Kasper’s response to cardinals’ protests against communion for remarried divorcees

I am also against leniency for divorced and remarried persons who want to receive Holy Communion.

I am for leniency. Depending on each situation--and how is a divorced person doing anything wrong? Especially if they have no remarried and are living a chaste life? Shheeesh

As for enforcement, it is not our place to refuse, but only to teach. We should not horde CHRIST HIMSELF from the sinners, for if we do, then we are not worthy to receive HIM either

Ye without sin, cast the first stone--our Lord said

I'm not sure if it was in this article (only skimmed) or in another, but I take issue with the fact that he has said that people who want to keep the status quo are "religious ideologues" who follow "an ideology" rather than "a faith". I find that offensive, and dismissive - this is a very serious issue that cannot be handled lightly. The issue of communion for divorced & remarried people without an annulment is related to sacramental theology, moral theology, and respect for the Eucharist.

I have not had the resources to study this issue intensely. However, it is my present observation - which I have stated in other threads - that the present understanding of sacramental & moral theology does not allow for divorced & remarried sexually active people to receive communion in a state of grace.

That doesn't mean that I don't understand how painful it is to endure a broken marriage, or how lonely it is, or how frustrating and heartbreaking it is to realise that you only get one shot at valid marriage, and even if that valid marriage breaks down, you cannot remarry.

That is one of the reasons I am terrified of marriage.

But knowing all of this, I don't see how the Church can do anything without completely changing the way we view and understand sacraments and moral theology. It would be a complete change, not a development. A break with the millennia-old theological tradition. And I'm not sure how I would feel about that.

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."
- Matthew 24:24

LivingWordUnity said:

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."
- Matthew 24:24

Click to expand...

Happened already with the Arians. Not surprised it's still happening today.

Moral and sacramentally theologies on some issues are not ex catherdra or even from the deposit of faith but are ideas of the theological school

In some cases, the theological school also emphasized other things over the expense of the others.

Such changes would not be developments, but overlooking of the mercy that exists with Christ in the Eucharist and an understanding of divorce as, our fellow apostolic church, the eastern church views it from their tradition which is equal to ours for we share it.

Any person not in the state of grace can receive communion is church teaching--but what makes the soul dead? Mortal sin--the death of the soul which objectively can exist in certain actions, but subjectively can lowered to venial concerning circumstance as well as the agent him or herself.

Remarried couples, who are living in sin, should not receive the Eucharist due to the dire nature of their sin---as any of us who sin---but to arbritrarily say they are individually in mortal sin --in the eyes of God is another matter. We can only see the action itself which is mortal and against God, not the interior movements of the soul....hence, it is the churches job to lay out groundwork, but ultimately, it is the person and Christ who decide what is right or wrong....in regards to reception of Christ

trust me, the blessed sacrament is torn more by other sins of the world than remarried people who are hurt and confused

again, what is this emphasis with divorce--but sexually active---that would be the same for anyone sexually active outside of marriage

Christ said in scripture you can leave--he does not mention remarriage, but he said you could leave in case of cheating....so I don't understand this self righteous and pharistical tone with many catholics regarding keeping the eucharist away from other people

its disturbing, and to simply label it as liberal and anti-eucharist or reverence is a huge overlook---for those guilty of being to conservative are just as wrong as those who are too liberal on this

I find myself in a safe middle ground that honors reverence for the sacrament but also understanding that it is CHRIST HIMSELF who came for sinners, and also to avoid deciding who cannot or who can eat and drink of his supper

Excellent post, Christiancounseling.

Michie said:

I think yesterday the book came out written by some cardinals that object Cardinal Kasper's defending the Church's teaching on the matter.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en...-sinodo-36384/

What Cardinal Kasper's true position is:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/a-r...-on-the-family

Click to expand...

A house divided against itself cannot stand....

one wonders what in the world fuels such divisiveness, or how deep the rot runs, that would set faction against faction in such a way that the press of the world claps it's hands in glee.

Christiancounseling said:

I am for leniency. Depending on each situation--and how is a divorced person doing anything wrong? Especially if they have no remarried and are living a chaste life? Shheeesh

As for enforcement, it is not our place to refuse, but only to teach. We should not horde CHRIST HIMSELF from the sinners, for if we do, then we are not worthy to receive HIM either

Ye without sin, cast the first stone--our Lord said

Click to expand...

if you are divorced but have not remarried and live a chaste life then you can receive the Eucharist

a quote from an article by a divorced Catholic in the UK
even though she is divorced and remarried, she loves the Church and has reverence for the Holy Eucharist

Allow a divorced and remarried person to receive Holy Communion and you are saying one of two things: either that it is not adulterous to have sex outside the marital bond, or that one may harmlessly receive the Most Holy Eucharist while in an ongoing state of mortal sin — a sin one firmly intends to commit again as soon as convenient.

Click to expand...

I'm a divorced Catholic. And I'm sure it would be a mortal sin for me to take Communion » The Spectator

There are valid theological ways to do this. If a marriage is broken by abuse or infidelity and it can be shown that the wronged party was victim to the other party destroying the bond in a way that showed they never were capable of making the real choice to form it to begin with, then mercy can be shown to the wronged party and get them returned to the Holy Eucharist.

Both dogmatically and in canon law this can indeed be done. There are lists of conditions that can render a marriage invalid due to the culpability of one spouse in an action or the inability of one to truly form the bond. Basically they need to start at what creates nullity and move from that point.

The Cardinals can do this if they are clear on what does not fall into a change of giving an exemption. Implement better marriage preparation on a pastoral level. Institute an infrastructure that helps focus and maintain married families within the Church. And use it as a way to strengthen marriages rather than reduce them. And that is all possible in dozens of ways. Some of those things already exist in some form or another. They just need a greater presence in some places and a larger overall exposure.

People have no problem with the 8 or so offences that automatically excommunicate, so they should have no problem with some of the same canonical logic creating an automatic state of annulment. That would really be the easiest way, look at the circumstances of annulment and give pastoral discretion (under outlined conditions to pastors acting in the role of Spiritual Fathers) to apply null decisions in the context of the confessional. It shows mercy, is valid to the rules, supports marriage and reconciliation.

That is not perfect but it is a valid and canonically sound starting point.

Christiancounseling said:

I am for leniency. Depending on each situation--and how is a divorced person doing anything wrong? Especially if they have no remarried and are living a chaste life? Shheeesh

As for enforcement, it is not our place to refuse, but only to teach. We should not horde CHRIST HIMSELF from the sinners, for if we do, then we are not worthy to receive HIM either

Ye without sin, cast the first stone--our Lord said.

Click to expand...

I am with you on this matter.

If there's no marriage in Heaven and if, as the Lord's Prayer states, God's will is to be done on earth as it is in Heaven, then, surely, there is room for His love and understanding on this matter. And as a fellow CF member once pointed out to me, imperfect people were invited to partake of The Last Supper.

Soma Seer said:

I am with you on this matter.

If there's no marriage in Heaven and if, as the Lord's Prayer states, God's will is to be done on earth as it is in Heaven, then, surely, there is room for His love and understanding on this matter. And as a fellow CF member once pointed out to me, imperfect people were invited to partake of The Last Supper.

Click to expand...

you are saying one of two things that are incompatible with Catholic teaching

here, this is from the article I posted by a british woman
I recommend you read the article

but when you advocate for this you are saying one of two wrong things
"Allow a divorced and remarried person to receive Holy Communion and you are saying one of two things: either that it is not adulterous to have sex outside the marital bond, or that one may harmlessly receive the Most Holy Eucharist while in an ongoing state of mortal sin — a sin one firmly intends to commit again as soon as convenient."

I must be psychic. I guessed that Cardinal Burke was one of the authors before I even clicked on the link.

Perhaps the residents of Malta will be more receptive to his ideas (which are usually presented as orders or dictates).

Fantine said:

I must be psychic. I guessed that Cardinal Burke was one of the authors before I even clicked on the link.

Perhaps the residents of Malta will be more receptive to his ideas (which are usually presented as orders or dictates).

Click to expand...

I think we should try to be open and respectful to everyones ideas
judge the idea by the logic it contains
not by the person who espouses the idea

My FIL had a divorce before coming back to the Church - his priest told him he would need an annulment before he could receive Communion again. So he got an annulment - he was worried he'd have to contact his ex-wife (they weren't on speaking terms because of what she did to him) but the situation was explained and the Church granted him one with no contact necessary from the ex.

If you want Communion that badly I don't understand the point of living by the rules.

Of course, the bottom line: this is between the person, God, and their priest. (I wouldn't judge my FIL if he didn't get one - but I strive to be a better Catholic as I can because he's set such a good example of my husband and I)

Rhamiel said:

I think we should try to be open and respectful to everyones ideas
judge the idea by the logic it contains
not by the person who espouses the idea

Click to expand...

I'm sorry.

The other four co-authors of the book are: the Archbishop of Bologna, Carlo Caffarra; the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Raymond Leo Burke and presidents emeritus Walter Brandmüller and Velasio De Paolis, plus the Secretary for the Congregation of the Oriental Churches, Archbishop Cyril Vasil and other experts. Both volumes deal with the situation of divorced people who have entered a second union and their participation in the Eucharist. The authors argue that it is unacceptable for such couples to receive communion.

Click to expand...

Four came to the Vatican as canon lawyers--Muller, Burke, Brundmuller, and DePaolis, and I suppose that they look at this as an "amicus curiae" brief.

Hopefully there will be many more "friends of the divorced and remarried" than there are "friends of the court" at the meeting.

Rhamiel said:

if you are divorced but have not remarried and live a chaste life then you can receive the Eucharist

Click to expand...

So lets say that one was married and a Woman was used as a punching bag by her husband and she divorces him. Should she be denied the right to commune with Christ?

It is going to change. I think the Pope has already made up his mind but is letting the process take place.

We have no right to deny anyone calls on the name of Jesus to commune with him.

eastcoast_bsc said:

So lets say that one was married and a Woman was used as a punching bag by her husband and she divorces him. Should she be denied the right to commune with Christ?

It is going to change. I think the Pope has already made up his mind but is letting the process take place.

Click to expand...

of course not
there could be other serious reasons for the divorce too

and according to Church teaching, the woman in your scenario can receive communion

We have no right to deny anyone calls on the name of Jesus to commune with him

Click to expand...

if you are in a state of unrepeated mortal sin
and adultery is a serious sin
if you take communion you eat to your own destruction

if you are already married to someone and you have sex with someone else, that is adultery
you can repent of this sin, go to confession and receive the Eucharist

but if you have NO intention of changing your life, then that is not a real a real confession