Cardinal Coccopalmerio explains his positions on Catholics in irregular unions

[Michie]

The senior Vatican official last month published a booklet supporting reception of Communion by some divorced-remarried Catholics and advocating support for positive aspects of cohabitating Catholics' relationships.

Continued below.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio Explains His Positions on Catholics in Irregular Unions

 

[Davidnic]

The interviewer seems to have really been wanting to not understand the Cardinal with how he phrased questions and restated answers. It seems the Cardinal is advocating compassion to cases that fit a set of circumstances with the goal of getting people to regular unions while we repair widespread damage done by a lax and incorrect view of marriage. While also understanding there are many variables.

 

[AndrewMicheals]

I was taught by the nuns that these things were sin.

 

[AndrewMicheals]

Irregular unions. If they are baptized Christians they aren't in a "union" at all. You are no better than shacking up. That is what we have always been taught. Is cohabitation now seen as a union to? If this has changed just come out and say it has. Don't play around with the wording. I'm venting at the article. No one present in the thread.

 

[Rhamiel]

the Cardinal kind of ignored the point that we can not do evil in the hopes of it bringing about something good

 

[Davidnic]

Actually he didn't ignore that point, his logic seems to come from established Church teaching in the Vademecum on conjugal love. He knows his stuff, which is why Pope Benedict XVI appointed him over Legislative Texts 9 years ago. He is not advocating evil to do good. But actually applying culpability and the moral theology of level of cooperation. And using that to get the situations to normative where they can be. Then in light of that he is talking about what you do in places where there are unique and narrow situations on a pastoral level.

 

[Davidnic]

The problem is the interviewer and, many others since the original comment, are acting like the Cardinal is advocating a blank check. Actually far from it.

He is just extending already established confession norms expressed by the Church for similar situations and tying them to a pastoral discernment that does not stop at simply the recognition of the illicit. Rather it confirms strongly that yes, this is illicit and not approved. But what can be found there positive that can be used to get people to a regular situation. And what are the aspects of culpability when there is less chance of normalizing the union. He is not saying that all irregular unions even have a chance of attaining what he is talking about. In fact it would be a narrow road. But that road existed before this Cardinal. He is simply expounding on the existing text and tying it to AL.

 

[AndrewMicheals]

This is what I personally have been taught/told/counseled on. You are to confess, apply for an annulment, live as brother and sister until you get that annulment. Then you are to get married in the Catholic Church. You are not re marrying, you are getting married because you were never married in the first place. You do this, confess, seek annulment, live celibate up and until the wedding and you can take communion. So what's the problem here? What has changed?

 

[Davidnic]

This is what I personally have been taught/told/counseled on. You are to confess, apply for an annulment, live as brother and sister until you get that annulment. Then you are to get married in the Catholic Church. You are not re marrying, you are getting married because you were never married in the first place. You do this, confess, seek annulment, live celibate apuntil the wedding and you can take communion. So what's the problem here? What has changed?

Nothing changed.

But there have always been situations that had complications. They are not common but they exist. Just like the Vademecum for confessors on aspects of conjugal love points out. One member of a couple could have grave reasons that removes the culpability of their cooperation in aspect that are problems. And that creates a situation where there might be a narrow avenue for them. Pastors, in particular in confession, must assess culpability as well as licit/illicit.

The Synod added to the discussion of such things. And the speed of news in the modern age, as well as its inaccuracy, leads to the perception of blank checks and wholesale changes. That is far from the case. It is just the discussion and rare cases have never been so visible. But this is standard moral theology class stuff. Just it hits facebook and news and gets a bit sideways. And both ends who want to argue the dynamic of it...push skewed. But it is not really new.

 

[Davidnic]

What I found a problem with the reporter was his comments about the Synod, his questioning of its very purpose. That seemed odd to me.

 

[Davidnic]

Right here:

But if they are so rare, why didn’t the Pope simply write a note to all the bishops saying in these cases to apply the Church’s doctrine differently?

He’s written [about this].

But there wouldn’t have been a need for the two synods.

If I read the document to you, I would show you the various passages. I didn’t write all of this; it’s in the document. I have to go now. More than this, I can’t tell you. Don’t be anxious. Marriage is indissoluble. These persons are in irregular situations. They want to change, but they can’t.​

There was great need for the synods and setting aside the one footnote some have issue with, AL is an amazing document that covers far more than this. The part of the raising of children alone is incredible. So it shows a legalistic reductionist attitude that has minimized the synods to this one point of contention for some. And it is indicative of the narrow view we see in most media now. Catholic media is not immune. And it is sad, because the Register is usually better than that. But I think the tone I got from this (having grown up with most of my afternoons in a Radio station news room) just struck me as odd.

 

[Rhamiel]

Right here:

But if they are so rare, why didn’t the Pope simply write a note to all the bishops saying in these cases to apply the Church’s doctrine differently?

He’s written [about this].

But there wouldn’t have been a need for the two synods.

If I read the document to you, I would show you the various passages. I didn’t write all of this; it’s in the document. I have to go now. More than this, I can’t tell you. Don’t be anxious. Marriage is indissoluble. These persons are in irregular situations. They want to change, but they can’t.​

There was great need for the synods and setting aside the one footnote some have issue with, AL is an amazing document that covers far more than this. The part of the raising of children alone is incredible. So it shows a legalistic reductionist attitude that has minimized the synods to this one point of contention for some. And it is indicative of the narrow view we see in most media now. Catholic media is not immune. And it is sad, because the Register is usually better than that. But I think the tone I got from this (having grown up with most of my afternoons in a Radio station news room) just struck me as odd.

I see the point of the interviewer
if it is such a small number, why have a big public debate that is shaking the faith of common people and APPEARS to be condoning sin?

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Actually he didn't ignore that point, his logic seems to come from established Church teaching in the Vademecum on conjugal love. He knows his stuff, which is why Pope Benedict XVI appointed him over Legislative Texts 9 years ago. He is not advocating evil to do good. But actually applying culpability and the moral theology of level of cooperation. And using that to get the situations to normative where they can be. Then in light of that he is talking about what you do in places where there are unique and narrow situations on a pastoral level.

David, why are the scriptures never as tortuous in trying to justify a point?

The scripture is vey clear on what is right and wrong. When we feel a need to perform mental gymnastics in defending a position then that should set of alarms.

Not a personal attack , just an observation whenever I hear Vatican speak.

 

[Davidnic]

I see the point of the interviewer
if it is such a small number, why have a big public debate that is shaking the faith of common people and APPEARS to be condoning sin?

Well because the Synods were about much more than this issue. I think that is my problem. The reduction of hundreds of pages to one issue. Of course this issue bears discussion and is very important. But it was not the point or focus of the entire Synod. And the question, and coverage, seems to think that. It would be a shame if the whole point of the Synod was rewritten so close in time to it.

 

[Davidnic]

Its not a deflection. It is an observation. People are falling prey to the trick of legalism and Pharisaical thinking that leads them to ignore the full Synod. The Cardinals, such as Cardinal Burke have not done this. But others have. The way the reporter made that follow up is indicative of it.

When the Pope condemns legalism he is not condemning Dogma or defense of Dogma. But this is the kind of thing that, I think, he looks at with concern.
Where there is a legalistic reduction that is actually damaging to the valid concerns of some. The reporters follow up, and the tone near the end of the interview seems to reflect an accusatory vibe. Which is not productive to getting to understanding.

 

[Davidnic]

the terms 'legalism' and "Pharisaical thinking"

Nope. Key terms of Christ. Who was not Liberal.

There have always been both legalists and relativists. Both are wrong. Just like those who seek an Apocalypse in a tea cup at the slightest provocation.

To say something is legalistic is not to discount the law. Christ did it often and showed us how to do it and where it should be done.

Just like to embrace the fact that there is culpability that relives guilt is not relativism. He showed us that too.

 

[AndrewMicheals]

I see the point of the interviewer
if it is such a small number, why have a big public debate that is shaking the faith of common people and APPEARS to be condoning sin?

You took that right out my own brain, brother. That is what I think. It contradicts a lot of what I've been raised on and frankly it makes me angry that we've been made to live a certain way 15 years ago but now couples can have their cake and eat it too. Not right, man. So either Rome changed or suppressed information.

 

[AndrewMicheals]

Something else that gets my goat. We were told this was a cross to carry. That suffering and sacrifice, doing the right thing would make us holy. That is now considered to be legalism? I'm asking this seriously.

 

[Davidnic]

It is not that it is legalism to not have the Eucharist if you are divorced and remarried without an annulment. No one has said that. But that there are situations where the spouse who was wronged is not culpable, or that there are narrow situations where there are exceptions is not new.

So in 99% (or more) of the situations the Eucharist is not allowed. But in a narrow band, it has always been allowed and pastors have done it. What the Pope has pointed out is that pastors should be involved on a personal level on each step of this process to assess what those situations are. And in some cases withhold the Eucharist while the couple is normalized, in some guide the couple in how to participate in Catholic life in spiritual communion with the Eucharist but not physical reception, and to notice where the narrow path is for some in extreme situations.

The problem is many Bishops (rightly) worry priests will open an express lane and ignore teaching that can not be changed. But that does not remove the fact that there are situations where access can be granted before formal annulment. They are rare but they exist and have always existed.

 

[Davidnic]

Where legalism come in is making the entire document about the one small part and ignoring it all because of it. It takes the results of two meetings of the Bishops and the document that the Bishop of Rome has synthesized from it...and focuses on a single issue at the cost of the document. No one is saying it is an issue that should be ignored. But it is not the sole purpose or product of the Synod of the Family.