(Catholic Herald) Pope Francis has approved new provisions that make it possible for
marriages celebrated by Society of St Pius X (SSPX) priests to be
recognised as valid.
In a letter approved by Pope Francis, Cardinal Gerhard Müller wrote:
“Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the
conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the
canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St
Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical
Commission, Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorise Local Ordinaries the
possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of
faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society...” (continued)
Link:
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Friday, November 18, 2016
Pope criticises ‘legalism’ after cardinals’ request for clarification
By Staff Reporter
(Catholic Herald) The debate over Amoris Laetitia has intensified, after Pope Francis suggested that some responses do not understand the document.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Avvenire, partially translated by La Stampa, the Pope criticised “a certain legalism.” He said that responses to Amoris Laetitia exemplified this, and that some people thought issues were “black and white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern”.
The Pope added: “The Council told us this, but historians say that a century needs to pass before a Council is properly assimilated into the body of the Church… we are half way.”
It comes after four senior cardinals asked the Pope to clarify Amoris Laetitia. In a letter to the Pope, Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner submitted five “dubia” – a traditional way of asking for clarification.
The cardinals asked the Pope whether certain Church teachings about Communion and the moral law, which Amoris Laetitia discusses ambiguously, are still valid.
These included the doctrine that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion unless living as brother and sister, and the doctrine that some acts are intrinsically wrong.
The submission of “dubia” invites a yes-or-no answer. In this case, it was a question of whether the Pope thought some teachings, especially Catholic doctrine on the moral law, should still be regarded as true.
The letter was sent in September, but the Pope has not replied. The cardinals said they took this as an invitation to publish the letter and let the debate continue in public.
In an interview with the Vatican journalist Edward Pentin, Cardinal Burke said that if the Pope remained silent, it might be necessary to issue a “formal act of correction of a serious error”.
Pentin told EWTN yesterday: “I do understand, from sources within [the Pope’s residence] Santa Marta, that the Pope is not happy at all, that he’s quite at his…boiling with rage.” Fr Antonio Spadaro, an associate of the Pope, has dismissed these reports...
Meanwhile, two American archbishops have clashed over implementation of Amoris Laetitia.
Archbishop Charles Chaput has issued guidelines for his own archdiocese of Philadelphia, in which he says that the divorced and remarried should be treated with mercy. He also restates the Church’s teaching that they may not receive Communion unless they endeavour to live as brother and sister.
In an interview with Catholic News Service, Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell criticised the guidelines, saying: “I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no...” (continued)
Link:
Related:
(Catholic Herald) The debate over Amoris Laetitia has intensified, after Pope Francis suggested that some responses do not understand the document.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Avvenire, partially translated by La Stampa, the Pope criticised “a certain legalism.” He said that responses to Amoris Laetitia exemplified this, and that some people thought issues were “black and white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern”.
The Pope added: “The Council told us this, but historians say that a century needs to pass before a Council is properly assimilated into the body of the Church… we are half way.”
It comes after four senior cardinals asked the Pope to clarify Amoris Laetitia. In a letter to the Pope, Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner submitted five “dubia” – a traditional way of asking for clarification.
The cardinals asked the Pope whether certain Church teachings about Communion and the moral law, which Amoris Laetitia discusses ambiguously, are still valid.
These included the doctrine that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion unless living as brother and sister, and the doctrine that some acts are intrinsically wrong.
The submission of “dubia” invites a yes-or-no answer. In this case, it was a question of whether the Pope thought some teachings, especially Catholic doctrine on the moral law, should still be regarded as true.
The letter was sent in September, but the Pope has not replied. The cardinals said they took this as an invitation to publish the letter and let the debate continue in public.
In an interview with the Vatican journalist Edward Pentin, Cardinal Burke said that if the Pope remained silent, it might be necessary to issue a “formal act of correction of a serious error”.
Pentin told EWTN yesterday: “I do understand, from sources within [the Pope’s residence] Santa Marta, that the Pope is not happy at all, that he’s quite at his…boiling with rage.” Fr Antonio Spadaro, an associate of the Pope, has dismissed these reports...
Meanwhile, two American archbishops have clashed over implementation of Amoris Laetitia.
Archbishop Charles Chaput has issued guidelines for his own archdiocese of Philadelphia, in which he says that the divorced and remarried should be treated with mercy. He also restates the Church’s teaching that they may not receive Communion unless they endeavour to live as brother and sister.
In an interview with Catholic News Service, Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell criticised the guidelines, saying: “I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no...” (continued)
Link:
Related:
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Pope Francis declines to answer four cardinals’ Amoris appeal
The cardinals have taken the unusual step of publicly requesting clarification on Communion and the moral law
By Dan Hitchens
(Catholic Herald) Pope Francis has declined to answer an official appeal from four cardinals to clarify his recent apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner sent a request for clarification to the Pope in September. They received an acknowledgment but no reply, which they said they have taken as “an invitation to continue … the discussion, calmly, and with respect”, by making the appeal public. It is highly unusual for cardinals to take such a step.
The letter takes the traditional form of asking theological “dubia” – questions to the Holy See which ask for a yes/no ruling on doctrinal matters. The cardinals’ dubia relate to the sacraments, and to absolute moral norms.
The first of the dubia asks whether “it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio [as husband and wife] without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio”.
In Familiaris Consortio St John Paul II reaffirmed the Church’s practice of not admitting the remarried to Communion if they are still in a sexual relationship with their new partner.
The other four dubia relate to actions which Catholic teaching considers “intrinsically evil”. The cardinals ask whether there are still “absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions”, and whether those who habitually commit these acts are “in an objective situation of grave habitual sin”.
It also asks whether St John Paul II’s teaching in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor is still valid: that, in the words of the encyclical, “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”.
Finally, the cardinals ask whether Catholics should still follow Veritatis Splendor’s teaching on conscience: that, as the cardinals paraphrase it, “conscience can never be authorised to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object”.
The cardinals say that the letter should not be seen as a “conservative” attack on “progressives”. They say they are motivated by their concern for “the true good of souls” and their “deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope”.
The cardinals refer to “grave disorientation and great confusion” among Catholics, including bishops, about “extremely important matters”... (continued)
Link:
By Dan Hitchens
(Catholic Herald) Pope Francis has declined to answer an official appeal from four cardinals to clarify his recent apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner sent a request for clarification to the Pope in September. They received an acknowledgment but no reply, which they said they have taken as “an invitation to continue … the discussion, calmly, and with respect”, by making the appeal public. It is highly unusual for cardinals to take such a step.
The letter takes the traditional form of asking theological “dubia” – questions to the Holy See which ask for a yes/no ruling on doctrinal matters. The cardinals’ dubia relate to the sacraments, and to absolute moral norms.
The first of the dubia asks whether “it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio [as husband and wife] without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio”.
In Familiaris Consortio St John Paul II reaffirmed the Church’s practice of not admitting the remarried to Communion if they are still in a sexual relationship with their new partner.
The other four dubia relate to actions which Catholic teaching considers “intrinsically evil”. The cardinals ask whether there are still “absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions”, and whether those who habitually commit these acts are “in an objective situation of grave habitual sin”.
It also asks whether St John Paul II’s teaching in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor is still valid: that, in the words of the encyclical, “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”.
Finally, the cardinals ask whether Catholics should still follow Veritatis Splendor’s teaching on conscience: that, as the cardinals paraphrase it, “conscience can never be authorised to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object”.
The cardinals say that the letter should not be seen as a “conservative” attack on “progressives”. They say they are motivated by their concern for “the true good of souls” and their “deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope”.
The cardinals refer to “grave disorientation and great confusion” among Catholics, including bishops, about “extremely important matters”... (continued)
Link:
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Pope, ending synod, excoriates bishops with 'closed hearts'
By Philip Pullella
(Reuters) Pope Francis, ending a contentious bishops' meeting on family issues, on Saturday excoriated immovable Church leaders who "bury their heads in the sand" and hide behind rigid doctrine while families suffer...
In his final address, the pope appeared to criticize ultra-conservatives, saying Church leaders should confront difficult issues "fearlessly, without burying our heads in the sand."
He said the synod had "laid bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church's teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families"...
The synod document did offer some hope for the full re-integration into the Church of some Catholics who divorce and remarry in civil ceremonies.
Under current Church doctrine they cannot receive communion unless they abstain from sex with their new partner, because their first marriage is still valid in the eyes of the Church and they are seen to be living in an adulterous state of sin.
They only way such Catholics can remarry is if they receive an annulment, a ruling that their first marriage never existed in the first place because of the lack of certain pre-requisites such as psychological maturity or free will.
The document spoke of a so-called "internal forum" in which a priest or a bishop may work with a Catholic who has divorced and remarried to decide jointly, privately and on a case-by-case basis if he or she can be fully re-integrated.
"In order for this happen, the necessary conditions of humility, discretion, love for the Church and her teachings must be guaranteed in a sincere search for God's will," the document said.
Tally sheets showed that the three articles on the divorced and re-married were the most fought-over, reaching the two-thirds majority needed to remain in the document by only a few votes each. One passed by only one vote... (continued)
(Reuters) Pope Francis, ending a contentious bishops' meeting on family issues, on Saturday excoriated immovable Church leaders who "bury their heads in the sand" and hide behind rigid doctrine while families suffer...
In his final address, the pope appeared to criticize ultra-conservatives, saying Church leaders should confront difficult issues "fearlessly, without burying our heads in the sand."
He said the synod had "laid bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church's teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families"...
The synod document did offer some hope for the full re-integration into the Church of some Catholics who divorce and remarry in civil ceremonies.
Under current Church doctrine they cannot receive communion unless they abstain from sex with their new partner, because their first marriage is still valid in the eyes of the Church and they are seen to be living in an adulterous state of sin.
They only way such Catholics can remarry is if they receive an annulment, a ruling that their first marriage never existed in the first place because of the lack of certain pre-requisites such as psychological maturity or free will.
The document spoke of a so-called "internal forum" in which a priest or a bishop may work with a Catholic who has divorced and remarried to decide jointly, privately and on a case-by-case basis if he or she can be fully re-integrated.
"In order for this happen, the necessary conditions of humility, discretion, love for the Church and her teachings must be guaranteed in a sincere search for God's will," the document said.
Tally sheets showed that the three articles on the divorced and re-married were the most fought-over, reaching the two-thirds majority needed to remain in the document by only a few votes each. One passed by only one vote... (continued)
Monday, September 7, 2015
Pope Francis Reforms Roman Catholic Marriage Annulment Procedures
(Reuters) VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis has reformed the Roman Catholic Church's cumbersome procedures for marriage annulments, a decision keenly awaited by many couples around the world who have divorced and remarried outside the church.
The Vatican said Monday that the pope had written a document known as a Motu Proprio, Latin for "by his own initiative," which changes the way Catholics get annulments.
The details of the document, which is expected to streamline and simplify the procedure, will be released Tuesday at a Vatican news conference.
An annulment, formally known as a "decree of nullity," is a ruling that a marriage was not valid according to church law because certain prerequisites, such as free will, psychological maturity and openness to having children, were lacking.
The 1.2 billion-member church does not recognize divorce. Catholics who divorce and remarry outside the church in civil services are considered to be still married to their first spouses and living in a state of sin. This bars them from receiving sacraments such as communion.
The new procedures follow the pope's appointment a year ago of an 11-member commission of lawyers and theologians to propose reform of the process. The Vatican said at the time that he wanted to "simplify and streamline" the procedure while "safeguarding the principle of the indissolubility of marriage."
The situation of divorced and remarried Catholics who want to fully participate in the church is a topic of great debate, particularly in countries such as the U.S. and Germany, and it will be a main topic at a synod of bishops from around the world at the Vatican next month.
Making it easier for divorced couples to receive annulments would allow them to return to the sacraments.
Progressive bishops want the church to be more merciful toward Catholics whose first marriages have failed.
One Vatican expert on marriage annulments said that the new rules would not change the criteria for getting annulments but that they would make the procedures easier.
Link:
Friday, June 12, 2015
A “still small voice” that does not fade away
By Father George Rutler
A young city boy on his first camping trip awoke his father at dawn and
said, as he gazed out of his tent, “Look, Dad, the sun is rising just
like on TV.” Our present generation, of which we are privileged to be a
laggard part, does not find it easy to distinguish actuality from
artifice. In the background is a reluctance to acknowledge that an
impression of reality is not the same as reality itself. This is
symptomatic of what Pope Benedict XVI called the “dictatorship of
relativism.”
By that he meant the notion absorbed by people bereft of logic, that what one wants something to be, comes to be simply by the wanting. This has immediate and desultory influence on moral conduct. So, like the little boy who thought that the real sun looked like the cartoon sun on television (or, like the nice woman who told me that the altar flowers were so lovely that she though they were artificial), people may reject the concrete facts of nature and posture that their desires are legitimate just because they are desired. A lurid example of this is the redefinition of marriage to make that organic and divine institution nothing more than a fantasy of one’s arrested emotional development, the product of a plebiscite, and the opinion of judges in solemn robes. Polls and parliaments are willing tyrants when the mob consents to be tyrannized by their opinions and decrees.
G.K. Chesterton gently slapped his readers back to reality from egoistic comas when he wrote in his A Short History of England: “To have the right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” So when someone says, “I am free to do what I want with my body,” you may be impelled by charity and justice to reply that he is indeed so free, but if he defies the law of gravity, the pavement quickly will be of a different opinion, and if he says there is no difference between a man and a woman, two shades named Adam and Eve will rise up with mocking smiles.
Those who have long sipped the intoxicating nectar of false perception may hesitate to draw a line between desire and dogma, fabrication and fact. If reality is nothing more than the visible costume of an impression, impressive tyrants will orchestrate that fantasy from their balconies, with rhetoric to mold malleable minds. The long legacy of demagoguery attests that weak points persuade people if the points are shouted loudly enough to overwhelm reason. Opinion polls shout, and network “talking heads” shout, and Internet pundits shout, but then there is a “still small voice” that does not fade away: the long and logical echo of “Fiat Lux” uttered by the real Creator of the real universe.
Link:
By that he meant the notion absorbed by people bereft of logic, that what one wants something to be, comes to be simply by the wanting. This has immediate and desultory influence on moral conduct. So, like the little boy who thought that the real sun looked like the cartoon sun on television (or, like the nice woman who told me that the altar flowers were so lovely that she though they were artificial), people may reject the concrete facts of nature and posture that their desires are legitimate just because they are desired. A lurid example of this is the redefinition of marriage to make that organic and divine institution nothing more than a fantasy of one’s arrested emotional development, the product of a plebiscite, and the opinion of judges in solemn robes. Polls and parliaments are willing tyrants when the mob consents to be tyrannized by their opinions and decrees.
G.K. Chesterton gently slapped his readers back to reality from egoistic comas when he wrote in his A Short History of England: “To have the right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” So when someone says, “I am free to do what I want with my body,” you may be impelled by charity and justice to reply that he is indeed so free, but if he defies the law of gravity, the pavement quickly will be of a different opinion, and if he says there is no difference between a man and a woman, two shades named Adam and Eve will rise up with mocking smiles.
Those who have long sipped the intoxicating nectar of false perception may hesitate to draw a line between desire and dogma, fabrication and fact. If reality is nothing more than the visible costume of an impression, impressive tyrants will orchestrate that fantasy from their balconies, with rhetoric to mold malleable minds. The long legacy of demagoguery attests that weak points persuade people if the points are shouted loudly enough to overwhelm reason. Opinion polls shout, and network “talking heads” shout, and Internet pundits shout, but then there is a “still small voice” that does not fade away: the long and logical echo of “Fiat Lux” uttered by the real Creator of the real universe.
Link:
Monday, June 8, 2015
US Woman to Marry Swiss Guard in Rome; Pope Tells Them ‘Have a Lot of Children’
How a Novena and God’s Providence Led to the Blessed Meeting — and Engagement
By EMILY BRANDENBURG
(National Catholic Register) Huntington Beach, Calif. — She was 29 years old with a dream to see Italy before she turned 30.
So Miranda Emde convinced her mother, Martha, to go with her, and off they went. In October 2013, they toured Rome, Milan, Venice and Assisi for three weeks. But Miranda fell in love with Rome. She went to Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica every day while she was there — and she didn’t want to leave.
The day before they were to return home to California, Miranda had an idea. “I’m single still. What if I could live here [in Rome] for six months and do something for the Vatican?”
She and her mom asked around, but ended up wasting a few hours without finding out how to get a job at the Holy See. At that point, Miranda wanted to give up. “I said, ‘Let’s just go back to the hotel.’ My mom said, ‘No we are getting the information before we leave. We are going to walk by St. Anne’s Gate. Talk to the Swiss Guard who is there.”
When “she feels strongly about something, you just listen to her,” Miranda said of her mom. Father Angelo Sebastian, who aids orphanages in his native India and is a friend of Miranda and her family, describes her as “St. Martha” who prays several Rosaries a day and is a “very faithful and holy woman.”
“So I’m like, ‘Okay.’ As I’m just looking over, I see Jonathan,” Miranda recalled. So she went over to Jonathan Binaghi, a Vatican Swiss Guard, introduced herself, and asked, “I’m visiting Rome and curious about opportunities at the Vatican in marketing and communications.”
They only talked a few minutes, as he was busy talking with other people as part of his duties. But he was extremely helpful and gave her contact information of several individuals who could help her with her job search.
“I could tell he wanted to talk more. Towards the end, he said, ‘I get off work at 8. Can you meet for dinner?’ And I turned him down. I said, ‘Sorry, we have to be up so early [for our flight.]’ He wrote down his contact information.”
The helpful Swiss Guard made quite the impression on her. “We felt a spark [and] observing him in those couple minutes, I picked up something different — how he handled people,” she recalled. “He’s so kind — very kind and dignified. His presence is just not what you see all the time.”
Miranda remembers walking away and joking with her mom, “Oh, I think I just fell in love! What are the chances?” (continued)
Link:
By EMILY BRANDENBURG
So Miranda Emde convinced her mother, Martha, to go with her, and off they went. In October 2013, they toured Rome, Milan, Venice and Assisi for three weeks. But Miranda fell in love with Rome. She went to Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica every day while she was there — and she didn’t want to leave.
The day before they were to return home to California, Miranda had an idea. “I’m single still. What if I could live here [in Rome] for six months and do something for the Vatican?”
She and her mom asked around, but ended up wasting a few hours without finding out how to get a job at the Holy See. At that point, Miranda wanted to give up. “I said, ‘Let’s just go back to the hotel.’ My mom said, ‘No we are getting the information before we leave. We are going to walk by St. Anne’s Gate. Talk to the Swiss Guard who is there.”
When “she feels strongly about something, you just listen to her,” Miranda said of her mom. Father Angelo Sebastian, who aids orphanages in his native India and is a friend of Miranda and her family, describes her as “St. Martha” who prays several Rosaries a day and is a “very faithful and holy woman.”
“So I’m like, ‘Okay.’ As I’m just looking over, I see Jonathan,” Miranda recalled. So she went over to Jonathan Binaghi, a Vatican Swiss Guard, introduced herself, and asked, “I’m visiting Rome and curious about opportunities at the Vatican in marketing and communications.”
They only talked a few minutes, as he was busy talking with other people as part of his duties. But he was extremely helpful and gave her contact information of several individuals who could help her with her job search.
“I could tell he wanted to talk more. Towards the end, he said, ‘I get off work at 8. Can you meet for dinner?’ And I turned him down. I said, ‘Sorry, we have to be up so early [for our flight.]’ He wrote down his contact information.”
The helpful Swiss Guard made quite the impression on her. “We felt a spark [and] observing him in those couple minutes, I picked up something different — how he handled people,” she recalled. “He’s so kind — very kind and dignified. His presence is just not what you see all the time.”
Miranda remembers walking away and joking with her mom, “Oh, I think I just fell in love! What are the chances?” (continued)
Link:
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Texas AG: Same-sex marriage is void
(KVUE) AUSTIN -- Hours after the Travis County clerk issued the state's first same-sex marriage license, Texas' attorney general said the marriage is void.
Attorney General Ken Paxton said Thursday the Texas Supreme Court granted his request to stay two court rulings declaring Texas' ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
"The Court's action upholds our state constitution and stays these rulings by activist judges in Travis County," Paxton said in a statement. "The same-sex marriage license issued by the Travis County Clerk is void, just as any license issued in violation of state law would be. I will continue to defend the will of the people of Texas, who have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, against any judicial activism or overreach."
According to the Travis County Clerk's office, Judge David Wahlberg signed a state court order from the 167th District Court to Travis County Clerk Dana Debeauvoir on Thursday, commanding Debeauvoir to "cease and desist relying on the unconstitutional Texas prohibitions against same-sex marriage as a basis for not issuing a marriage license specifically to Plaintiffs Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant," due to the fact that Goodfriend has ovarian cancer... (continued)
Link:
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Alabama chief justice: Don't issue gay marriage licenses
By KIM CHANDLER
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's chief justice, who famously refused to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a state judicial building, has urged probate judges to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples even though a federal judge ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. Related Stories
Roy Moore sent a letter to Alabama probate judges on Tuesday saying they are not bound by the ruling because they were not defendants in the lawsuit and have not been directly ordered to issue the licenses. He said the federal court did not have the authority to allow same-sex marriages.
"No federal judge, or court, should redefine marriage," Moore said in an interview Wednesday.
Moore said state courts, including probate courts, have the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution independently, just like lower federal courts do, and the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve disputes over those interpretations.
The fiery Republican judge is no stranger to controversial remarks about homosexuality and the decisions of federal judges. Moore was removed as Alabama chief justice in 2003 after he refused to obey what he called an "unlawful" federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state judicial building. Moore in 2002 called homosexuality "an inherent evil" in ruling against a lesbian mother in a child custody case.
Moore, who was re-elected in 2012, said he sent the letter to offer advice to probate judges because of confusion over the federal ruling. However, a legal group that has clashed with Moore in the past says he is the one trying to incite chaos. And Moore's advice is contrary to that of the Alabama Probate Judges Association, which said last week that the decision is binding on the state's probate judges.
U.S. District Judge Callie Granade's order striking down the state's ban on gay marriage will go into effect Monday unless the U.S. Supreme Court grants Alabama's request for a delay. Gay couples are expected to apply for marriage licenses across Alabama that day.
Granade clarified her first order, saying the judges have a constitutional duty to issue the licenses. But she stopped short of ordering them to do so.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the group that filed the complaint that led to Moore's ouster in 2003, filed a new judicial ethics complaint over his comments about the gay marriage ruling.
"Justice Moore is, I think, a dangerous person. He's created a crisis in the state before. He just seems hell-bent determined to do it again," said Richard Cohen, president of the SPLC.
Cohen said judges who refuse to issue licenses risk being sued and were being led into "very, very hot water by suggesting they ignore Judge Granade's order."
But Moore said it was his duty as head of the court system to try to help judges sort out the issues.
"I can't tell them how to think. I can't tell them how to interpret the Constitution. I can say that they are obliged to follow the Alabama Constitution and nothing prevents that," Moore said. "To disobey the Alabama Constitution would be to ignore the 81 percent of the people in this state that adopted the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment."
Link:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's chief justice, who famously refused to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a state judicial building, has urged probate judges to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples even though a federal judge ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. Related Stories
Roy Moore sent a letter to Alabama probate judges on Tuesday saying they are not bound by the ruling because they were not defendants in the lawsuit and have not been directly ordered to issue the licenses. He said the federal court did not have the authority to allow same-sex marriages.
"No federal judge, or court, should redefine marriage," Moore said in an interview Wednesday.
Moore said state courts, including probate courts, have the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution independently, just like lower federal courts do, and the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve disputes over those interpretations.
The fiery Republican judge is no stranger to controversial remarks about homosexuality and the decisions of federal judges. Moore was removed as Alabama chief justice in 2003 after he refused to obey what he called an "unlawful" federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state judicial building. Moore in 2002 called homosexuality "an inherent evil" in ruling against a lesbian mother in a child custody case.
Moore, who was re-elected in 2012, said he sent the letter to offer advice to probate judges because of confusion over the federal ruling. However, a legal group that has clashed with Moore in the past says he is the one trying to incite chaos. And Moore's advice is contrary to that of the Alabama Probate Judges Association, which said last week that the decision is binding on the state's probate judges.
U.S. District Judge Callie Granade's order striking down the state's ban on gay marriage will go into effect Monday unless the U.S. Supreme Court grants Alabama's request for a delay. Gay couples are expected to apply for marriage licenses across Alabama that day.
Granade clarified her first order, saying the judges have a constitutional duty to issue the licenses. But she stopped short of ordering them to do so.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the group that filed the complaint that led to Moore's ouster in 2003, filed a new judicial ethics complaint over his comments about the gay marriage ruling.
"Justice Moore is, I think, a dangerous person. He's created a crisis in the state before. He just seems hell-bent determined to do it again," said Richard Cohen, president of the SPLC.
Cohen said judges who refuse to issue licenses risk being sued and were being led into "very, very hot water by suggesting they ignore Judge Granade's order."
But Moore said it was his duty as head of the court system to try to help judges sort out the issues.
"I can't tell them how to think. I can't tell them how to interpret the Constitution. I can say that they are obliged to follow the Alabama Constitution and nothing prevents that," Moore said. "To disobey the Alabama Constitution would be to ignore the 81 percent of the people in this state that adopted the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment."
Link:
Friday, January 23, 2015
Pope Francis says he wants all annulments to be free
By David Gibson | Religion News Service
Pope Francis on Friday (Jan. 23) warned the Vatican’s top marriage judges that they should not “lock the salvation of persons within the straits of legalism” and indicated he wants the church to no longer charge for the sometimes onerous and expensive annulment process.
“This is a point I want to emphasize: the sacraments are free,” Francis told jurists of the Roman Rota, the church’s final court of appeals for annulments.
“The sacraments give us grace,” he said. “And a marriage proceeding” — like an annulment — “touches on the sacrament of marriage...” (continued)
Link:
Pope Francis on Friday (Jan. 23) warned the Vatican’s top marriage judges that they should not “lock the salvation of persons within the straits of legalism” and indicated he wants the church to no longer charge for the sometimes onerous and expensive annulment process.
“This is a point I want to emphasize: the sacraments are free,” Francis told jurists of the Roman Rota, the church’s final court of appeals for annulments.
“The sacraments give us grace,” he said. “And a marriage proceeding” — like an annulment — “touches on the sacrament of marriage...” (continued)
Link:
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
From Bishop Tobin: Random Thoughts About the Synod on the Family
By Bishop Thomas J. Tobin
– It’s an enormous challenge to maintain pristine doctrinal purity
while at the same time respond to the experiential, personal, and
difficult needs of married couples and families. Behind every arcane
discussion of gradualism and natural law there are parents and children
awaiting God’s grace.
— In trying to accommodate the needs of the age, as Pope Francis suggests, the Church risks the danger of losing its courageous, counter-cultural, prophetic voice, a voice that the world needs to hear.
— The concept of having a representative body of the Church voting on doctrinal applications and pastoral solutions strikes me as being rather Protestant.
— In addressing contemporary issues of marriage and the family, the path forward will probably be found somewhere between the positions of Fr. Z and the National Catholic Reporter.
— Have we learned that it’s probably not a good idea to publish half-baked minutes of candid discussions about sensitive topics, especially when we know that the secular media will hijack the preliminary discussions for their own agendas?
— I wonder what the Second Vatican Council would have looked like and what it would have produced if the social media had existed at that time.
— Pope Francis encouraged fearless and candid discussion and transparency during the Synod. I wonder if the American Bishops will adopt the same protocol during their meeting next month in Baltimore.
— Wherever he serves, Cardinal Burke will be a principled, articulate and fearless spokesman for the teachings of the Church.
— Pope Francis is fond of “creating a mess.” Mission accomplished.
— Relax. God’s still in charge.
Link:
Related:
– It’s an enormous challenge to maintain pristine doctrinal purity
while at the same time respond to the experiential, personal, and
difficult needs of married couples and families. Behind every arcane
discussion of gradualism and natural law there are parents and children
awaiting God’s grace.— In trying to accommodate the needs of the age, as Pope Francis suggests, the Church risks the danger of losing its courageous, counter-cultural, prophetic voice, a voice that the world needs to hear.
— The concept of having a representative body of the Church voting on doctrinal applications and pastoral solutions strikes me as being rather Protestant.
— In addressing contemporary issues of marriage and the family, the path forward will probably be found somewhere between the positions of Fr. Z and the National Catholic Reporter.
— Have we learned that it’s probably not a good idea to publish half-baked minutes of candid discussions about sensitive topics, especially when we know that the secular media will hijack the preliminary discussions for their own agendas?
— I wonder what the Second Vatican Council would have looked like and what it would have produced if the social media had existed at that time.
— Pope Francis encouraged fearless and candid discussion and transparency during the Synod. I wonder if the American Bishops will adopt the same protocol during their meeting next month in Baltimore.
— Wherever he serves, Cardinal Burke will be a principled, articulate and fearless spokesman for the teachings of the Church.
— Pope Francis is fond of “creating a mess.” Mission accomplished.
— Relax. God’s still in charge.
Link:
Related:
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Marriage & Communion, Fr. Robert Dodaro with Raymond Arroyo
h/t to Fr. Z.
Related:
- VIDEO: Stop this and watch this
- Michael Voris Interviews Edward Pentin Regarding Cardinal Kasper
- Statement on Cardinal Kasper Interview
- Cardinal Burke to CWR: confirms transfer, praises pushback, addresses controversy over remarks by Cardinal Kasper
- Pope Benedict’s private secretary speaks on Synod, divorce, same-sex relations
- Roman Breakfast
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Michael Voris Daily Rome Report 10-18 - Video
Link:
Related:
- Apostolic Breakfast Table
- Pope Francis speech at the conclusion of the Synod
- Catholic Bishops Scrap Welcome To Gays
- BBC: Catholic synod: Pope Francis setback on gay policy
- Full text: Updated mid-term report on family synod
- Cardinal Burke to CWR: confirms transfer, praises pushback, addresses controversy over remarks by Cardinal Kasper
- Interview With Cardinal Raymond Burke: Full Transcript
- Conservative Cardinal Who Clashed With Pope Francis Confirms He Has Been Ousted
- ¡Hagan lío! Synod Bishops revolt against leadership and get their way – UPDATE!
- Pope Francis revealing his take on Synod controversies in his private homilies?
- Document-gate
- DAILY ROME REPORT
- Statement on Cardinal Kasper Interview
- Reports of Circuli Minores now available on Vatican website
- What’s the liberals next move?
- The Robber Synod!
- ¡Hagan lío! Synod Bishops revolt against leadership and get their way – UPDATE!
- Burke Blasts Back
- Blindsided: Press received document before synod fathers
- Did no one know that when the MSM got hold of the ‘Relatio’, people were going to go bananas?
- Revolution on the Way - Synod Coverage
- “The truly bizarre document that the Vatican released Monday”
- Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis defending Catholic teaching is ‘long overdue’
- Cardinal Burke: Synod's mid-term report "lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium"
- Confused, Contradictory Chaos in Rome
- Magister: Pitched Battle on a Mad Monday at the Synod, Our conclusion: Bruno Forte made up homosexuality paragraphs by himself
- Press Grill Vatican on Divorce, Remarriage, and Homosexuality
- VIDEO: Card. Burke’s clear, articulate, blunt answers about divorce, remarriage, Card. Kasper
Interview With Cardinal Raymond Burke: Full Transcript
By Ellie Hall & J. Lester Feder
BuzzFeed News reporter J. Lester Feder spoke with Cardinal Raymond Burke Friday morning via Skype to discuss the Extraordinary Synod on the Family and address rumors that he was being removed as the head of the Vatican’s highest court of canon law.
Cardinal Burke: Hello, this is Cardinal Burke.
BuzzFeed News: Apologies, it seems we got disconnected. I was just asking if it’s okay if I record our conversation.
CB: Yes, it’s fine. That’s fine.
BFN: I know you don’t have a lot of time, so why don’t we just dive in. I’ve seen your comments suggesting that [the Extraordinary Synod on the Family] was being manipulated. Can you say a little bit more about that, and who is doing the manipulating?
CB: Since the presentation of Cardinal Kasper in February to the extraordinary consistory of cardinals, there’s been a consistent repetition of [Kasper’s] position that is trying to weaken the church’s teaching and practice with regard to the indissolubility of marriage. This has just been consistent, casting the synod — which was to be on the family, directed in a positive way on family life — suggesting that the main purpose of the synod would be to permit those who are in irregular unions to receive the sacraments of penance and holy communion, which is not possible. If someone is bound to a prior marriage which has not been declared null, and is living as husband or wife with someone else. That’s a public state of sin and therefore the person cannot receive holy communion or go to the sacrament of penance until the matter is resolved.
But that’s been — all along this keeps coming back, and I see more clearly than ever that that’s how the synod is. And certainly the media has picked up on this — very much so.
BFN: To the question of how that’s being done, presumably the pope was the one who asked Cardinal Kasper to frame the synod. Are you saying that [the pope] is the one who is manipulating these proceedings?
CB: The pope has never said openly what his position is on the matter and people conjecture that because of the fact that he asked Cardinal Kasper — who was well known to have these views for many, many years — to speak to the cardinals and has permitted Cardinal Kasper to publish his presentation in five different languages and to travel around advancing his position on the matter, and then even recently to publicly claim that he’s speaking for the pope and there’s no correction of this.
I can’t speak for the pope and I can’t say what his position is on this, but the lack of clarity about the matter has certainly done a lot of harm.
BFN: Would it be inappropriate for the pope to do that? To structure the conversation in such a way that it is consistent with his thinking?
CB: According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no it wouldn’t be correct.
BFN: I did a story a while back reporting on a conversation that sources relayed to me between an LGBT activist and Cardinal Müller. In that conversation, the activist apparently asked Müller about the possibility of the church possibly accepting some forms of civil unions, based on some of the comments that the pope had made and some of the positions he was understood to have taken while he was the president of the bishops conference of Argentina. Müller reportedly responded that [that decision] wasn’t up to the pope, it was up to “us,” referring to the curia. In that thinking about how these kinds of church teachings are made, can you explain to an outsider what the relationship is between this kind of conversation and the pope’s personal thinking?
CB: Well I suppose the simplest way to put it is that all of us who serve the church are at the service of the truth: the truth that Christ teaches us in the church. And the pope more than anyone else, as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth. And so the cardinal is quite correct that the pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other truth of the faith. On the contrary, his work is to teach these truths and to insist on the discipline which reflects the truths in practice.
BFN: It sounds like there’s a tension, what we’re seeing play out in this [synod]. It sounds like you’re saying there are some people who deliberately want to change teaching. Like the people who are supportive of some of the positions that were articulated in the Relatio are saying that they’re trying to balance the pastoral need to find space for people who are living outside what the church teaches is the appropriate lifestyle, to find a way pastorally to incorporate them into the community and to bring them more in line.
You’ve used very strong words about homosexuality; in a recent interview you say again that homosexual acts are always wrong and evil. Is there any middle ground, any way to make space for LGBT people inside the church while also adhering to church teaching?
CB: Well the church doesn’t exclude anyone who’s of good will, even if the person is suffering from same-sex attraction or even acting on that attraction. But at the same time out of her love for the person who’s involved in sinful acts, she calls the person to conversion, in a loving way, but obviously, like a father or mother in a family, in a firm way for the person’s own good.
There never can be in the Catholic Church a difference between doctrine and practice. In other words, you can’t have a doctrine that teaches one thing and a practice which does something differently. If people don’t accept the church’s teaching on these matters than they’re not thinking with the church and they need to examine themselves on that and correct their thinking or leave the church if they absolutely can’t accept what the church teaches. They’re certainly not free to change the teaching of the church to suit their own ideas.
BFN: But as I read the Relatio — and again I’m reading this as a layperson — it seems like what they’re saying is [trying to establish] a welcoming tone. While not changing the teaching, they’re also trying to not make the primary point of contact be a fight over these lifestyle choices. While holding up that the ideal remains matrimony, they’re not going to be pushed out and harassed by virtue of not being in that arrangement.
CB: The point is that for the church, moral teaching is never a matter of ideals. They’re understood to be real commands that we’re meant to put into practice. All of us are sinners and we have to undergo a daily conversion to live according to the moral truth, but it remains for us always compelling. It’s not just an ideal that we hold out there, that, “It would be nice if it were this way, but I can’t do it.” No, we’re called to conform ourselves to those truths.
That’s the difficulty with the Relatio, which is not well expressed, and does not have a good foundation neither in the sacred scriptures nor in the church’s perennial teachings, and also uses language which can be very confusing.
One of the confusions is that it confuses the person with the sinful acts. In other words, it tries to say that if the church teaches that these acts are sinful that somehow they are turning on the people and driving them away from the church. Well, if the individuals involved are sincere and want to live the truth of moral law, the church is always ready to help. Even if someone sins repeatedly, the church always stands ready to help them begin again. But the truth of the moral law remains and it is compelling. It’s for now, it’s for me, it’s not something out there, some ideal out there that would be nice to realize but it doesn’t compel me.
Cardinal
Raymond Leo Burke leads a Holy Mass in the chapel of the Vatican
Governorate to mark the opening of the Judicial Year of the Tribunal of
Vatican City at the Vatican, January 11, 2014. REUTERS / STEFANO RELLANDINI
BFN: I should ask you about the reports that you’re being removed from the Signatura. What message is that sending? Do you think you are being removed in part because of how outspoken you have been on these issues?
Cardinal Burke: The difficulty — I know about all the reports, obviously. I’ve not received an official transfer yet. Obviously, these matters depend on official acts. I mean, I can be told that i’m going to be transferred to a new position but until I have a letter of transfer in my hand it’s difficult for me to speak about it. I’m not free to comment on why I think this may be going to happen.
BFN: Have you been told that you will be transferred?
CB: Yes.
BFN: You’re obviously a very well respected person. That must be disappointing.
CB: Well, I have to say, the area in which I work is an area for which I’m prepared and I’ve tried to give very good service. I very much have enjoyed and have been happy to give this service, so it is a disappointment to leave it. On the other hand, in the church as priests, we always have to be ready to accept whatever assignment we’re given. And so I trust that by accepting this assignment, I trust that God will bless me, and that’s what’s in the end most important. And even though I would have liked to have continued to work in the Apostolic Signatura, I’ll give myself to whatever is the new work that I’m assigned to…
BFN: And that is as the chancellor to the order of Malta, is that right?
CB: It’s called the patron of the sovereign military order of Malta, that’s right.
BFN: So where are we now? As I understand it, the final draft of the Relatio is expected later today and it will be voted on tomorrow, is that right?
CB: It’s scheduled to be read to us tomorrow morning and then there’s to be discussion and the final vote is tomorrow afternoon.
BFN: I’m curious about the revisions that happened yesterday in the English version of the [Relatio] and none of the others. I don’t know if you can shed any light on that…
CB: I only know the revisions that were suggested by the small group to which I belonged, I haven’t seen the other ones, they were all delivered yesterday and were studied yesterday afternoon and today for the revision of the text. From the reports which were published, the summary reports, I believe that there was a rather thorough revision.
BFN: On this final stretch, you have very well respected doctrinal experts like Cardinal Wuerl on [the Relatio] writing committee. Do you have confidence in them going forward?
CB: I trust that they will produce a worthy document. I must say I was shocked by what I heard on Monday morning, which was presented by a very reputable cardinal, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Budapest. So you can imagine I’m a little shaken by that, my trust is a little bit shaken, but I am hoping that we won’t have a repeat of that.
BFN: All right, sir, I very much appreciate you making the time, I know you haven’t spoken with a lot of secular outlets, so I am really honored that you’d be willing to do that for us.
CB: You’re welcome. Goodbye, and God bless you.
Link:
Related:
BuzzFeed News reporter J. Lester Feder spoke with Cardinal Raymond Burke Friday morning via Skype to discuss the Extraordinary Synod on the Family and address rumors that he was being removed as the head of the Vatican’s highest court of canon law.
Former
Archbishop of St. Louis cardinal Raymond Leo Burke attends Palm Sunday
Mass celebrated by Pope Francis at St. Peter’s Square on April 13, 2014
in Vatican City, Vatican. Getty Images / Franco Origlia
Cardinal Burke: Hello, this is Cardinal Burke.
BuzzFeed News: Apologies, it seems we got disconnected. I was just asking if it’s okay if I record our conversation.
CB: Yes, it’s fine. That’s fine.
BFN: I know you don’t have a lot of time, so why don’t we just dive in. I’ve seen your comments suggesting that [the Extraordinary Synod on the Family] was being manipulated. Can you say a little bit more about that, and who is doing the manipulating?
CB: Since the presentation of Cardinal Kasper in February to the extraordinary consistory of cardinals, there’s been a consistent repetition of [Kasper’s] position that is trying to weaken the church’s teaching and practice with regard to the indissolubility of marriage. This has just been consistent, casting the synod — which was to be on the family, directed in a positive way on family life — suggesting that the main purpose of the synod would be to permit those who are in irregular unions to receive the sacraments of penance and holy communion, which is not possible. If someone is bound to a prior marriage which has not been declared null, and is living as husband or wife with someone else. That’s a public state of sin and therefore the person cannot receive holy communion or go to the sacrament of penance until the matter is resolved.
But that’s been — all along this keeps coming back, and I see more clearly than ever that that’s how the synod is. And certainly the media has picked up on this — very much so.
BFN: To the question of how that’s being done, presumably the pope was the one who asked Cardinal Kasper to frame the synod. Are you saying that [the pope] is the one who is manipulating these proceedings?
CB: The pope has never said openly what his position is on the matter and people conjecture that because of the fact that he asked Cardinal Kasper — who was well known to have these views for many, many years — to speak to the cardinals and has permitted Cardinal Kasper to publish his presentation in five different languages and to travel around advancing his position on the matter, and then even recently to publicly claim that he’s speaking for the pope and there’s no correction of this.
I can’t speak for the pope and I can’t say what his position is on this, but the lack of clarity about the matter has certainly done a lot of harm.
BFN: Would it be inappropriate for the pope to do that? To structure the conversation in such a way that it is consistent with his thinking?
CB: According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no it wouldn’t be correct.
BFN: I did a story a while back reporting on a conversation that sources relayed to me between an LGBT activist and Cardinal Müller. In that conversation, the activist apparently asked Müller about the possibility of the church possibly accepting some forms of civil unions, based on some of the comments that the pope had made and some of the positions he was understood to have taken while he was the president of the bishops conference of Argentina. Müller reportedly responded that [that decision] wasn’t up to the pope, it was up to “us,” referring to the curia. In that thinking about how these kinds of church teachings are made, can you explain to an outsider what the relationship is between this kind of conversation and the pope’s personal thinking?
Former
archbishop of St. Louis cardinal Raymond Burke leaves the Synod Hall at
the end of a session of the Synod on the themes of family on October 13,
2014 in Vatican City, Vatican. Getty Images / Franco Origlia
CB: Well I suppose the simplest way to put it is that all of us who serve the church are at the service of the truth: the truth that Christ teaches us in the church. And the pope more than anyone else, as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth. And so the cardinal is quite correct that the pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other truth of the faith. On the contrary, his work is to teach these truths and to insist on the discipline which reflects the truths in practice.
BFN: It sounds like there’s a tension, what we’re seeing play out in this [synod]. It sounds like you’re saying there are some people who deliberately want to change teaching. Like the people who are supportive of some of the positions that were articulated in the Relatio are saying that they’re trying to balance the pastoral need to find space for people who are living outside what the church teaches is the appropriate lifestyle, to find a way pastorally to incorporate them into the community and to bring them more in line.
You’ve used very strong words about homosexuality; in a recent interview you say again that homosexual acts are always wrong and evil. Is there any middle ground, any way to make space for LGBT people inside the church while also adhering to church teaching?
CB: Well the church doesn’t exclude anyone who’s of good will, even if the person is suffering from same-sex attraction or even acting on that attraction. But at the same time out of her love for the person who’s involved in sinful acts, she calls the person to conversion, in a loving way, but obviously, like a father or mother in a family, in a firm way for the person’s own good.
There never can be in the Catholic Church a difference between doctrine and practice. In other words, you can’t have a doctrine that teaches one thing and a practice which does something differently. If people don’t accept the church’s teaching on these matters than they’re not thinking with the church and they need to examine themselves on that and correct their thinking or leave the church if they absolutely can’t accept what the church teaches. They’re certainly not free to change the teaching of the church to suit their own ideas.
BFN: But as I read the Relatio — and again I’m reading this as a layperson — it seems like what they’re saying is [trying to establish] a welcoming tone. While not changing the teaching, they’re also trying to not make the primary point of contact be a fight over these lifestyle choices. While holding up that the ideal remains matrimony, they’re not going to be pushed out and harassed by virtue of not being in that arrangement.
CB: The point is that for the church, moral teaching is never a matter of ideals. They’re understood to be real commands that we’re meant to put into practice. All of us are sinners and we have to undergo a daily conversion to live according to the moral truth, but it remains for us always compelling. It’s not just an ideal that we hold out there, that, “It would be nice if it were this way, but I can’t do it.” No, we’re called to conform ourselves to those truths.
That’s the difficulty with the Relatio, which is not well expressed, and does not have a good foundation neither in the sacred scriptures nor in the church’s perennial teachings, and also uses language which can be very confusing.
One of the confusions is that it confuses the person with the sinful acts. In other words, it tries to say that if the church teaches that these acts are sinful that somehow they are turning on the people and driving them away from the church. Well, if the individuals involved are sincere and want to live the truth of moral law, the church is always ready to help. Even if someone sins repeatedly, the church always stands ready to help them begin again. But the truth of the moral law remains and it is compelling. It’s for now, it’s for me, it’s not something out there, some ideal out there that would be nice to realize but it doesn’t compel me.
BFN: I should ask you about the reports that you’re being removed from the Signatura. What message is that sending? Do you think you are being removed in part because of how outspoken you have been on these issues?
Cardinal Burke: The difficulty — I know about all the reports, obviously. I’ve not received an official transfer yet. Obviously, these matters depend on official acts. I mean, I can be told that i’m going to be transferred to a new position but until I have a letter of transfer in my hand it’s difficult for me to speak about it. I’m not free to comment on why I think this may be going to happen.
BFN: Have you been told that you will be transferred?
CB: Yes.
BFN: You’re obviously a very well respected person. That must be disappointing.
CB: Well, I have to say, the area in which I work is an area for which I’m prepared and I’ve tried to give very good service. I very much have enjoyed and have been happy to give this service, so it is a disappointment to leave it. On the other hand, in the church as priests, we always have to be ready to accept whatever assignment we’re given. And so I trust that by accepting this assignment, I trust that God will bless me, and that’s what’s in the end most important. And even though I would have liked to have continued to work in the Apostolic Signatura, I’ll give myself to whatever is the new work that I’m assigned to…
BFN: And that is as the chancellor to the order of Malta, is that right?
CB: It’s called the patron of the sovereign military order of Malta, that’s right.
BFN: So where are we now? As I understand it, the final draft of the Relatio is expected later today and it will be voted on tomorrow, is that right?
CB: It’s scheduled to be read to us tomorrow morning and then there’s to be discussion and the final vote is tomorrow afternoon.
BFN: I’m curious about the revisions that happened yesterday in the English version of the [Relatio] and none of the others. I don’t know if you can shed any light on that…
CB: I only know the revisions that were suggested by the small group to which I belonged, I haven’t seen the other ones, they were all delivered yesterday and were studied yesterday afternoon and today for the revision of the text. From the reports which were published, the summary reports, I believe that there was a rather thorough revision.
BFN: On this final stretch, you have very well respected doctrinal experts like Cardinal Wuerl on [the Relatio] writing committee. Do you have confidence in them going forward?
CB: I trust that they will produce a worthy document. I must say I was shocked by what I heard on Monday morning, which was presented by a very reputable cardinal, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Budapest. So you can imagine I’m a little shaken by that, my trust is a little bit shaken, but I am hoping that we won’t have a repeat of that.
BFN: All right, sir, I very much appreciate you making the time, I know you haven’t spoken with a lot of secular outlets, so I am really honored that you’d be willing to do that for us.
CB: You’re welcome. Goodbye, and God bless you.
Link:
Related:
- Conservative Cardinal Who Clashed With Pope Francis Confirms He Has Been Ousted
- ¡Hagan lío! Synod Bishops revolt against leadership and get their way – UPDATE!
- Pope Francis revealing his take on Synod controversies in his private homilies?
- Document-gate
- DAILY ROME REPORT
- Statement on Cardinal Kasper Interview
- Reports of Circuli Minores now available on Vatican website
- What’s the liberals next move?
- The Robber Synod!
- ¡Hagan lío! Synod Bishops revolt against leadership and get their way – UPDATE!
- Burke Blasts Back
- Blindsided: Press received document before synod fathers
- Did no one know that when the MSM got hold of the ‘Relatio’, people were going to go bananas?
- Revolution on the Way - Synod Coverage
- “The truly bizarre document that the Vatican released Monday”
- Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis defending Catholic teaching is ‘long overdue’
- Cardinal Burke: Synod's mid-term report "lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium"
- Confused, Contradictory Chaos in Rome
- Magister: Pitched Battle on a Mad Monday at the Synod, Our conclusion: Bruno Forte made up homosexuality paragraphs by himself
- Press Grill Vatican on Divorce, Remarriage, and Homosexuality
- VIDEO: Card. Burke’s clear, articulate, blunt answers about divorce, remarriage, Card. Kasper
Friday, October 17, 2014
Burke: Synod designed to “weaken the church’s teaching and practice” with apparent blessing of Pope Francis
Video: Michael Voris Discusses the Breaking News
Update: Interview With Cardinal Raymond Burke: Full Transcript
By J. Lester Feder
Cardinal Raymond Burke, an American who heads the Vatican’s highest court of canon law, made the remarks in a phone interview from the Vatican, where a two-week Extraordinary Synod on the Family will conclude this weekend. An interim report of the discussions released on Monday, called the Relatio, produced a widespread backlash among conservative bishops who said it suggested a radical change to the church’s teaching on questions like divorce and homosexuality, and Burke has been among the most publicly critical of the bishops picked by Pope Francis to lead the discussion.
If Pope Francis had selected certain cardinals to steer the meeting to advance his personal views on matters like divorce and the treatment of LGBT people, Burke said, he would not be observing his mandate as the leader of the Catholic Church.
“According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no, it wouldn’t be correct,” Burke said, saying the pope had “done a lot of harm” by not stating “openly what his position is.” Burke said the Pope had given the impression that he endorses some of the most controversial parts of the Relatio, especially on questions of divorce, because of a German cardinal who gave an important speech suggesting a path to allowing people who had divorced and remarried to receive communion, Cardinal Walter Kasper, to open the synod’s discussion.
“The pope, more than anyone else as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth,” Burke said. “The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the faith.”
Burke has publicly clashed with the pope since Francis took office in 2013, and he has come to represent the sidelining of culture warriors elevated by Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict and as the top doctrinal official under Pope John Paul II. Burke, who caused controversy while bishop of St. Louis by saying Catholics who voted for politicians supportive of abortion rights should not receive communion, went on Catholic television in 2013 to rebut remarks Pope Francis made to an interviewer that the church had become “obsessed” with abortion and sexuality to the exclusion of other issues, saying, “We can never talk enough about that as long as in our society innocent and defenseless human life is being attacked in the most savage way,” Burke said. While Francis famously responded to a question about homosexuality in 2013 by asking, “Who am I to judge?” Burke described homosexual “acts” as “always and everywhere wrong [and] evil” during an interview last week.
In the interview with BuzzFeed News, Burke confirmed publicly for the first time the rumors that he had been told Francis intended to demote him from the church’s chief guardian of canon law to a minor post as patron to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
“I very much have enjoyed and have been happy to give this service, so it is a disappointment to leave it,” Burke said, explaining that he hadn’t yet received a formal notice of transfer. “On the other hand, in the church as priests, we always have to be ready to accept whatever assignment we’re given. And so I trust, by accepting this assignment, I trust that God will bless me, and that’s what’s in the end most important.”
When the pope first took office, his pivot away from an emphasis on questions of sexuality were more a matter of personal tone rather than changes in church policy or personnel. There were rumors that he was trying to oust the man chosen by Pope Benedict to head the church’s office responsible for doctrine, Gerhard Müller, but last winter he instead elevated him from archbishop to cardinal. When word that Burke was on his way out began circulating last month, it signaled that Francis would take major steps to reshape the church. It coincided with the selection of a new archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cupich, whom Catholic progressives celebrated for positions like breaking with the American church hierarchy when it withheld its support for President Obama’s health reform law over questions of abortion and contraception.
Internal discontent among conservatives inside church leadership began to simmer over in the weeks leading up to the synod. Just before it began, Burke, Müller, and other senior cardinals published a book in several languages attacking the ideas laid out by Cardinal Walter Kasper on allowing those who had divorced and remarried to receive communion in a speech heartily praised by Pope Francis. It broke into open revolt at the midpoint of the synod, following publication of a document presented as a summary of discussions but that conservatives said misrepresented the debate by including passages on “welcoming homosexual persons” and discussing some of Kasper’s proposal on divorce. The backlash appeared to have been especially strong from the English-speaking world, which includes a large number of African and American bishops; in an apparent attempt to mollify anglophone conservatives, the Vatican released a new translation of the report that changed the phrase “welcoming homosexual persons” to “providing for homosexual persons” and made other small changes, while leaving the versions in all other languages unchanged.
The report is now being revised with feedback from small-group discussions held this week, and a final version is scheduled to be voted on on Saturday. Burke said he hoped that the committee writing the new report will produce a “worthy document,” but said his “trust is a little bit shaken” by the language in the interim draft he said lacks “a good foundation either in the sacred scriptures or in the church’s perennial teachings.”
But there seems to be little middle ground between Pope Francis’ worldview and Burke’s. Francis was president of the Argentinian bishops conference when that country passed a marriage equality bill in 2010 and reportedly tried to convince his colleagues to support a civil union proposal instead.
He lost the internal battle and gave voice to the hard-line consensus that the law was “sent by the devil.” The fight over the bill left the church appearing out of step with the beliefs of many in Argentina, a country where 76% identify as Catholic but only 38.2% went to church in 2005, per the most recent data available from the Association of Religious Data Archives. While Francis has shown no sign he supports overhauling the church’s teachings that homosexuality is sinful, he seems to have taken from this experience a desire to downplay conflicts over sexuality in order to broaden the church’s message.
But, Burke said, the church must always call a “person who’s involved in sinful acts … to conversion in a loving way, but obviously, like a father or mother in a family, in a firm way for the person’s own good.” There cannot be “a difference between doctrine and practice” on questions like homosexuality or anything else, Burke said.
“The church doesn’t exclude anyone who’s of goodwill even if the person is suffering from same-sex attraction or even acting on that attraction,” said Burke. “If people don’t accept the church’s teaching on these matters then they’re not thinking with the church and they need to examine themselves on that and correct their thinking or leave the church if they absolutely can’t accept. They’re certainly not free to change the teaching of the church to suit their own ideas.”
At the request of several readers, BuzzFeed News has printed a transcript of the section of the interview wherein Cardinal Burke talks about leaving the Signatura.
BuzzFeed News: I should ask you about the reports that you’re being removed from the Signatura. What message is that sending? Do you think you are being removed in part because of how outspoken you have been on these issues?
Cardinal Burke: The difficulty — I know about all the reports, obviously. I’ve not received an official transfer yet. Obviously, these matters depend on official acts. I mean, I can be told that I’m going to be transferred to a new position but until I have a letter of transfer in my hand it’s difficult for me to speak about it. I’m not free to comment on why I think this may be going to happen.
BFN: Have you been told that you will be transferred?
CB: Yes.
BFN: You’re obviously a very well-respected person. That must be disappointing.
CB: Well, I have to say, the area in which I work is an area for which I’m prepared and I’ve tried to give very good service. I very much have enjoyed and have been happy to give this service, so it is a disappointment to leave it.
On the other hand, in the church as priests, we always have to be ready to accept whatever assignment we’re given. And so I trust that by accepting this assignment, I trust that God will bless me, and that’s what’s in the end most important. And even though I would have liked to have continued to work in the Apostolic Signatura, I’ll give myself to whatever is the new work that I’m assigned to…
BFN: And that is as the chancellor to the Order of Malta, is that right?
CB: It’s called the patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, that’s right.
update
Cardinal Raymond Burke is being removed from the position as the chief of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. An earlier version of this post mischaracterized that position in one instance.
Link:
Update: Interview With Cardinal Raymond Burke: Full Transcript
- ¡Hagan lío! Synod Bishops revolt against leadership and get their way – UPDATE!
- Pope Francis revealing his take on Synod controversies in his private homilies?
- Document-gate
- DAILY ROME REPORT
- Statement on Cardinal Kasper Interview
- Reports of Circuli Minores now available on Vatican website
- What’s the liberals next move?
- The Robber Synod!
- ¡Hagan lío! Synod Bishops revolt against leadership and get their way – UPDATE!
- Burke Blasts Back
- Blindsided: Press received document before synod fathers
- Did no one know that when the MSM got hold of the ‘Relatio’, people were going to go bananas?
- Revolution on the Way - Synod Coverage
- “The truly bizarre document that the Vatican released Monday”
- Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis defending Catholic teaching is ‘long overdue’
- Cardinal Burke: Synod's mid-term report "lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium"
- Confused, Contradictory Chaos in Rome
- Magister: Pitched Battle on a Mad Monday at the Synod, Our conclusion: Bruno Forte made up homosexuality paragraphs by himself
- Press Grill Vatican on Divorce, Remarriage, and Homosexuality
- VIDEO: Card. Burke’s clear, articulate, blunt answers about divorce, remarriage, Card. Kasper
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Revolution on the Way - Synod Coverage
UPDATE: Blindsided: Press received document before synod fathers
Link:
Related:
- “The truly bizarre document that the Vatican released Monday”
- Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis defending Catholic teaching is ‘long overdue’
- Cardinal Burke: Synod's mid-term report "lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium"
- Confused, Contradictory Chaos in Rome
- Magister: Pitched Battle on a Mad Monday at the Synod, Our conclusion: Bruno Forte made up homosexuality paragraphs by himself
- Press Grill Vatican on Divorce, Remarriage, and Homosexuality
- VIDEO: Card. Burke’s clear, articulate, blunt answers about divorce, remarriage, Card. Kasper
Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis defending Catholic teaching is ‘long overdue’
By Patrick B. Craine
(LifeSiteNews.com) In a candid interview Monday, Cardinal Raymond Burke voiced the concerns of many of his brothers in the Synod hall and lay Catholic activists throughout the world that the public presentation of the Synod has been manipulated by the organizers in the General Secretariat.
He strongly criticized yesterday’s Relatio post disceptationem, or “report after the debate,” which the Catholic lay group Voice of the Family had called a “betrayal,” saying it proposes views that "faithful shepherds ... cannot accept," and betrays an approach that is "not of the Church." He called on Pope Francis to issue a statement defending Catholic teaching.
“In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue,” he told Catholic World Report’s Carl Olsen.
“The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.”
“The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church,” he added.
The relatio, he said, proposes views that many Synod fathers “cannot accept,” and that they “as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept.”
The document, among its most controversial propositions, asks whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposes allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; and says pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.
“Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable,” Burke told Olsen.
“The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called ‘revolutionary’, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.”
Burke lamented that the bishops’ interventions are not published, while the General Secretariat chose to publish the controversial relatio, which was intended as a merely provisional summary of the first week that is under review by the fathers this week.
“All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning,” he said.
“While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.”
While critics of Burke's public interventions in the Synod debates have portrayed him as representing a fringe, he was elected by his brother bishops to moderate one of the three English-speaking small groups discussing the relatio this week.
Link:
Related:
- “The truly bizarre document that the Vatican released Monday”
- Revolution on the Way - Synod Coverage
- Cardinal Burke: Synod's mid-term report "lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium"
- Confused, Contradictory Chaos in Rome
- Magister: Pitched Battle on a Mad Monday at the Synod, Our conclusion: Bruno Forte made up homosexuality paragraphs by himself
- Press Grill Vatican on Divorce, Remarriage, and Homosexuality
- VIDEO: Card. Burke’s clear, articulate, blunt answers about divorce, remarriage, Card. Kasper
Monday, September 22, 2014
The annulment argument: a quick quide to the two sides
By Dr. Edward Peters
(In the Light of the Law) There are basically two groups agitating for annulment reform, one saying that there are too many annulments, the other saying that there are too few. Let me suggest that (a) the first group is mistaken if it thinks the annulment problem lies in the annulment process (ie, Book VII of the 1983 Code and Dignitas connubii) and (b) the second group seeks not so much reform of the annulment process as its effective abolishment.
The first group (those holding that there are too many annulments), can scarcely suggest any procedural reforms (short of requiring tribunals to stamp DENIED on every annulment petition) for nothing about current canon and special law makes declaring marriage nullity easy. Under current ecclesiastical law, nullity must be proven, on specific grounds, based on sworn declarations and testimony, over the arguments of an independent officer, and confirmed on appeal. There are, that I can see, no gaps in the process through which marriage cases may slip quietly but wrongly into nullity. Not even the oft-reviled Canon 1095 (the “psychological” canon upon which most annulments around the world are based) can be written off as a mere legislative novelty for it articulates (as best positive law can) jurisprudence developed by the Roman Rota itself over the last 60 or 70 years.
No, the objections of the first group to the number of annulments being declared is, I suggest, not to the annulment process but to the people running that process. Tribunal officers are, it is alleged, too naive, too heterodox, or just too lazy to reach sound decisions on nullity petitions; they treat annulments as tickets to a second chance at happiness owed to people who care enough to fill out the forms. How exactly members of this first group can reach their conclusion without extended experience in tribunal work and without adverting to the cascade of evidence that five decades of social collapse in the West and a concomitant collapse of catechetical and canonical work in the Church is wreaking exactly the disastrous effects on real people trying to enter real marriages that the Church has always warned about, escapes me. Nevertheless that is essentially their claim: the process needs no major reform, processors do.
Neither can the second group (those holding that there are too few annulments) credibly point to specific reforms of the annulment process for (with two exceptions noted below) every phase of the current annulment process is required by natural law to serve the ends of justice (and, as Pope St. John Paul II repeatedly reminded us, the annulment process is about justice—not mercy, not charity, not warm fuzzy feelings, but justice); to eliminate any of these steps would be to gut the unavoidably juridic nature of the annulment process. Natural law requires that presumptions (here, of validity) be overturned only for specific reasons (here, grounds) demonstrated by objective information (here, declarations and testimony) weighed by independent minds (here, judges) subject to review by superiors (here, appeal). Remove any of these steps and, whatever ‘process’ one is left with, it’s not a legal one. Thus I say, push proponents of the second school to be clear, and what most of them must admit seeking is the “de-juridicization” of the annulment process. It’s their right, of course, to make such a proposal, but one should not confuse calls tantamount to elimination of a process with calls for reform of a process. More about that call, below.
First, though, it must be acknowledged that two aspects of the current annulment process are not required by natural law to achieve justice, namely... (continued)
Link:
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Meet the Christian Leaders Who Are Suing for Gay Marriage as a Religious Right
By Solvej Schou
(Takepart) Rev. Nancy Ellett Allison has joyfully officiated same-sex marriages in her corner of the conservative South since 2006.
“It is just a delight to be able to help these couples celebrate their lives together and work with them to craft their vows,” said Allison, her bright voice laced with a twang.
What Allison, the senior pastor at Holy Covenant United Church of Christ in Charlotte, N.C., has been doing is considered a misdemeanor crime under state law, punishable by up to 120 days in jail. Not only are gay marriages and domestic unions illegal in the state, but it’s considered criminal for clergy to officiate religious vows between couples who have not yet obtained a valid marriage license.
This week, though, the progressive United Church of Christ fought back, filing the first federal lawsuit to say gay marriage bans are a violation of religious rights. It’s an unprecedented move—experts say it’s the first such lawsuit ever in the United States.
The church joined with plaintiffs that include Allison, other UCC ministers, and six same-sex couples to file a lawsuit Monday against North Carolina state and county officials challenging the constitutionality of the state’s anti-gay marriage laws as violating the church’s free exercise of religion. In 2012, voters approved a ballot measure to ban gay marriage, imposing a legal definition of marriage as an act that can occur only between a man and a woman, and making it part of the state’s constitution.
The UCC’s lawsuit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against all laws that would make it a crime to perform religious rites that sanctify the union of same-sex couples.
“Not until we entered this lawsuit was I aware that it was illegal to perform a same-gender marriage ceremony without a marriage license. That was one of the shocking things I learned,” said Allison, who noted that Charlotte, like other major North Carolina cities, is more open-minded than rural areas, and that the state voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 (though Republican Mitt Romney won it in 2012).... (continued)
Link:
Related:
(Takepart) Rev. Nancy Ellett Allison has joyfully officiated same-sex marriages in her corner of the conservative South since 2006.
“It is just a delight to be able to help these couples celebrate their lives together and work with them to craft their vows,” said Allison, her bright voice laced with a twang.
What Allison, the senior pastor at Holy Covenant United Church of Christ in Charlotte, N.C., has been doing is considered a misdemeanor crime under state law, punishable by up to 120 days in jail. Not only are gay marriages and domestic unions illegal in the state, but it’s considered criminal for clergy to officiate religious vows between couples who have not yet obtained a valid marriage license.
This week, though, the progressive United Church of Christ fought back, filing the first federal lawsuit to say gay marriage bans are a violation of religious rights. It’s an unprecedented move—experts say it’s the first such lawsuit ever in the United States.
The church joined with plaintiffs that include Allison, other UCC ministers, and six same-sex couples to file a lawsuit Monday against North Carolina state and county officials challenging the constitutionality of the state’s anti-gay marriage laws as violating the church’s free exercise of religion. In 2012, voters approved a ballot measure to ban gay marriage, imposing a legal definition of marriage as an act that can occur only between a man and a woman, and making it part of the state’s constitution.
The UCC’s lawsuit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against all laws that would make it a crime to perform religious rites that sanctify the union of same-sex couples.
“Not until we entered this lawsuit was I aware that it was illegal to perform a same-gender marriage ceremony without a marriage license. That was one of the shocking things I learned,” said Allison, who noted that Charlotte, like other major North Carolina cities, is more open-minded than rural areas, and that the state voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 (though Republican Mitt Romney won it in 2012).... (continued)
Link:
Related:
- France's Hollande escalates row with Catholics over gay marriage
- Stop with the Interviews
- Pope calls for fresh Church approach to children of gay parents
- Femen feminists attack Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard of Mechelen-Brussels, Belgium
- Leaders of Catholic and Episcopal churches differ on gay marriage in Pennsylvania
- When the State Tries to be Master Over Nature
- Same-sex weddings to begin at the Episcopal Church's Washington National Cathedral
- Activists protest Pope Benedict XVI's comment on gay marriage
- So you want to surrender on Sodomite Marriage?
- Same-Sex "Marriage" Plans for England
- Bishop Ricken: "your own soul" is "in jeopardy" if you vote for someone in favor of these positions
- Same-sex marriage isn't enough: 'I want to have babies the way straight people do'
- France set to ban the words 'mother' and 'father' from official documents
- Same-sex 'Marriage' Defeated in Australia
- Father Gay
- Pope Benedict XVI denounces gay marriage lobby to US bishops
- Joel Osteen Would Attend Same Sex Marriage Ceremony
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Pope Francis 'phones divorced woman' to say she can receive Communion. This is potentially a huge story
By Damian Thompson
(The Telegraph) Pope Francis has phoned a divorced and remarried Catholic woman in Argentina to tell her that she could "safely receive Communion", according to an extraordinary report in La Stampa.
The woman's husband, writing on Facebook, claims that the Pope – introducing himself as "Father Bergoglio" – spoke to his wife, who'd been divorced before marrying him and told her that men or women who were divorced and received Communion weren't doing anything wrong. He apparently added that this matter is under discussion at the Vatican. (Quick health warning: given the complexity of this subject, we need much more clarity on what Francis reportedly said. I find it hard to believe that he would make such an unqualified statement...) - continued..
Link:
Related:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)