Scola: Four Solutions for the Divorced and Remarried
#1
See this: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/art...0876?eng=y

His "solutions" are abominable:

- spiritual communion, or “of desire”;
Of these four "solutions," this is the best (or least worst).

- recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation even without absolution;
To approach that sacrament without the intention of being absolved has got to be sacrilege; it mocks the sacrament just as much as a false confession would!

- sexual continence while remaining in the civil union;
There's still the sin of scandal, and this would only encourage it.

- the verification of the validity or invalidity of a marriage not only by the diocesan tribunals or the Rota, but also with a more streamlined nonjudicial canonical procedure under the supervision of the local bishop.
The annulment process as it's practiced is already "divorce for Catholics"! How much more "streamlined" could it be? A spouse can get an annulment even without the consent of the other spouse, and "immaturity" is often grounds for defective-consent annulments!

Now that these Modernists have destroyed the faith, all they have left to destroy is the natural law.

Domine, miserere nobis!
Reply
#2
The third one is not objectionable and has been, from what I understand, the usual advice for a long time, especially when there are children involved. 

As you say, the first one is also not a problem and is generally recommended for anyone who can't actually receive the Sacrament.

Regarding the fourth one, ultimately the bishop is the judge (the Roman Pontiff being supreme judge). Any canonical processes that have been put in place are essentially a function of this jurisdiction, letting all know how the judgment will be made (it is often delegated).  But what is essential is the jurisdiction of the Pope or bishop, not any particular process.  Other sacraments are judged valid or invalid with little to no judicial process, such as the putative baptism of converts.  A different process, provided it is rooted in the bishop's jurisdiction (or the Pope's of course), would not violate either the divine law or the natural law.  That being said, a system without clearly delineated rules seems to me to provide a greater danger for partiality and abuse.

Regarding the second thing, it would be wrong to call it a Sacrament without absolution, but non-sacramental confession has a long history in the Church and has been practiced as a means to obtain merit and graces through humiliation and self-accusation.  While one could not be absolved without confessing all one's sins, I don't see how examining one's conscience and at least confessing some of one's sins can make one any worse off, but it may obtain graces that will lead to a change of heart and/or a greater courage and strength to turn from the other sins.
Reply
#3
(09-23-2014, 01:44 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Regarding the second thing, it would be wrong to call it a Sacrament without absolution, but non-sacramental confession has a long history in the Church and has been practiced as a means to obtain merit and graces through humiliation and self-accusation.  While one could not be absolved without confessing all one's sins, I don't see how examining one's conscience and at least confessing some of one's sins can make one any worse off, but it may obtain graces that will lead to a change of heart and/or a greater courage and strength to turn from the other sins.
Why call a counseling session confession? Why not just say that the faithful should discuss these issues with their priests?
Reply
#4
(09-23-2014, 01:44 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The third one is not objectionable and has been, from what I understand, the usual advice for a long time, especially when there are children involved.
Since when?
I wonder what the canonical history of this question is.
Reply
#5
(09-23-2014, 01:56 PM)Geremia Wrote: Why call a counseling session confession? Why not just say that the faithful should discuss these issues with their priests?

I think the difference is "confession" implies a self-accusation of sin whereas a counseling session may or may not.
Reply
#6
(09-23-2014, 02:08 PM)Geremia Wrote: Since when?
I wonder what the canonical history of this question is.

(09-23-2014, 02:08 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(09-23-2014, 01:44 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The third one is not objectionable and has been, from what I understand, the usual advice for a long time, especially when there are children involved.
Since when?
I wonder what the canonical history of this question is.

That I'm not sure--I've just never heard of it any other way (which may just mean I'm ignorant!).  I don't know if there really would be any canon in that regard, since it's not really a situation that lends itself to "one-size-fits-all" solutions. Obviously living as brother and sister is not itself a sin, so whether it's ok or not would be highly circumstantial.

The risk of scandal, for one, is different in different situations.  If the community doesn't know of the first marriage, there is no scandal, for example. Also, I'm not sure how the risk of scandal is any different than if an annulment is granted.  It's not like the decrees of nullity are publicly proclaimed to the parish community.  In any case, charity should require any onlookers to not judge, but rather to presume continence or an annulment unless they know for a fact otherwise (even the creation of another child may just be a momentary slip that was repented for, rather than evidence of obstinate sin).

Those considerations would be weighed against other considerations, like the good of the children.  In the past especially, a separation would cause the woman and any children to be without support. That's my understanding anyway.
Reply
#7
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.
Reply
#8
About option no. 3: this, in fact, is indeed nothing new. My parents had been an example until they married sacramentally not that long ago. Our parish priest suggested it to them. It might perhaps cause scandals in small towns but there was none at our location.

Btw, I've just realised I am (or was?) a bastard.
Reply
#9
The first and third options already exist, and I think they are the norm.
The second options might exist, but I don't know. Also, I don't think its sacrilegious: I've heard of saints that would confess past sins in order to enjoy the graces from the sacrament.
The last solution sounds scary, but I don't know if that would be the end of the world. It actually might put some sense in the annulment thing, if one gets a good bishop.

All in all they look so much better than Kasper's proposal.

I think one great solution would be for the Church to deny matrimony to certain couples and demand a thorough chatechesis for people that want the sacrament.
But I doubt that will be done, since there's money involved.
Reply
#10
(09-23-2014, 03:48 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: The last solution sounds scary, but I don't know if that would be the end of the world. It actually might put some sense in the annulment thing, if one gets a good bishop.
Yeah, like any system, it will only be as effective as the people running it.

Quote:I think one great solution would be for the Church to deny matrimony to certain couples and demand a thorough chatechesis for people that want the sacrament.
But I doubt that will be done, since there's money involved.

I think this is generally what is supposed to be done now anyway (again, I think it probably varies in practice depending on where you live).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)