting that John the Baptist saw no way to die more gloriously than in the cause of marriage, despite the fact that marriage then was not so holy at that time as it has now become by the shedding of Christs Blood.
Like Thomas More and John the Baptist, Fisher was beheaded, and like them, he is called saint.
At the Synod on the Family taking place right now in Rome, some of the German bishops and their supporters are pushing for the Church to allow those who are both divorced and remarried to receive communion, while other bishops from around the world are insisting that the Church cannot change Christs teaching. And this begs a question: Do the German bishops believe that Sts. Thomas More and John Fischer sacrificed their lives in vain?
Jesus showed us throughout his ministry that heroic sacrifice is required to follow him. When one reads the Gospel with an open heart, a heart that does not place the world and history above the Gospel and Tradition, one sees the cost of discipleship to which every disciple is called. The German bishops would do well to read, The Cost of Discipleship by the Lutheran martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. For what they promote is cheap grace rather than costly grace, and they even seem to ignore the words of Jesus that, Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me, (Mk. 8: 34, Lk. 14: 25-27, Jn. 12: 24-26).
Think, for example, of the adulterous woman whom the Pharisees presented to Jesus to trap him. The first thing he did was to protect her from her accusers, and the second thing he did was to call her to leave her sin. Go, he commanded her, and sin no more.
Following the words of Christ himself, the Catholic Church has always taught that divorce and remarriage is simply adultery by another name. And since communion is reserved to Catholics in the state of grace, those living in an irregular situation are not able participate in that aspect of the life of the Church, though they should always be welcomed within the parish and at the Mass itself.
Last May, Cardinal Kasper claimed in an interview with Commonweal that we cant say whether it is ongoing adultery when a repentant, divorced Christian nonetheless engages in sexual relations in a new union. Rather, he thinks absolution is possible.
And yet, Christ clearly called remarriage adultery and said adultery was sinful (Mt. 5:32, Mk. 10:12, Lk. 16:18). In the case of the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-42), Jesus also confirmed that remarriage cannot be valid, even when informed by sincere feeling and fidelity.
When one adds to the equation the high failure rate of remarriages subsequent to a divorce, where Cardinal Kaspers reasoning would lead, no one can say. For example, should sacramental communion be allowed only for the once-remarried? What about people remarried twice, or three times? And it is obvious that the arguments made for easing Christs prohibition on remarriage could also be made for contraceptive use, or any number of other aspects of Catholic theology understood by the modern, self-referential world as difficult.
Predicting what this would lead to isnt a matter of knowing the future, but of simply observing the past. We need only to look at the Anglican Church, which opened the door to and later embraced contraception in the 20th century and for more than a decade has allowed for divorce and remarriage in certain cases.
The German bishops Plan B to do things their way in Germany, even if it goes against the grain of Church teaching, has the same flaws. And, it has an eerie ring to it in an Anglican sort of way. Consider the words of the head of the German Bishops Conference, Cardinal Marx, who was cited in the National Catholic Register as saying that while the German Church may remain in communion with Rome on doctrine, that in terms of pastoral care for individual cases, the synod cannot prescribe in detail what we have to do in Germany. Henry VIII would most certainly have agreed.
We are not just a subsidiary of Rome, Cardinal Marx argued. Each episcopal conference is responsible for the pastoral care in their culture and has to proclaim the Gospel in its own unique way. We cannot wait until a synod states something, as we have to carry out marriage and family ministry here.
The Anglicans also sought such autonomy though with increasingly internally divisive results and the emptying of their communities.
It is undeniable that the Church must reach out to those on the margins of the faith with mercy, but mercy always speaks the truth, never condones sin, and recognizes that the Cross is at the heart of the Gospel. One might recall that Pope St. John Paul II cited by Pope Francis at his canonization as the pope of the family also wrote extensively about mercy, dedicating an entire encyclical to the topic, and establishing the feast of Divine Mercy. For St. John Paul, mercy was a central theme, but one that had to be read in the context of truth and scripture, rather than against it.
On remarriage, and many other issues, no one would say that the Churchs teaching, which is Christs, is easy. But Christ himself did not compromise on core teachings to keep his disciples from leaving him whether it was on the Eucharist or marriage (Jn 6: 60-71; Mt 19: 3-12). Nor did John Fisher compromise to keep the king Catholic.
We need look no further for a model on this matter than words of Christ and St. Peter in Chapter 6 of Johns Gospel a passage that reminds us that the teaching on the Eucharist is often difficult to accept even for believers.
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe. For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father. As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, Do you also want to leave? Simon Peter answered him, Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
As disciples we are always called to listen to the voice of Jesus before the voice of the world, culture or history. The voice of Jesus sheds light on the darkness of the world and cultures. Let us pray that all concerned will listen to those words of eternal life, no matter how difficult!
My instincts were correct. You have essentially denied what Jesus said. You would be better served to be silent and wait on the Bishop of Rome. Search the scriptures; Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
John, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses forty five to forty seven ,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James, bold underline emphasis mine
Your opinion, not instincts. And if you honestly believe that I am denying what Jesus said then I'll chalk that up to more of your opinion as well.
You are correct in everything you’ve said here. And very well said, I might add.
Thank you. Others may disagree but I'm not going to pass judgement on them...because in Matthew it teaches us not to do that as well.
False; Jesus never said Moses was wrong. How could he when Jesus is the pre incarnate Word and told Moses what to say and write ? He simply explained why that law was written (it's intent was to protect women, which is why the Jewess was put away (divorced by her husband) was explicitly allowed to remarry; the Messiah gave a new commandment, which shocked all the apostles.
You both would be better served to wait on the bishops and pray, rather than going Protestant as others seem to be doing.
Wait for..?? By God’s grace I was born again and filled with the Holy Ghost in 1976. The Lord continues to keep me by His mercy and grace.
We know Jesus fulfilled the Law. Jesus also clearly gave His directions on marriage. Why is that a problem?
Which Protestant denomination or sect do you regularly assemble with ?
Oh the rich irony; I mistakenly assume both you and Cedar were devout Catholics ... what is the difference between a remarried woman and an unmarried woman with a boyfriend if they are, theoretically speaking, not abstaining from sexual activity ?
Glad to see you're having such a good time.
what is the difference between a remarried woman and an unmarried woman with a boyfriend if they are, theoretically speaking, not abstaining from sexual activity ?
Do I really need to define adultery for you or quote the 6th Commandment?
Not what I meant by difference; what is the difference in the penalty for a remarried woman who was divorced and an unmarried woman with a boyfriend but not abstaining from sexual activity ?
I was born into a Catholic family, went to Catholic school grades 1-12 and graduated. Went to Mass, received sacraments, etc, all those years. But have not been back to the Catholic church since 1976. I am, however, a Christian and have fellowship with a non-denominational group.
As for the second part of your comment, you can refer to the New Testament Scriptures for guidance on fornication (sex outside of marriage) and adultery. I do believe God is the Judge of all, and I try to leave the judging to Him (though I’m not always successful at that, unfortunately). But when discussing Scripture and doctrine, I try my best to stay true to what the Bible says.
Thank you for your reply. I cannot but wonder why you, a Catholic who left the Catholic faith around 18, were drawn to this thread by my post. I cannot help but think your faith community could be further categorized (Calvary Chapel, Pentecostal, etc.) if you were so inclined. I cannot also help but think it would be wonderful if you could find your way someday to a Catholic Church and make a sincere act of contrition. May it be well with you.
I read many threads in FR’s “Religion” section. I love God’s Word and realize there have been many martyrs who gave their lives for their belief in the Lord and the Scriptures. I guess the title got my attention.
Following the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew chapter 19, ‘if a man gives his wife a bill of divorce, lest it be for fornication’ he does wrong. That is what I shall follow. It’s true that Moses allowed it, but Jesus nullified that with his words.
Logically, marriage is committing to a union for the purpose of raising children in a family atmosphere. To disassemble that union for trivial reasons goes against logic. All kinds of reasons can be offered, but Jesus offered the rule we must follow. If one doesn’t want to follow it, that’s his choice. He’ll answer on the last day.
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.