Posted on 02/23/2017 12:00:54 PM PST by ebb tide
Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, one of the most prominent defenders of Communion for the remarried, has said that his proposed guidance would apply to the divorced and remarried, but not to gay couples. He explained: “It’s not a natural condition”.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, said last week that divorced and remarried couples could take Communion if they found it “impossible” to avoid sex.
The Church has taught that the remarried cannot receive Communion, except possibly when they endeavour to live “in complete continence”. Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s critics said he had contradicted this doctrine, as well as the Council of Trent’s teaching that it is always possible to keep the commandments.
In a new interview with Crux, the cardinal was asked whether the Church’s traditional teaching should also be changed for sexually active gay couples.
The interviewer, Inés San Martín, reports: “Asked if this interpretation applies also to gay couples who live together, some civilly married too, Coccopalmerio said that it’s ‘clearly’ not the same situation because for Church teaching and doctrine, ‘it’s not a natural condition. We can accept them, welcome them, accept their decision, but it’s not [the same].’”
The question of Communion for sexually active gay couples has often been raised. In 2014, seven theologians and a canon lawyer wrote that if Communion for the remarried was accepted, “it is hard to see how the Church could resist admitting to Holy Communion unmarried cohabiting couples, or persons in homosexual unions, and so forth.”
A supporter of changing the teaching, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, has implied that both same-sex couples and the remarried should be permitted to take Communion. In 2015 Cardinal Cupich argued, on the subject of Communion for the remarried: “If people come to a decision in good conscience then our job is to help them move forward and to respect that.” He added: “I think that gay people are human beings too and they have a conscience.”
By contrast, Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s interview suggests that remarried couples should be distinguished from gay couples, possibly on the grounds of how “natural” they are.
Elsewhere in the interview, the cardinal told Crux: “Some people have spoken about doctrinal confusion, but no … If we can speak of confusion, it’s due to the abundance of issues present.”
You apparently know very little about Catholicism.
This is not what I’ve heard.
Could be doctrine not matching with practice, but have seen annulments given for that reason.
But for this one, you probably know more than I do, so I won’t argue the point.
Then stop your childish whining about who may post to you.
I know what I’ve seen Catholics doing. Maybe the annulments granted were wrongfully granted, but I’ve seen that reasoning used before!
But in the case of annulments I could be wrong... officially. But I know that it’s not always the case in practice.
Oh boo hoo, the big bully can’t stand it when he’s called out for his nasty insulting comments.
I don’t know as much about Catholics as some people, but I know that I don’t want to be like you.
I merely asked if you were a practicing Catholic. Where’s the insult in that?
Who said, “so take your childish snark and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.”???
Exactly. You couldn’t abide it when someone stood up to your condescending comments.
I just talked about several of the most painful times in my life, and you just had to butt in with a nasty comment about me not being “a faithful Catholic.” And now you are crying because you got told off for your holier than thou crap.
Don’t want none, don’t start none, buddy.
Not ‘practicing.’
My bad.
Look, it sounded to me like a nasty comment. Maybe it was, But I really shouldn’t have snapped.
Whatever. I’m sorry. I flew off the handle for a bad reason and I humbly request your pardon.
No problems.
Dominus tecum.
Thanks. And you.
The trouble with trying to find porneia as an exception justifying the divorce of a valid marriage is that it does not work within the context of what Jesus is saying. All of this stems from seeing porneia as a sexual sin by one of the married couple outside of the marriage. Rather, I would ask you to see the porneia of which our Lord is speaking as occurring between the couple themselves, i.e. a sexually sinful union. There were many such unions in the Greek world that the Jews would hold to be sinful, and thus invalid. This reading alone does not negate what our Lord says in the rest of the passage.
For the reality that even after divorce the married couple are bound by marriage fidelity to each other I refer you to Saint Paul:
To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): A wife should not separate from her husband—and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband—and a husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor. 7:10-11)There is no exception here, after divorce "either remain single or become reconciled to her husband." And this, Paul says, comes from the Lord.
Re: thread again, there’s plenty to talk about divorce and remarriage and validity of remarriage, and whether second marriages are valid, or if they ever can be.
I think that we can both agree, at least, that the cultural view of marriage currently is really bad. And divorce, if you’ll pardon the crudity, sucks. No question that marriages should be life-long, or in the case of the marriage of the Lamb—which all marriage SHOULD be a reflection of—forever.
The question being what to do when sin interferes, as it always does.
In the case of this particular Cardinal... I suppose my thoughts on the matter depend on his reasons. Does he just want to be popular and liberal? Or does he support his reasoning with Scripture and plain reason?
Even if I believe that remarriage is still marriage and (in at least some cases) a sin that can and should be forgiven if repented of, the gentleman could well be right for the wrong reasons. Or wrong for the right reasons if you take the other side.
Polite request to make sure to read it all before responding. I don’t believe that you are being tl;dr, but I just like to not deal with piecemeal replies, so I request that you continue with that.
As I said, I cannot get past the textual analysis. I see the context, as I told you. But once again, I simply cannot see how you reach that definition except by fiat. Not when I don’t see it used that way anywhere else.
And if Jesus was talking about invalid marriages, why would divorce even be applied, since the marriage never properly happened?
Moving on from your 1 Corinthians quote, I am looking at the verses after for a spouse whose mate has abandoned her, but I have not fully analyzed that section yet, and what is meant by bondage slash slavery. So I’ll request that we don’t go into that right now and let me do some study, please.
But please let me say this. I do not LIKE adding exceptions. I am not looking for an easy out. I hate hate hate HAAAAAATE divorce, and the wounds from what happened in my family are still raw ten years later.
Maybe remarriage is sinful. In many cases, probably is. But I simply cannot, in honest assessment, bring myself to agree completely with you, at least in regards to denial of the Sacrament in all cases.
Sorry, but I’m not going to lie to you just to make this easier on me.
...
Pause here, then I change the subject.
But. Going back to the article.
The other question being whether second marriages, whether sin or not, are still marriages. As with my earlier comment about David, or Jacob’s two marriages, a marriage that began in sin still seems to be a marriage. Jesus never called it a fake marriage or a non marriage or ordered the woman at the well to go back to her first husband.
To add another divorce to that seems to be adding sin to sin.
Or, in common parlance, two wrongs don’t make a right.
If I understand correctly, Catholics would say that it isn’t actually a marriage, but I cannot see where they slash you get that. At least not in Scripture.
If it comes from tradition, then I suppose we can drop it here since that discussion would last for months.
But weren't the majority of marriages at that time arranged..."forced" if you will?
The only NT approved reason for divorce is adultery.
The Greek uses the verb μοιχεύω meaning "I commit adultery" in the passages in question (Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11)
Matthew 19:9 notes if anyone has been engaged in sexual immorality (πορνεία), defined as fornication, whoredom, idolatry, then that is allowed as a valid cause of divorce.
In all of these instances, infidelity within the marriage is the only valid cause of divorce.
There is no provision for a "forced" marriage or any of the other definitions of the RCC nor is there any provision for an annulment.
The New American Bible inserts the following into Matthew 19:9
I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
Even the Douay-Rheims translates 19:9 as
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. Matt 19:9, Douay Rheims
No other translation renders the text as the NAB does.
The RCC is in extreme error in allowing this translation to enter the public. It is not a sound Biblical translation and cannot be defended.
First, an arranged marriage is the same as a forced marriage. Even today among for instance the Haredim in ISrael who do arranged marriages,all the parties consent, and usually with joy and gratitude. They have a high rate of marriage success.
Second, please take into account that Jesus chose two different words, reflected in the two different words in the Greek, porneia and moicheia. Moicheia is incontestably adultery. Porneia is not. It’s reasonable to think that if He meant they were the same thing, He would have used the same word.
Third, consider the overall message Jesus is conveying here: it is that what GOD has joined together, no man is to put asunder. The core message here clearly goes way past the contemporary Hillel-Shammai debate. If Jesus had been merely agreeing with Shammai, his listeners would not have been flabbergasted, as they clearly were in the Gospel. accounts,
I don’t disagree with what you’ve posted, but this does not line up with RCC teachings on annulments and “unlawful” marriages.
#1 was supposed to read, “An arranged marriage is NOT the same as a forced marriage.”
With that typo correction, I believe what I wrote is in accord with the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
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.