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.”
Right here is an example of Francis' "catholic hypocrites": adultery is OK, but for now, homosexual activity is not.
What did Jesus teach?
He taught that if a man divorces his wife and marries another woman, he is committing adultery.
Except in the case of sexual immorality in the first marriage. Matthew 19 IIRC.
But like all sins, even adultery is not beyond forgiveness. I would personally require confession and absolution, but I will not deny a repentant sinner the grace of God.
Key word repentant.
Your reference is to porneia, which is not sexual immorality in the first marriage but if the first marriage itself was illicit and thus invalid.
But like all sins, even adultery is not beyond forgiveness. I would personally require confession and absolution, but I will not deny a repentant sinner the grace of God.
It also requires a firm purpose of amendment, i.e. to stop sinning. Those who remain in an adulterous, and thus invalid, second marriage with the intent to continue in adulterous sexual acts lack this necessary requirement.
That’s right: if the first attempted marriage was itself sexually immoral or for some reason invalid -— let’s say, just for example, there was force or coercion involved —— then there can be an annulment because it wasn’t “right” to begin with.
Absolutely every sin can be forgiven with repentance, confession and absolution. And as you rightly said, the key word is “repentance”, which has to include a firm intention to turn away from sin and not just go back and keep committing it.
1: Do you have proof of your claims? From what I’ve learned, porneia is a catch-all for sexual immorality in the Greek language. It’s used in that sense in other places in the NT as well. A quick hunt of Greek lexicons (Thayer’s, Strong’s), as well as another quick glance through its 26 appearances in the New Testament, and I can’t find a single place where it means definitely invalid marriages and most definitely NOT sexual immorality.
What evidence are you citing?
2: If the first marriage is invalid, then why does Jesus talk about it ending in divorce?
3: A second marriage may be entered into sinfully but that doesn’t make it not marriage. David married Bathsheba despite the horrendous sin that had been committed in order to get into that marriage. But the marriage remained, despite that.
4: At the risk of sounding like a liberal heart-string puller, let me cite for you two IRL examples.
My last girlfriend, before we broke up, had been divorced. Her husband had cheated on her multiple times (with multiple sexes) and was even in prison because of being a peeping tom. He broke the marriage vows first; why should she still be beholden to them? (And before you answer: Jesus said so, I still want to see proof that the word means what you claim it means)
Additionally, my mother slept around on my father for many years, and he tried very hard to keep the marriage together until she finally served him divorce papers and threw him out of the house, and then she remarried the guy she was having the affair with almost right after.
Is my father still bound to his original marriage vows even after what happened, and why?
I take it that you’re not a practicing Catholic since you had a divorced women as a girlfriend.
Is that correct?
I predict Coccopalmerio will come around to Cupich’s position by Monday. FrancisChurch—pro-sodomy, pro-abortion, pro-jihad, pro-Commie.
And would adultery on behalf of one of the parties invalidate that marriage, especially if they continue to unrepentantly do so?
See post 8, point #1. In reading the Greek text, I simply can’t see the word porneia meaning such a strict definition of invalid marriages, especially when it’s used in so many other ways in the other 25 places it’s used in the NT.
This seems, to me, like deciding the answer before examining the evidence.
I wasn’t talking to you, so take your childish snark and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.
Unless you’re going to call me demon-possessed, like you do so often to people on your threads?
I think you’d have to go to Jesus Christ for an answer to that. And the core if His teaching is, “What GOD has joined together let no man put asunder.”
So the only question would be, “Did God join this husband and wife together?” In other words, was it a valid marriage at the beginning, when the vows were exchanged? If so, it is God Himself who has made the marriage bond indissoluble -— no matter what goes on subsequently.
Even if the couple has to physically separate for grave reasons -— say there is alcoholism, addiction, adultery, abuse, something that makes living together untenable -— this cannot dissolve a bond made by God. The innocent spouse is called to remain maritally faithful even when living apart.
I don’t think you’re demon-possessed. I just don’t see how you could be a practicing Catholic.
P.S. This is an open forum.
To state that porneia is meant to be a just reason for dissolving a valid marriage would empty our Lord's response of its meaning, merely placing him with the school of Shammai. Note also that his disciples understood this as the meaning of our Lord with their response, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
Additionally, as Catholics we also look to Sacred Tradition as well as the Bible for guidance. This has always been the Catholic understanding of our Lord's words and as such is as much as an infallible guide as the Bible itself.
I am sorry about the history that you have presented about your parents and your former girl friend. But the question is always are we to be faithful the words of Jesus Christ. Following the Gospel is not always easy but if we open our hearts to the grace of God and seek always to do his will, and not our own, he will give us whatever graces we need to carry our crosses.
Because I’m not.
This is an open forum!
Until Francis II says it is the same.
I’m sorry, but that argument doesn’t give any evidence that the word means invalid marriages. In the original Greek, the word is used to refer to sexual sin many times over, not invalid marriages. I cannot find a single use otherwise.
Even in context. Having said that, I DO understand your point. Even with the adultery exception, it doesn’t change Jesus’ words about marriage. The teachers were looking for ways out. Jesus instead turned the question inside out. Instead of looking for ways out, Jesus showed the holy estate of marriage.
Simply acknowledging the world is full of sin and that sometimes marriages get broken by sin doesn’t change that.
Believe me, I researched the smeg out of it when I was trying to convince mom not to get a divorce, and when my ex was worried about living apart from her cheating husband.
It would be so easy to agree with you. Would make my relationship with my mother much simpler, albeit harsher.
But I can’t get over the textual analysis! I just can’t see how the word is used differently in this ONE case and never has the same meaning elsewhere.
Prolly wouldn’t matter in my life. These marriages weren’t Catholic and so could be annulled according to RCC doctrine.
I’ll not talk about the can of worms that comes with the idea of tradition at the moment.
(The idea of ‘obedience to the Gospel’ bugs me as well because obedience is within the realm of the Law, but that would be beside the point at the moment as well.)
If I was a practicing Catholic, I’d have married my ex by now. Her last marriage was evangelical and so I could easily get it annulled, since non Catholic marriages are invalid according to Catholic doctrine.
Not true. As long as the couple enters into the marriage with the intention that it is permanent, exclusive to one another and open to new life then it is valid.
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.