Cardinal Burke: “Cardinal Kasper’s Synod Proposal Involves Disobedience to the Words of Our Lord Himself”

Cardinal Burke: “Cardinal Kasper’s Synod Proposal Involves Disobedience to the Words of Our Lord Himself” October 3, 2014

The impending conflict among participants at this week’s Synod is evident:

  • Cardinal Kasper urges a reconsideration of communion for divorced and remarried Catholics.
  • Cardinal Burke says no, that could never be.

And the people in the pews line up behind one voice or the other–waiting, wondering, now in the countdown to the Synod on the Family which begins Sunday, October 5, in Rome.

Disagreement is nothing new to the Church, said Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signatura.  Speaking to reporters September 30 in a Tele-press Conference Call organized by Ignatius Press, Cardinal Burke said,

“In the whole history of the church, in the early centuries, the church had to fight to honor the truth that our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man…”  

He looked back to the Arian heresy, and noted that even among prelates, there is disagreement which must be addressed and resolved. But when asked about his reaction to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, Cardinal Burke was adamant in his opposition:

“Well, I certainly have serious difficulties with what Cardinal Kasper was proposing. In proposing it, he was urging a direction which in the whole history of the church has never taken, a direction which would in some way involve either a disobedience to or at least a non-full adherence to the words of our Lord Himself and no one questions the words of our Lord in chapter 19 of the Gospel According to Matthew.”

The issue is not, as some seem to think, that the  Church doesn’t welcome divorced persons.  Even those who are in a second marriage are encouraged to attend the Sunday liturgy and to join in worshipping with their fellow Catholics.  They are, however, unable to receive the Eucharist.

In fact, the whole issue has two distinct parts:  (1) What is marriage? and (2) Who may receive the Eucharist.

 

THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE

But Sometimes a Marriage Doesn’t Work Out.  Why Does the Church Refuse to Recognize Divorce?

Marriage, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, is indissoluble.  The Church respects the admonition of Jesus in Mark 10:9,

“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Paragraph 1664 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this indissoluble one-flesh union of two persons into one:

The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.” This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony. It is deepened by lives of the common faith and by the Eucharist received together.

So unless a couple obtains an annulment, the Church presumes that the husband is still married to his first wife; hence, any future relationships would be adulterous. In the annulment process, the couple works with Church officials and canon lawyers to investigate whether, for one reason or another, the marriage was never a valid marriage under God.

Even if there were children born to the couple during the years they were married, the marriage may be deemed invalid if certain conditions were not met:  If, for example, one spouse was already married to someone else, or one had no intention to remain faithful, or if one or both had no intent to welcome children.

But apart from a serious preexisting problem which prevents a valid marriage, the Church assumes that the couple are married, and that that marriage cannot be dissolved. The Catechism explains:

A valid marriage, even one marked by serious difficulties, could not be considered invalid without doing violence to the truth and  undermining thereby the only solid foundation which can support personal, marital and social life. A judge, therefore, must always be on guard against the risk of misplaced compassion, which would degenerate into sentimentality, itself only pastoral in appearance. The roads leading away from justice and truth end up in serving to distance people from God, thus yielding the opposite result from that which was sought in good faith.

WHO MAY RECEIVE THE EUCHARIST?

So the Church is telling you–Divorced and Remarried Man or Woman–that you cannot receive Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist?  How dare they?  Paraphrasing the oft-misunderstood words of Pope Francis, “Who are we to judge?”

Well, it’s like this: Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, warned in Chapter 11:29 that we must never eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily, lest we face damnation.  He writes:

For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

A person must be in a state of grace before he takes into his body the pure Body of Christ.  Of course, we are all sinners–and we acknowledge our weakness just before receiving the Eucharist, when we pray the words of the centurion from Matthew 8:8,

“Oh Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

But some of us–including those who persist in grave sin such as adultery–should not approach the altar, for fear of God’s judgment and in respect for the holiness of the sacrament. Louise Mensch, a divorced and remarried Catholic, wrote a frank response to Cardinal Kasper in the October 4 issue of The Spectator.  “Accept liberal arguments for the convenience of people like me,” she argues, “and you threaten the foundations of the Church.”   Mensch writes:

What Cardinal Kasper appears to want to do is to tempt a generation of people into weekly mortal sin. How is that merciful? How is that helping? Is it impossible for liberal theologians to combine their reforming fervour with actual logic? 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.

Mensch’s column is excellent.  You can read the rest of it here.

*     *     *     *     *

Of course, participants at the Synod on the Family will discuss other important issues, as well.  While no formal agenda has been released, we expect that the Synod will address the matters of same-sex relationships, grandparents and the extended family, single motherhood, the challenge of promoting monogamy in polygamous cultures, and more. As the Synod gets underway this weekend, let us join with Cardinal Burke in the prayer which he offers at the conclusion of his essay in Remaining in the Truth of Christ:

May God grant that the coming meeting of the Synod of Bishops lead to a new commitment to “justice and truth” that is the indispensable foundation of a deeper love of God and of one’s neighbor in the family and, from the family, in the whole Church.

 *     *     *     *     *

Ignatius Press, sponsor of the Tele-press Conference on September 30, has published four books which are of special interest to those who want to understand the Synod’s emphasis on the family.  The books, each of which was featured in Tuesday’s Tele-press Conference, are:

"I'll follow you over Kathy. I was probably in more sympathy with your point of ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"If you're at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Thank you, Mrs. Harris! Christmas blessings to you. I hope to see you over at ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."

Browse Our Archives



TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dan Bosun

    Raymond Burke is a problematic personality with a controversial background.

    • kag1982

      He is a snappy dresser however.

      • somnipod

        kag1982.. you hack… go back to national”Catholic” reporter comboxes… please!
        Your insults of everything traditional is pathetic and shows your disdain for the Church.

        • kag1982

          No.. It is so funny to hear you guys complain. And I am not sure how Cardinal Burke’s ridiculous dress is at all traditional or how my disgust with it “shoes” my disdain for the Church.

          • Salvelinus

            Somnipod is right. You are a liberal hack, kag1983. Your comment profile is clear, you are no friend of the Church.
            You should go back to wherever you came from, repent, and come back when you are actually Catholic.
            Pathetic….

          • kag1982

            Liberals are Catholics too.

          • kay1982: But cynics of the Church are not Catholic. They are called protestors, or Protestants.

          • kag1982

            So you would like to throw a vast majority of the Catholic Church, including everyone who rejects Humane Vitae out.

          • conservative5

            Yes

          • kag1982

            Those who desire to exclude and judge others will be judged and excluded by God I think.

          • squishee

            “There are many irresponsible teachers-men who are empty talkers and deceivers. These must be silenced. They are upsetting whole families by teaching things they have no right to teach-and all for sordid gain!” St. Paul to St. Timothy.

          • kag1982

            Yes, I don’t think that conservative Catholic laypeople are in a position to judge anyone or make solemn pronouncements on Church teachings. You are irresponsible teachers.

          • squishee

            You are correct. We just follow the catechism.

          • kag1982

            Neat. I’m glad that you are the final arbitrator of these things not the Pope

          • kag1982: I know you don’t get it, but for others reading: The church does judge by command of Christ to bind and loose, to forgive or retain sins. We are called to judge daily and not embrace sin. Mt 7 is directed at hypocrites. Judging doesn’t exclude us, unless we do it wrongly.

          • I guess that means you, kag. You’ve done your share of judging today.

          • kag1982

            No that means you. I’m not the one deciding who is or isn’t Catholic, you are. I’m fine with you receiving Communion and being part of the Church, but I ask that you stop with your obsession about the sex lives of others.

          • Athelstane

            I’d rather see them repent, and be saved.

            That’s what the Church is for.

          • kag1982

            Work on your own sins rather than acting as the Communion police and obsessing over the sins of others.

          • squishee

            ” when you forgive men’s sins, they are
            forgiven, when you hold them bound, they are held bound. John21: 20-23″

          • kag1982

            Great.. So you are declaring yourself Pope now.. Silly me. I thought that it was that nice elderly gentleman from Argentina.

          • squishee

            Obviously this discussion is way over your head.

          • Kag: Well, maybe when you stop judging us we’ll stop judging you.

          • kag1982

            I’m not the one whining about the possibility of remarried divorcees receiving Communion.

          • KAG1982: It has nothing to do with “me”…The church’s rules that if you disagree with the church’s teachings (including Humane Vitae) you’re not really Catholic. At some point it’s automatic excommunication. And yes, I agree, of THEIR volition, most are not Catholic, except in name only

          • kag1982

            So I think that judging others, which Jesus talks about quite often, isn’t a Christian trait. Perhaps, you should be excluded from the Church as well. Or perhaps rather than judging who pure someone is, you could just shut up, work on your own sins, and stop obsessing about the lives of others. This will all get sorted about by God on Judgment Day. There is no need for you to decide who is or isn’t going to Heaven earlier.

          • Kag: you’re equivocating. “Judge” can be used two different ways. We are constantly called by the Bible and Church to judge the difference from right and wrong, and judge who we associate with, and whether or not WE (ME) are subject to sin as a consequence of those associations. When we vote at the ballot box we are required to judge the values of others. You are doing it on this website and obviously believe you should be judging … me. We can’t judge others as God judges them, but we can and should judge their actions and not embrace evil as acceptable.

          • kag1982

            Remember that parable about not obsessing over the speck in one’s eye when you have a plank in your own. Perhaps meditate on that.

          • Kag, you mistake me for someone else. I’m a Catholic apologist defending what the church teaches. I’m not obsessing over other people’s sins, I’m defending the church’s teachings. How about you stop obsessing over the speck in my eye and look at the plank in yours.

          • kag1982

            Great and if the pope decides to show mercy to remarried then you will defense that.. Or not? you sure seem happy to kick people out of the Church.

          • I don’t have a problem with the pope showing mercy to remarry. If that is in his power (and it’s not me to judge that it is) he is head of the Church and I’ll follow. I do not want anyone kicked out of the church, but under canon law the individuals do that to themselves (automatically) by virtue of how canon law is written. I don’t want it to happen. I want people to be saved. I can’t judge, but I do trust the church by virtue of Christ’s claim that the H.S. will lead the church in to all truth until the end of time. My “opinion” is that I don’t expect the pope to make a change in canon law Ex Cathedra. We’ll see. this reminds me a bit of Humane Vitae was the consequence of people wanting the pope to change rules on contraception, but Paul VI said, “sorry, that’s not in my power…contraception is still wrong and here’s why.”

          • kag1982

            Given what Francis is getting up, if he doesn’t change anything, he should get rightly condemned for bringing this whole thing up in the first place. And Humane Vitae is a huge mistake and will be overturned and in my lifetime hopefully. Of course the lives of countless women will be ruined in the meantime.

          • Kag: LOL! Well, now we know you’re actually a protestant. And you’re whining because WE’RE judgmental???? The pot calling the kettle black. Thanks, You’ve given me more fodder for my book. Beautiful, just beautiful. Let me suggest you change our sign on to: CatholicAndHatingIt. Or, how about MoralRelativeCatholic. LOL!

          • KAG: When and what pope has EVER overturned a doctrine of the church? That will give you the date you’re looking for when HV will be overturned. LOL! SMILE! Do you even realize that HV did NOT change doctrine, but only reinforced it? Doctrine in Catholicism does not change. That’s why it’s Roman Catholic.

          • Salvelinus

            “You guys”… as in Catholics,

          • kag1982

            No. Just the Pharisees that like condemning those that aren’t as perfect as they are and denying them Communion.

          • Athelstane

            “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

            Your real problem is with Christ, I’m afraid.

          • kag1982

            So you think that a marriage where the husband regularly beats his wife is a manifestation of God’s grace.

          • Mike

            Excuse me but i feel your frustration but the trads have a valid point in that if you feel that strongly about communion wouldn’t it make sense for you to join a more fitting church? like one of the many liberal protestant ones and start the work of building it up?

            I mean look if i really disagreed with the church’s doctrine that say black men were not being called to the priesthood i wouldn’t yell and denounce i’d switch churches tomorrow…my point? i LOOKS more like you’re trying to TEAR DOWN rather than BUILD up…do you know what i mean?

          • kag1982

            “Excuse me but i feel your frustration but the trads have a valid point in that if you feel that strongly about communion wouldn’t it make sense for you to join a more fitting church?”

            I have contemplated many times joining the Episcopalian Church, but I remain Catholic because of the Eucharist. Liberal Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence and therefore don’t have a valid Eucharist, although the Episcopalians and Lutherans might. This is why I feel the policy of the Catholic Church toward remarried divorcees is so sad because the Church is denying these people the presence of Christ through the Eucharist.

            “I mean look if i really disagreed with the church’s doctrine that say black men were not being called to the priesthood i wouldn’t yell and denounce i’d switch churches tomorrow…my point? i LOOKS more like you’re trying to TEAR DOWN rather than BUILD up…do you know what i mean?”

            If the Catholic Church was that racist, I’d likely switch churches but I would also feel necessary to criticize the Church as a former member. Even if I decided to leave the Catholic Church, I’d still be highly critical of its family policies, which are legalistic and anti-woman and have hurt many people. And reformers have to tear down old legalistic structures, like the bureaucratic annulment process, in order to build up new pastoral ministries in their place.

          • Mike

            it still seems to me like you’re allowing your hatred to fuel you instead of letting go of it and building up in love…can you see that? i mean i disagree with the liberal protestant churches i think they harm women and families but i don’t go in their blogs and insult them.

          • kag1982

            I think that demanding that the Church deny a fellow Catholic the Eucharist and essentially ostracizing them from the Church is an act of hatred on the part of conservative Catholics. It just seems that they have such glee over the fact that their fellow Catholics are excluded from the Church’s Sacramental life. I get divorced Catholics with an annulment being angry about why remarried divorcees might get an easier pass, but I do not get why happily married people or unmarried people would be upset about this. Are evil adulterers crashing your precious country club? Is there a sense of superiority that you feel the need to maintain on this?

            I thought that people would rejoice in the fact that Pope Francis is looking into this and would think that it was wonderful for many remarried couples. I’m truly shocked that laypeople (and not just legalistic bishops like Burke) are against reforming the current legalistic process that we already have. It just goes to show how truly uncaring some people can be.

          • Mike

            Have you EVER considered the possibility that you just are wrong on this issue? Never mind don’t answer but look you seem full up of Hate, and that is in itself un christian and just plain ugly.

            My advice: build up your church with love and caring and see the fruit of your labor and STOP hating others for being different and for thinking differently.

          • kag1982

            Why do you want to deny others the Eucharist? Why do you want to kick remarried divorcees out of the Church? Please just explain this to me in plain English. I don’t want to deny anyone including Cardinal Burke the Eucharist; I just want him fired from his current job. I think that we are all sinners and God will sort it out when we die. I don’t think that anyone should be excluded from Communion and I definitely don’t think that conservative Catholic bloggers should get to decide this.

          • Mike

            Read the catechism if you like but stop bullying ppl who disagree; you’re free to join any church you like but start building up instead of tearing other ppl down.

          • kag1982

            Yes, I understand what the current Catechism says, but isn’t it great that the Pope wishes to find a way to allow remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist. What confuses me is why conservative Catholics aren’t rejoicing at this development. And don’t you think that remarried Catholics feel torn down by their fellow Catholics who wish to ostracize them and make them second class Catholics. Why do you wish to tear your fellow Catholics down rather than rejoicing in the fact that the Church wishes to help them?

          • Mike

            You’re bullying us ppl who disagree with you by calling us names…pls for your own sanity stop it and fill yourself up with hope for your view of things and get out there get your hands dirty and start the difficult work of building up the liberal church.

            all the best.

          • kag1982

            Why do you wish to exclude your fellow Catholics from Communion? Why aren’t you happy that Pope Francis is committed to helping them return to the Church and receive the Sacrament? And there are millions of Catholics who wish to remain Catholic but may have made a mistake with their personal life. Why don’t you wish to welcome them back rather than pushing them out?

          • Mike

            you’re bullying me right now by ascribing the worst motives to me; you’re denigrating me as a person by trying to equate me with ppl fueled by hate.

          • kag1982

            No. I’d like to know why you wish to exclude your fellow Catholics from the Eucharist. I don’t think that this is “bullying.” I think that it is awful that these people are ostracized for making one mistake.

          • Mike

            You’re still doing it.

          • kag1982

            Just answer the question.

          • Mike

            You already know the answer you want to hear; anyone who disagrees with you can be justly hated; that’s really hate you have in your heart; shame on you!

          • kag1982

            No. I’m just wondering why you aren’t happy that Pope Francis is trying to find a way to help remarried divorcees feel more welcome in the Church. I certainly am.

          • Mike

            You don’t seem happy you seem angry and full of hate for ppl who you disagree with…but enough of this.

            Look pray for catholics don’t call them names!

          • kag1982

            I don’t hate conservative Catholics. I just want to stop them from denying other Catholics the Sacraments.

          • Mike

            Then practice what you preach.

          • kag1982

            I’m not demanding that anyone be denied Communion and I’m not demanding that anyone be thrown out of the Catholic Church.

          • Mike

            Good…take care and pray for your enemies.

    • somnipod

      How so?
      It’s orthodoxy “problematic”?

    • Salvelinus

      Go back to DNC headquarters…

    • Dan, where is the problem or controversy in the eyes of the Church? Can you cite an example where Raymond Burke has violated his covenant of obedience to Church teaching? If not, then we must assume you personally don’t like his interpretation of Church teaching.

    • 1crappie2

      Personal attacks as deflection from the serious issue and evil no longer work.

  • captcrisis

    Will Love win? Or Obedience? Stay tuned!

    • Only Satan could come up with a slogan that deranged.

    • Love and obedience are not mutually exclusive, although moral relativists would have us think so. “In the name of love, tell a lie.” Duh!

    • Mike Blackadder

      Wow, that’s a disturbing dichotomy.

    • squishee

      “If you love me you will obey my commands.” John 17

  • Guest

    Sometimes there are elements that have the temerity to orbiculate a matter, to try and up the ante and make a longstanding accepted tenet of the faith now a matter for contention. But this action only serves to obfuscate the issue at hand and the net resultant outcome is that some bystanders be they media or others, then seek to expound upon and exploit the situation for gain! But this pother , this unnecessary commotion is ludicrous. Then a wise head steps forward to save the day, to defuse the issue, to break the impasse, to impart a clarity and a way forward that renders an optimal outcome. Thankfully His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Person is that sagacious person that acts to end the imbroglio!

    • Guest: Can you write in more common terms. I’m a writer with a good vocabulary, but I have no idea what you just said…and I am interested.

  • stephen ryan

    The author writes that under certain conditions: “If, for example, one spouse was already married to someone else, or one had no intention to remain faithful,” one can can consider annulment. Huh? This a big reason many people get divorced. It seems Cd Burke wants to maintain his right to grind people through an annulment – basically favoring people with money to work the system in order to receive communion, Pope Francis sees through this control freak hypocrisy,

    • kag1982

      Yes.. Ray is getting fired from his job soon.

      • kathyschiffer

        That’s “Cardinal Burke”, kag. Your disrespect is not cute, it shows a side of you you’d probably want to cover.

        • kag1982

          Hey. Well Burke is nasty and mean to lots of people and therefore doesn’t deserve such respect. Ask St. Stanislaus.

          • Mike

            Dude just bc he may be rude doesn’t mean you should be rude to him as well; that’s certainly not christian.

          • kag1982

            Oh, I am shedding crocodile tears over this. Just like we all shed crocodile tears when the high school bully gets his or her comeuppance. Ray Burke has had a charmed career bullying and brown nosing his way to the top and has finally met a boss who isn’t that fond of him or his style. I hope that he enjoys being the head of the Order of Malta.

          • Mike

            ok so you hate the guy ok, all the best.

          • kag1982

            I’m not a fan of bullies.. You?

          • Mike

            i think you’re probably a bully.

          • kag1982

            No.. but I’ve experienced lots of bullies like Burke in my time as a Catholic. The stories that I have about awful priests and conservative Catholic laypeople can fill a good sized book. I was even bullied to the point of a nervous breakdown as a twelve year old in Catholic school by children of prominent parish members while the good priests, nuns, and pious Catholic teachers did absolutely nothing. So excuse me if I don’t enjoy the fact that a prominent bully is finally experiencing a karma payback.

          • Mike

            You’re allowing your hatred to control you! Don’t!

          • kag1982

            Look in the mirror before you counsel others. Heck, go to some of the traditionalist blogs if you want to see hatred. I’d recommend starting with “Father” Z’s site. Don’t accuse me of being a bully. I know exactly who the bullies in the Catholic Church are.

          • Mike

            You seem bent on hating others for disagreeing with you; that is textbook bully.

          • kag1982

            No. I am bent on disliking and stopping others that seem to wish to ostracize and bully their fellow Catholics.

          • Mike

            No i think you’re a bully.

          • kag1982

            We disagree on this. I think bullies are those who are preventing their fellow Catholics from receiving the Sacraments.

          • Mike

            Yes but i don’t call ppl names you do.

    • The “bullys,” Stephen? Then Our Lord was also a “bully.”

      An annulment is not a divorce. An annulment states there never was a valid marriage in the fist place. A divorce strives in vain to tear something apart that no man can tear apart, for God has joined it.

      • stephen ryan

        what i am saying is that wealthy people have an easier time getting an annulment.. Very susceptible to corruption

        • I am no expert on the current state of annulments, but I am certainly offended when I see Catholics attacking a good Cardinal who simply is defending the indissolubility of marriage.

          • stephen ryan

            “indissolubility ” I am not sure what this means of one can get an annulment. What I do know is some of the Kennedys got annulments because they had power and money. A good friend of mine died recently. He went to Mass almost every Sunday. He was remarried and so he never took communion.

        • kathyschiffer

          Here in the Archdiocese of Detroit, there is no longer any charge for an annulment. With the desire to avoid the situation you cite–in which a wealthier person would find it easier to pay for an annulment, the archdiocese covers the cost of the staff, canon lawyers, and extensive work required.

          Easy to shoot off criticisms. Better to learn your subject.

          • stephen ryan

            Is your statement “or one had no intention to remain faithful” one can get an annulment, accurate?

          • kag1982

            Wealthy people still have more connections and more ability to grease the wheels than average people. Not to mention checks to the bishop’s favorite charity or cathedral fund.

          • kathyschiffer

            Yes, it is. Having an affair does not qualify one for annulment. If, however, the Church determines that one of the parties had never intended to be monogamous–had a girlfriend or girlfriends on the side, for example–then the marriage would be declared invalid.

            A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

          • stephen ryan

            i would like to apologise for my incendiary language in my post (bad habit) but I stand by my point that Cd. Burke is well known for criticizing others and now that he is under criticisms by some in the Vatican who out rank him suddenly we see folks coming to his defense saying it is unfair to criticize him. My views tend to be more in line with the Pope;s yet I feel that view is somehow in error.

    • Athelstane

      …basically favoring people with money to work the system

      Every diocese I know of institutes partial and full waivers of annulment process fees for economic hardship. Money should never be a bar to exploring the annulment process.

      • stephen ryan

        can you get an annulment if a spouse is unfaithful?

        • Cheating is not grounds for annulment.

          • stephen ryan

            That is what i thought but this article says otherwise unless I am missreading which is very possible

  • Catherine Kennedy

    Sometimes there are those that orbiculate a matter, to try and up the ante and make a longstanding accepted tenet of the faith ,,now a matter for contention. But this action only serves to obfuscate the issue at hand and the net resultant outcome is that some bystanders be they media or others, then seek to extrapolate and exploit the situation for gain! But this pother , this unnecessary commotion is ludicrous. Then a wise head steps forward to save the day, to defuse the issue, to act as a circuit breaker, to impart a clarity and a way forward that renders an optimal outcome. Thankfully His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke is
    that sagacious person that acts to end the imbroglio!
    5 mins · Edited · Like

  • There seems to be a moral dilemma here. If a person is legally married in the eyes of the church and an annulment is not possible, but they divorce and remarry and are thus not welcome at communion, does this mean they “have no life within them?” (John 6:53: “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” ) This suggests there is no salvation for the person living in such a state.

    • Athelstane

      I think the bigger question for their possible salvation is their ongoing, unrepented sin of their current relationship, which is adulterous in the understanding of Christ and the eyes of the Church.

      • Athelstane: Yes, you’re correct. But what I can’t figure out is that an annulment requires both spouses be involved, and if one is unreachable, then that leaves the remaining spouse in a single state with no recourse. It seems there should be recourse for such a person through confession, not cannon law.

  • Adultery is a mortal sin. Unrepented mortal sin causes damnation. I find it a mere euphemism to, instead of that plain truth, simply refer to those in a state of adultery as “inadmissible to Communion.”

  • conservative5

    There is no way to dissuade some on this blog as they argue with hate. If the Catholic Church does not change to suit their progressive liberal ideas than those who believe in the Magisterium of the Church are stupid and uninformed. You are correct Kay, God will decide!!

  • jenny

    I hope that Cardinal Kasper will help mend broken families ….

  • John Morrisey

    I am not sure what archaic time that Cardinal Burke is residing, but it is in a time that is irrelevant to the modern world, or the modern church. Firstly, a marriage that is eligible for annulment is determined as such by an investigation conducted by mortal man (and women). It violates the inner sanctum of personal privacy and concerns itself with matters external to the marriage. But, the most vulgar of the insensitivity of the subject is the fact that a monetary amount is levied against the individuals involved to be eligible for the matter to be investigated. In Australia, it is the equivalent of one’s single gross wage – in my case that would mean an expenditure of almost $AUD 2,000.00. This is not justice within the church, this is a tax! My civil decree necis and decree absolute only cost $AUD154.00. You pay and you may obtain an annulment, you don’t pay and you do not get the chance and allegedly damned for all eternity…

    What a load of rubbish and one of the reasons many turn from the church. I fortunately, have turned to the church for solice and comfort and I am content that I had lived in a charade that masked itself as a marriage but that through circumstance beyond my control was forced into civil divorce by the actions of my former spouse. My former spouse never intended to have children, despite her vows at Gods Alter and she became involved in what I suspect was a long term extra-marital affair and only decided to terminate our marriage when I inadvertently caught her out in conversation at 3am one morning… in a moment our charade of a marriage at her demand was over, no ifs not buts no wherefores about it! To no avail I fought to save that charade. I subsequently found my soul mate (given to me by God) and we have two beautiful children and one angel in heaven. More importantly, we live Gods will and we practice our faith. I will continue to live in communion with Gods church and no mortal man will dictate that I am not entitled to. This is a matter between God and I (and my family) and I am content in the truth.

    It is about time that the church re-evaluate its position on this most sensitive part of its community. There appears to be no issue with a priest leaving his holy office and marrying – however the church’s position is simple (and correct) Once a Priest always a Priest, but the church does not stand in the way of the priest (or other religious order member) defrocking and returning to civil life and entering marriage.

    Finally, the church only holds to this archaic and hypocritical position those that have married within the church. If one was fortunate to marry within another denomination or to marry civilly, then according to Cannon Law they were never legitimately married and therefore can join in communion with the church regardless of how many civilly legal marriages that they have entered into.

    As Christ said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…” No one in this conversation can!

  • jeanO

    Jesus said not to divorce. I did. I went wrong. Like the prodigal son I crawled back. Through the annulment process. I begged for my spiritual life, humiliated. The process required me to to ask witnesses…my most supportive loved ones to pour out their hearts before God, for me. They did, at an emotional cost. Difficult, yet this reconciliation process is necessary. Healing happens with a heart full of truth that can be faced with church support. We need to maintain the rigors of the failed marriage reconciliation process through annulment but remove the burden of monetary requirements. The fruit of reconciliation through annulment in me and my husband’s life is this: Two souls coming into full communion in the church through RCIA, (my husband and stepdaughter) our con-validated marriage, two young men confirmed (my sons) and the witness of my family ay Mass every week.

  • 1crappie2

    I found that few of these modernists have ever bothered to read the beautiful theology of marriage put forth by Pope Leo XIII on Christian Marriage. Little in that synod’s supposedly “working document” would pass the simplist of true Catholic filters.
    Why discuss immutable error as possibly not? Gradualness? How about the ten evolving commandments while they’re at it?
    Isn’t this synod really in the ludicrous position of debating the value of a sacrament?
    Isn’t the target, the Eucharist?