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.”
1) At least one partner didn’t fully & freely consent.
2) Someone wasn’t mature enough to understand the full extent of what they were doing.
3) There was never intent to be faithful.
4) One or both partners did not intend to be open to children.
http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-annulment
There is no support for any of this in the NT.
The RCC is playing the same game in granting "annulments" as the pharisees did in granting divorces.
That could be why everyone was surprised when Jesus clarified the only reason for divorce. He narrowed the field of reasons considerably.
If I am understanding your last response, I logically conclude that, in your view, a marriage is legitimate even if it lacks consent, involves the exploitation of an immature partner, is based on fraud, and involves the intentional rejection of natural sex, which is procreative in nature.
I don’t want to misconstrue you. Is this correct?
The question is can these "rules" made by the RCC be squared away with what we have in the NT regarding divorce?
Using the catholic logic, Joseph and Mary were not in a valid relationship if she were to deny him the sexual aspect of the relationship.
Catholicism claims its practices can be traced by to the very beginning. I don't think the RCC can do that in this case.
It is another reason why "tradition" is rejected as a means to establish truth.
The question is the one I asked. I am sincerely interested in your answer.
The question is the one I asked. I am sincerely interested in your answer.
My answer is based on the NT none of the above are valid reasons for divorce and allowing an individual to enter into another marriage.
A lot of marriages have been made based on bad decisions or misunderstood feelings. If I'd married the girl I dated in school, both of us would be miserable today.
Of course, there are days my spouse says the say thing! :)
I found a more lengthy list of reasons the RCC allows a divorce. Most of these are fairly ambiguous and would allow for an annulment under circumstances not supported by the NT.
http://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%20for%20Marriage%20Annulment%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf
So the answer to your question is this. The only valid NT reason for divorce and remarriage is due to infidelity in the relationship.
I think -— correct me if I’m wrong -— we’d agree that if, say, a man and his bride got married, and the man subsequently discovered that the bride was in fact a trans woman, I.e. another male, surgically reconfigured to look like a woman, that marriage was no marriage from the git-go, and could be declared null. Could be annuled, as we say.
We would agree -— I think -— that a marriage can be annulled. The only disputed points between you and me would probably be, “Annulled for what reasons?”
Considering that U.S. Catholics get like 90% of the annulments on the planet (that’s not the exact statistic, but it’s ballpark) and considering that some Dioceses (in places like, say the Diocese of Astana, Kazakhstan) NEVER issue annulments for reasons like “emotional immaturity,” you and I would probably agree that many American Dioceses have corrupt, rubber-stamp Marriage Tribunals, and are “annulling” marriages which were in fact valid and binding.
And I would say that's why you don't enter into marriage lightly!
In the US today, we've made marriage a very easy thing to do. You can elope, head to Vegas and boom...you're married.
Our choices may be bad ones like the example above.
Ultimately though, you are responsible for your actions...right?
Considering that U.S. Catholics get like 90% of the annulments on the planet (that’s not the exact statistic, but it’s ballpark) and considering that some Dioceses (in places like, say the Diocese of Astana, Kazakhstan) NEVER issue annulments for reasons like “emotional immaturity,” you and I would probably agree that many American Dioceses have corrupt, rubber-stamp Marriage Tribunals, and are “annulling” marriages which were in fact valid and binding.
I would agree with the last part of this statement.
I think it's one of the reasons us non-catholics say if you throw enough money in the pot the marriage can be annulled.
Actually, it’s not a money thing. It’s not money corruption: it’s a mindset that’s just too permissive: corrupt mercy, a theme we see a lot of in Pope Francis and his type of bishops.
No diocese can deny a Catholic’s request to file a petition for annulment on account of money. If the person is financially needy, there’s a sliding scale that can go down to zero.
With some, called documentary annulments, there’s no need to track down the respondent, get various people’s testimony, and incur that kind of expenses. If you can present the documents that show, for example, that hubby #1 already had wife
back in El Salvador at the time he married you in Cincinnati, that would make your marriage to him automatically null.
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.