Cdl. O'Malley on reforming Church's teaching on Communion for divorced+remarried
#1
Begins @1:30:


"…perhaps the Church will be able to make the process of annulment more 'user-friendly. Pope Benedict talked about looking for other grounds, for instance: lack of fath, as a reason to reconsider the validity of a marriage." !!!

He did talk about the problem of cohabitation.

Then he speaks of Francis's vision to centralize government of the Church, but then he mentions collegiality, which is decentralized; I'm confused.

He calls for a new apologetics. He said the Baltimore Catechism was to answer Protestants, whereas now we have to answer secular humanists et al.

See this for more annulment statistics.
Quote:The United States has 6% of the world's Catholics but grants 78% percent of the world's annulments. In 1968 the Church there granted fewer than 600 annulments; from 1984 to 1994 it granted just under 59,000 annually. But more than 90% of the cases which were appealed to the highest matrimonial court, the Roman Rota, were overturned.
Reply
#2
I'm calling it now:  Sean Cardinal O'Malley will be elected as the 267th Pope...sorry...Bishop of Rome, when Pope Francis brings the world to tears with his humble retirement.  He'll take the name Francis II or some other name that ends in a "one".  John Paul Francis I has a nice ring to it.  It's almost like John Paul Stevens.  Heck, maybe he'll become John Paul Stevens I for all I know.  It's a safe bet he won't be a Pius, Innocent, Leo, or Clement.  There may not be another Benedict again, ever.  Benedict is the new Alexander.

Seriously, this guy has the "mind" of Francis.  Has his words, too.  The world will want a Francis encore after he leaves the stage, and O'Malley sounds like he's perfect for the part.  No wonder he was a credible candidate for the Roman Bishopric last year.
Reply
#3
(Double Post)

Edit: Pie > Cake
Reply
#4
I can assure you, living in the Archdiocese of Boston, the gears are turning to try to make that happen, God help us.
Reply
#5
I am curious, Geremia, what specifically did you not like that he said in this interview?

Also, I did not get the impression that he was suggesting the Holy Father desired greater centralization. I think the emphasis was clearly on decentralizing and collegiality.

It was Pope Benedict who had raised the issue of making annulments more accessible for reasons such as "lack of faith" but as I recall, the context of this problem was situated in the matter-form arena, where, if one of the two spouses really had no understanding of what is Christian marriage, you have a problem with the assent of his will, which is an assent to what the spouse in question (mis)understands.

One thing I was happy to hear was the problem of living in a secular humanist world, and the need for a new apologetics to address this world. Sometimes, in optimistic moods, not always, but sometimes, I get the impression that Pope Francis has understood something better than the previous popes did: we are not going back to the pagan Roman Empire; we are already there. This is it. It is shocking how little time it took, but the faster we acknowledge the fact, the better we can prepare for what we face.

This is the only interview of Cardinal O'Malley I have ever seen, and I have never read anything written by him. I have heard things second-hand, mostly negative, but second-hand is dangerous business, and is usually made up of emotional response rather than specifics, so I will remain indifferent for now.
Reply
#6
(02-14-2014, 11:12 PM)maldon Wrote: I am curious, Geremia, what specifically did you not like that he said in this interview?
What I quoted directly below the video, especially
(02-14-2014, 11:12 PM)maldon Wrote: It was Pope Benedict who had raised the issue of making annulments more accessible for reasons such as "lack of faith" but as I recall, the context of this problem was situated in the matter-form arena, where, if one of the two spouses really had no understanding of what is Christian marriage, you have a problem with the assent of his will, which is an assent to what the spouse in question (mis)understands.
Anyone can claim he doesn't know what marriage is by saying something like: "I didn't know what marriage is! I've never been married before to know what it really is!"

Unlike the other sacraments, where the minister of the sacrament  could fail to do what the Church intends, this cannot happen with marriage:
Msgr. Cormac Burke Wrote:Faith and error

A religious or ecclesial or sacramental intention is not required for sacramental marriage. A person's attitude or belief regarding the external religious rite is therefore marginal to the question of whether he receives the sacrament or not. The matter does not seem adequately analyzed in the following passage referring to "baptized unbelievers": "It can happen that out of profane motives they intend to do something altogether profane, despite the religious context; [then] the ecclesial act is fulfilled exteriorly in a correct fashion, but interiorly is neither believed in or wanted. In such a case there is simulation and a total lack of intention" (M. F. Pompedda: "Fede e Sacramento del Matrimonio", Quaderni Rotali II (1987), p. 64). This appears to equate simulation and lack of intention, which does not accord with the principle that simulation implies not a mere lack of intention ("non velle") but a positive contrary intention ("velle non") (cf. c. De Jorio, Oct. 27, 1971, RRD, vol. 63, p. 802; O. Giacchi, op. cit. p. 64). The distinguished author himself in fact seems not altogether happy with the hypothesis of simulation; and so he immediately adds: "at least one is faced with that 'error pervading the person' which essentially undermines the object of the will and therefore deprives it of its value" (Pompedda, op. cit. p. 64). A little later he writes: "when the lack of faith, understood as error about an essential element of consent, is such as to have permeated the person marrying, whose will intends something quite different to a natural institution raised to sacramental dignity, there is lacking that minimum intention (to do what the Church does) required for the validity of any sacrament, and therefore also of matrimony" (ibid., p. 65).

This suggestion - that error about sacramentality can invalidate consent - demands careful consideration (cfr. G. Versaldi: "Exclusio sacramentalitatis matrimonii ex parte baptizatorum non credentium: error vel potius simulatio?" Periodica 79 (1990) 421-440). A first difficulty has already been pointed out: the inadequacy of applying to matrimony the requisite of "doing what the Church does", in the same way as it is applied to the other sacraments. The concrete argument offered here, however, goes farther, suggesting that lack of faith implies error about sacramentality, and that if the error is deep enough it must be regarded as determining the will (so as to want or accept only a marriage deprived of sacramentality). But is one justified in making lack of faith imply adhesion to erroneous doctrine (Pompedda, op. cit. p. 58)? Lack of faith, after all, can simply mean not having any doctrine or thoughts on the matter (and in this sense is closer to ignorance). The thesis proposed seems to involve not merely an automatic passage from the intellectual plane to the voluntary, but also an attributing to absence of intellectual knowledge - to ignorance - the power to produce an invalidating determination of the will.

While "error radicatus" is at times invoked to analyze cases of alleged exclusion of indissolubility, one may wonder whether it is legitimate or convincing to apply it to the exclusion of sacramentality. Without forgetting that both the error and its depth must be proved in each case, a rooted conviction that marriage is dissoluble may certainly operate psychologically to facilitate a positive act wanting a 'marriage' deprived of a permanent bond. But in the case of a person who does not believe in the sacramentality of marriage, there would seem to be few psychological factors at work to make him or her positively want a marriage deprived of sacramentality (again we recall that simply to want a non-religious celebration is not the same thing (I think it is generally true that if a person has a deep-rooted error in the matter under discussion, it is about the value of a religious ceremony: but he or she - the person marrying - normally still believes in marriage)).

It is not easy to determine the practical effect of the disposition of c. 1099: "error concerning the... sacramental dignity of matrimony does not vitiate matrimonial consent so along as it does not determine the will". What is the sense of the phrase, "determine the will", in relation to an error about sacramentality? More concretely, to what can the will be so determined by the error that consent is thereby rendered invalid?

There does not seem to be any way in which the will could be determined by an error about sacramentality (such as the belief that sacramentality is a property or element of matrimony, or that it depends on the active faith of the parties, or derives from a church or religious ceremony necessarily involving the presence of a priest). A person's will, in the moment of consent, may be, "I want a (true) marriage deprived of sacramentality"; but, as we have noted, such a will is ineffective, because the choice of such a contradictory and impossible combination - a true marriage between two baptized persons which is not sacramental - does not lie within the real power of the contracting party. The will to make this choice certainly reveals an erroneous understanding of what is possible; but in what way could the error can be said to determine the will to invalid consent? Invalidity could only result, not from this erroneous appreciation, but from the subsequent choice that we have noted: "I want a (true) marriage deprived of sacramentality; and if this is not possible and I must have a sacramental marriage, then I don't want a true marriage at all". However it is evident that such a choice, far from being the consequence of an error about sacramentality, shows a definite degree of true appreciation (at least by way of hypothesis) of how marriage between christians and sacramentality relate.

The real issue continues to be that of which will prevails: the positive will to marry or the positive will to exclude sacramentality. Both theological examination and juridical analysis confirm Gasparri's conclusion: "If the party mentally excludes only the consideration of a sacrament, saying positively in his mind: 'I want marriage, but I do not want the sacrament', the marriage is valid and is a true sacrament. The reason is that the intention of the minister [13] is necessary for placing the sacramental rite (i.e. the matrimonial contract, in our case); but once this has been done, whether this rite has the consideration of a sacrament and produces sacramental effects or not, depends not on the intention of the minister, but on its institution by Christ. However, if the party in his mind says positively (and not merely interpretatively): 'I want marriage, but I do not want the sacrament; otherwise I do not want marriage itself', the marriage would be null, for consent to matrimony itself would be lacking" (De Matrimonio, no. 921).
(source)
Reply
#7
After that Methodist event I get a bit wary with Cardinal O'Malley. What will really answer the spiritually and morally bankrupt secular humanism is not another catechism but real holiness on the part of Catholics, not just reflected in our words but in our Liturgy, our sacred music, our church architecture, our thriving monasteries and convents and our uncompromising stance on issues of the day. I can't wait till this tired old guard retires, till noo ne ordained or formed between 1965-2000 is in any position of power in the Church. The same folks who allow abuses and the banalization of our Faith--who were formed in it's iconoclastic heydey--are now supposed to help fix it? Give me a break! I'll pray for Cardinal O'Malley but I will take anything he says with a grain of exorcized and blessed salt.
Reply
#8
If you want to know more about cardinal o'malley go to boston catholic insider and I live in his archdiocese
Reply
#9
Geremia,

Mons. Burke was expressing doubts about the issue on many different fronts. I agree with those fronts. But he was still only expressing an opinion about a theory. And former Pope Benedict was not referring to people who simply wanted a divorce and were "claiming" that they didn't understand what marriage meant, etc. Anyone can do that. And that would be an abuse. You don't refuse to make a change you think is necessary because of the people who might lie about it. People who would want to claim they don't have enough faith etc. to "get out" of a marriage are already condemning themselves as liars and hypocrites. I think what the Pope and some cardinals are worried about is a very real and very new problem due to how ignorant most are about marriage. But then, Cardinal O'Malley makes an absolutely fantastic point: the issue of divorce-remarried couples is dwarfed by the other massive one of cohabitation that is simply replacing marriage entirely. You have to live in a completely wasted, post-Catholic place like I do (Quebec) to see it, but the overwhelming majority of "married" couples in Quebec have never been married. They have nice houses with nice lawns and lovely children. They have never been married in a church or by secular authorities. Zero. The law now, unless I am mistaken, deems them married if they have been cohabiting for 12 months. And trust me: what you see in Quebec is what you are seeing more and more in Obama's America. And the majority of Americans appear to LOVE it. There is not one single credible opponent in the Republican Party. They are lucky Obama cannot run for a 3rd, 4th, and 5th mandate, because he would win them all. So look at Quebec: that is where America is headed. I know there is a large army of faithful Catholics in America unlike here. Capitulation will not come so easily. But it will come if there are no political leaders to stand up against it. Sorry for going off track, but I think he is dead on with the cohabitation thing. Waaay more kids leaving the church for this than the old folks who come to mass but can't receive communion. That is more a German problem than a Catholic Church problem.
Reply
#10
(02-15-2014, 04:56 PM)maldon Wrote: I think what the Pope and some cardinals are worried about is a very real and very new problem due to how ignorant most are about marriage.
But what's that got to do with faith?
How I interpreted O'Malley's recounting of Benedict XVI's possibility of "lack of faith" (unbelief) as grounds for annulment is that if one or both parties are practical atheists, regardless if they were baptized or not, then perhaps the marriage never existed in the first place (viz., anullment is possible).
(02-15-2014, 04:56 PM)maldon Wrote: But then, Cardinal O'Malley makes an absolutely fantastic point: the issue of divorce-remarried couples is dwarfed by the other massive one of cohabitation that is simply replacing marriage entirely.
Indeed
(02-15-2014, 04:56 PM)maldon Wrote: You have to live in a completely wasted, post-Catholic place like I do (Quebec) to see it, but the overwhelming majority of "married" couples in Quebec have never been married. They have nice houses with nice lawns and lovely children. They have never been married in a church or by secular authorities. Zero.
So, they hate marriage so much they forgo obtaining a marriage license from the State?
(02-15-2014, 04:56 PM)maldon Wrote: The law now, unless I am mistaken, deems them married if they have been cohabiting for 12 months.
Oh, yes, I think there's similar laws in some (all?) states of the U.S.
(02-15-2014, 04:56 PM)maldon Wrote: And trust me: what you see in Quebec is what you are seeing more and more in Obama's America.
From what you've described, yes
(02-15-2014, 04:56 PM)maldon Wrote: And the majority of Americans appear to LOVE it. There is not one single credible opponent in the Republican Party. They are lucky Obama cannot run for a 3rd, 4th, and 5th mandate, because he would win them all. So look at Quebec: that is where America is headed. I know there is a large army of faithful Catholics in America unlike here. Capitulation will not come so easily. But it will come if there are no political leaders to stand up against it. Sorry for going off track, but I think he is dead on with the cohabitation thing. Waaay more kids leaving the church for this than the old folks who come to mass but can't receive communion. That is more a German problem than a Catholic Church problem.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)