Thesis: The teaching of Christ and the Church on
marriage and adultery is not to change. We have to change so that
marriages become true and valid. Since many marriages that are presumed to be
valid, may not be (valid) because there was not the living faith of self-gift,
those remarried, going to confession, can receive the Eucharist.
From Ratzinger Below: “(I)t needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two
baptized persons is ipso
facto a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a
“valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf.
cic, can. 1055, § 2). Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what
remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the
“absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come
into being.”
From
footnote 3 below: “During the meeting
with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope
Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the
Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find
themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover
faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful
situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’
Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without
faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here
because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not
dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I
realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further.
But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further”.
THE PROBLEM OF
THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED
by Walter Kasper
[. . .] It is not enough to consider the problem only from the point of view and from the perspective of the Church as a sacramental institution. We need a paradigm change and we must - as the good Samaritan did - consider the situation also from the perspective of those who are suffering and asking for help.
Everyone knows that the question of the marriages of divorced and remarried persons is a complex and thorny problem. [. . .] What can the Church do in such situations? It cannot propose a solution that is different from or contrary to the words of Jesus. The indissolubility of sacramental marriage and the impossibility of a new marriage during the lifetime of the other partner is part of the tradition of the Church's binding faith that cannot be abandoned or undone by appealing to a superficial understanding of cheapened mercy. [. . .] The question is therefore how the Church can reflect this indivisible pairing of the fidelity and mercy of God in its pastoral action concerning the divorced who are remarried in a civil ceremony. [. . .]
Today we find ourselves in a situation similar to that of the last Council. At that time as well there existed, for example on the question of ecumenism or religious freedom, encyclicals and decisions of the Holy Office that seemed to preclude other ways. Without violating the binding dogmatic tradition, the Council opened doors. We can ask ourselves: is it not perhaps possible that there could be further developments on the present question as well? [. . .]
I will limit myself to two situations, for which solutions are already being mentioned in some official documents. I want only to pose questions, limiting myself to pointing out the direction of possible responses. Giving a response, however, will be the task of the synod in harmony with the pope.
FIRST SITUATION
"Familiaris Consortio" affirms that some of the divorced and remarried are in conscience subjectively convinced that their irreparably broken previous marriage was never valid. [. . .] According to canon law the evaluation is the task of the ecclesiastical tribunals. Since these are not “iure divino," but developed historically, we sometimes ask ourselves if the judicial way should be the only one for resolving the problem or if other more pastoral and spiritual procedures could also be possible.
As an alternative, one might think that the bishop could entrust this task to a priest with spiritual and pastoral experience as a penitentiary or episcopal vicar.
Apart from the response to be given to this question, it is worthwhile to recall the address that Pope Francis delivered on January 24, 2014 to the officials of the tribunal of the Roman Rota, in which he affirms that the juridical dimension and pastoral dimension are not in opposition. [. . .] Pastoral care and mercy are not opposed to justice, but they are so to speak the supreme justice, because behind each appeal they discern not only a case to be examined through the lens of general regulations but a human person who, as such, can never represent a case and always has a unique dignity. [. . .] Is it truly possible that the good and bad of persons should be decided at second and third hearings solely on the basis of the proceedings, meaning paperwork, but without knowing the person and his situation?
SECOND SITUATION
It would be mistaken to seek the solution of the problem only in a generous expansion of the procedure of nullity of marriage. This would create the dangerous impression that the Church is proceeding in a dishonest manner in granting what in reality are divorces. [. . .] Therefore we must also take into consideration the more difficult question of the situation of the marriage that is ratified and consummated between baptized persons, in which the communion of marital life is irreparably broken and one or both of the spouses have contracted a second civil marriage.
One notification was given to us by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith in 1994 when it established - and Pope Benedict XVI reiterated this during the world meeting of families in Milan in 2012 - that the divorce and remarried cannot receive sacramental communion but can receive spiritual communion. [. . .]
From Ratzinger: 1998.
by Walter Kasper
[. . .] It is not enough to consider the problem only from the point of view and from the perspective of the Church as a sacramental institution. We need a paradigm change and we must - as the good Samaritan did - consider the situation also from the perspective of those who are suffering and asking for help.
Everyone knows that the question of the marriages of divorced and remarried persons is a complex and thorny problem. [. . .] What can the Church do in such situations? It cannot propose a solution that is different from or contrary to the words of Jesus. The indissolubility of sacramental marriage and the impossibility of a new marriage during the lifetime of the other partner is part of the tradition of the Church's binding faith that cannot be abandoned or undone by appealing to a superficial understanding of cheapened mercy. [. . .] The question is therefore how the Church can reflect this indivisible pairing of the fidelity and mercy of God in its pastoral action concerning the divorced who are remarried in a civil ceremony. [. . .]
Today we find ourselves in a situation similar to that of the last Council. At that time as well there existed, for example on the question of ecumenism or religious freedom, encyclicals and decisions of the Holy Office that seemed to preclude other ways. Without violating the binding dogmatic tradition, the Council opened doors. We can ask ourselves: is it not perhaps possible that there could be further developments on the present question as well? [. . .]
I will limit myself to two situations, for which solutions are already being mentioned in some official documents. I want only to pose questions, limiting myself to pointing out the direction of possible responses. Giving a response, however, will be the task of the synod in harmony with the pope.
FIRST SITUATION
"Familiaris Consortio" affirms that some of the divorced and remarried are in conscience subjectively convinced that their irreparably broken previous marriage was never valid. [. . .] According to canon law the evaluation is the task of the ecclesiastical tribunals. Since these are not “iure divino," but developed historically, we sometimes ask ourselves if the judicial way should be the only one for resolving the problem or if other more pastoral and spiritual procedures could also be possible.
As an alternative, one might think that the bishop could entrust this task to a priest with spiritual and pastoral experience as a penitentiary or episcopal vicar.
Apart from the response to be given to this question, it is worthwhile to recall the address that Pope Francis delivered on January 24, 2014 to the officials of the tribunal of the Roman Rota, in which he affirms that the juridical dimension and pastoral dimension are not in opposition. [. . .] Pastoral care and mercy are not opposed to justice, but they are so to speak the supreme justice, because behind each appeal they discern not only a case to be examined through the lens of general regulations but a human person who, as such, can never represent a case and always has a unique dignity. [. . .] Is it truly possible that the good and bad of persons should be decided at second and third hearings solely on the basis of the proceedings, meaning paperwork, but without knowing the person and his situation?
SECOND SITUATION
It would be mistaken to seek the solution of the problem only in a generous expansion of the procedure of nullity of marriage. This would create the dangerous impression that the Church is proceeding in a dishonest manner in granting what in reality are divorces. [. . .] Therefore we must also take into consideration the more difficult question of the situation of the marriage that is ratified and consummated between baptized persons, in which the communion of marital life is irreparably broken and one or both of the spouses have contracted a second civil marriage.
One notification was given to us by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith in 1994 when it established - and Pope Benedict XVI reiterated this during the world meeting of families in Milan in 2012 - that the divorce and remarried cannot receive sacramental communion but can receive spiritual communion. [. . .]
From Ratzinger: 1998.
4. Some accuse the current Magisterium of
reversing the doctrinal development of the Council and of substituting a
pre-conciliar view of marriage.
Some theologians claim that at the new
magisterial documents having to do with questions of marriage are based on a
naturalistic, legalistic concept of marriage. Attention is given to the
contract between the spouses and to the ius in corpus. It is
claimed that the Council overturned this static understanding and described
marriage in a more personalistic way as a covenant of love and life. Thus it
would have opened up possibilities for resolving difficult situations more
humanely. Thinking further along this line, some scholars pose the question of
whether or not one could speak of the death of the marriage, if the personal
bond of love between the spouses no longer exists. Others resurrect the old
question of whether or not the Pope would have the capability of dissolving
marriage in such cases.
Yet anyone who
attentively reads the more recent statements of the Church will note that their
central assertions are based on Gaudium
et spes and that they further develop the teaching contained therein
in a thoroughly personalist line, in the direction indicated by the Council.
However, it is inappropriate to set up a contradiction between the personalist
and juridical views of marriage. The Council did not break with the traditional
concept of marriage, but on the contrary developed it further. When, for
example, it is continually pointed out that the Council substituted the broader
and theologically more profound concept of covenant for the strictly legal
concept of contract, one must not forget that within covenant, the element of
contract is also contained and indeed placed within a broader perspective. The
fact that marriage reaches well beyond the purely juridical realm into the
depths of humanity and into the mystery of the divine, has always been
indicated by the word “sacrament”, although often it has not been pondered with
the same clarity which the Council gave to these aspects. Law is not
everything, but it is an indispensable part, one dimension of the whole.
Marriage without a juridical dimension which integrates it into the whole
fabric of society and the Church simply does not exist. If the post-Conciliar
revision of canon law included the realm of marriage, this is not a betrayal of
the Council, but the implementation of its mandate.
If the Church were to accept the theory that a
marriage is dead when the two spouses no longer love one another, then she
would thereby sanction divorce and would uphold the indissolubility of marriage
only in word, and no longer in fact. Therefore, the opinion that the Pope could
potentially dissolve a consummated sacramental marriage, which has been
irrevocably broken, must be considered erroneous. Such a marriage cannot be
dissolved by anyone. At their wedding, the spouses promise to be faithful to
each other until death.
Further study is required, however, concerning
the question of whether non-believing Christians — baptized persons who never
or who no longer believe in God — can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In
other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two
baptized persons is ipso
facto a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a
“valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf.
cic, can. 1055, § 2). Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what
remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the
“absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come
into being. (3)
5. Many argue that the position of the Church
on the question of divorced and remarried faithful is overly legalistic and not
pastoral.
A series of critical objections against the
doctrine and praxis of the Church pertain to questions of a pastoral nature.
Some say, for example, that the language used in the ecclesial documents is too
legalistic, that the rigidity of law prevails over an understanding of dramatic
human situations. They claim that the human person of today is no longer able
to understand such language, that Jesus would have had an open ear for the
needs of people, particularly for those on the margins of society. They say
that the Church, on the other hand, presents herself like a judge who excludes
wounded people from the sacraments and from certain public responsibilities.
One can readily admit that the Magisterium’s
manner of expression does not seem very easy to understand at times. It needs
to be translated by preachers and catechists into a language which relates to
people and to their respective cultural environments. The essential content of
the Church’s teaching, however, must be upheld in this process. It must not be
watered down on allegedly pastoral grounds, because it communicates the
revealed truth.
Certainly, it is difficult to make the demands
of the Gospel understandable to secularized people. But this pastoral
difficulty must not lead to compromises with the truth. In his Encyclical Veritatis splendor , John Paul
II clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in opposition to
the statements of the Magisterium (cf. ibid . 56).
Furthermore, concerning the position of the
Magisterium as regards the question of divorced and remarried members of the
faithful, it must be stressed that the more recent documents of the Church
bring together the demands of truth with those of love in a very balanced way.
If at times in the past, love shone forth too little in the explanation of the
truth, so today the danger is great that in the name of love, truth is either
to be silenced or compromised. Assuredly, the word of truth can be painful and
uncomfortable. But it is the way to holiness, to peace, and to inner freedom. A
pastoral approach which truly wants to help the people concerned must always be
grounded in the truth. In the end, only the truth can be pastoral. “Then you
will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32).
Notes
1 Cf. Angel Rodríguez Luño, L’epicheia
nella cura pastorale dei fedeli divorziati risposati , ibid .,
pp. 75-87; Piero Giorgio Marcuzzi, sdb,Applicazione di “aequitas et epikeia”
ai contenuti della Lettera della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede del
14 settembre 1994 , ibid ., pp. 88-98; Gilles
Pelland, sj, La pratica della Chiesa antica relativa ai fedeli
divorziati risposati, ibid. , pp. 99-131.2
2 On this matter the norm referred to by John
Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Familiaris Consortio , n. 84,
is quite valuable: “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open
the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having
broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready
to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the
indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious
reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman
cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to
live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to
married couples’”. See also the Apostolic Letter of Benedict XVI, Sacramentum
Caritatis , n. 29.
3 During the meeting with clergy in the
Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of
this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of
tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new
and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded
from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a
cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to
study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a
moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found
to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally
thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly
complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s
painful plight, it must be studied further”.
No comments:
Post a Comment