The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
A Revolution on Marriage – in Rome? Print E-mail
By Robert Royal   
Monday, 03 March 2014

On Saturday, Il Foglio, the most important conservative newspaper in Italy, published the complete text of a long opening discourse given at the Vatican by Cardinal Walter Kasper to the Consistory on the Family, a preparatory meeting for the Extraordinary Synod on the Family that will take place October 5-19 in Rome. The text is still only available in Italian (though some of the significant passages are in English here). But that won’t last long because the good Cardinal, as he described it, has “posed questions,” highly controversial questions, about the pastoral treatment of divorced and remarried Catholics, particularly whether they can be re-admitted to Communion.

The lecture was not intended to remain secret – in fact, it was going to be published in book form, presumably with other materials. But appearing suddenly as it has, and with seemingly revolutionary suggestions drawn from some ancient practices, it’s bound to become a hot topic in coming months. Some commentators are already saying that if the Church does not permit the divorced and remarried to receive Communion now, we will have another period of widespread shock and anger, similar to what followed Paul VI’s 1968 publication of Humanae vitae, which re-affirmed Christian teaching on contraception.

That gets several carts before several horses. Kasper’s text is cautious and tentative – though he seems to point in a revolutionary direction. He affirms Jesus’ prohibition of divorce while probing how to deal with what has become a difficult modern problem.

Just about every Catholic today knows someone in irregular matrimonial circumstances. Divorce, even among practicing Catholics, is all-too-common and – given the sexual madness and economic and cultural pressures of modern societies – not always the fault of one of the parties. That’s one reason that several popes – John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis – have suggested exploring pastoral solutions. The Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has said that Kasper's thinking is in tune with the pope's.

That said, however, the lecture gives the appearance of trying to do something that, at least on the surface, seems self-contradictory. Kasper speaks of the need for a “paradigm shift” in which the Church should become a Good Samaritan to those crying out for relief. But in the very same passage, he affirms the indissolubility of marriage, which “cannot be abandoned or undone by appealing to a superficial understanding of cheapened mercy.”

He likens our situation to the one at Vatican II, when dogmatic principles seem to preclude certain actions, yet the Council “opened doors.” Despite the alarm bells this comparison may set off for some people, he tentatively offers two possible “openings.”

The first is what might be regarded as a streamlining and personalizing of annulment. Instead of running it through a formal canonical process, “the bishop could entrust this task to a priest with spiritual and pastoral experience as a penitentiary or episcopal vicar.” He would presumably know the person and the situation better, thereby avoiding the clumsiness of a more impersonal process. Some canon lawyers have already raised questions about how this might work in practice, but at least in theory it’s not much more than an adjustment to the existing understanding that a marriage may be judged to have been null under certain conditions.

The more revolutionary “opening,” the second, offers, after a period of penance, “not a second marriage, but rather through participation in communion a table of salvation.”

Here, the argument turns murky and needs further clarifications. Roberto de Mattei, a historian who has written for us here at The Catholic Thing, replied in Il Foglio the same day as the Kasper text appeared, that the Cardinal cannot cancel history and doctrine “with a blatant revolution in culture and practice.”

It’s difficult to say whether that is what Kasper is proposing – though de Mattei is a very sharp mind and seems to be onto something. The Cardinal rightly adds that repentance in certain condition should lead to confession. So far so good. But then he lists five conditions and adds, as the culmination, return to Communion for a person:

1. if he repents of his failure in the first marriage,

2. if he has clarified the obligations of the first marriage, if it is definitively ruled out that he could turn back,

3. if he cannot abandon without further harm the responsibilities taken on with the new civil marriage,

4. if however he is doing the best he can to live out the possibilities of the second marriage on the basis of the faith and to raise his children in the faith,

5. if he has a desire for the sacraments as a source of strength in his situation, should we or can we deny him, after a period of time in a new direction, of “metanoia,” the sacrament of penance and then of Communion.

Cardinal Kasper claims that this would not be a mass solution, but only one that applied to a few people in bad situations who really want the sacraments. And he supports his tentative proposal with instances drawn from early Church history – the Orthodox still allow divorce and remarriage – that might be carefully applied. Some scholars deny that there were any such early cases, until standards centuries later went lax in the Byzantine Empire.

I asked a trusted priest about this whole line of argument. He came back with a different “pastoral” perspective:

As a parish priest, I feel for good people who were/are in bad marriages.  There are some heroic and saintly people in them - even some who've contracted second civil marriages. I would truly love to find a way to help them receive the Eucharist and regularize their situation, but I can't see Kasper's "solution" working.  I know the way some in the early Church dealt with second marriages, and that there was a period of penance, and even a penitential character to the second marriage, but can anyone really see us implementing these penitential practices?  Can anyone see them being accepted?  I can't.  And with all respect, this would be another bullet fired at a sacrament that's already reeling from the cultural firing squad.  
Get ready. We’re going to be hearing a lot more on this subject in the very near future.


Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the Westnow available in paperback from Encounter Books.
 
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. 

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (31)Add Comment
0
...
written by Avery Tödesulh, March 03, 2014
Dr. Royal doesn't get it right on the Orthodox teaching on marriage. So just to get the truth out there: Orthodox canon law doesn't recognize divorce. Period. It does allow for the Orthodox hierarch (after suitable investigation) to grant a penitential remarriage under specific circumstances. A party to an Orthodox marriage *may* be allowed to remarry if he or she is (1) the innocent party who is the victim of adultery, according to Matthew 19:9; (2) the innocent party who is the victim of another absolute end of the marriage for other extraordinary reasons; (3) a party who has tried to save the marriage but at the end of the investigative process is able to convince the hierarch that a second marriage would be a safeguard toward salvation. The Orthodox hierarch makes a determination that the first marriage has been definitively ended by the non-innocent party's sinful action.

Pope Francis has spoken approvingly of the Orthodox approach to remarriage: “I think this is the moment for mercy. The divorced may have access to the sacraments. The problem regards those who are in a second marriage … who cannot receive communion. But, in parenthesis, the Orthodox have a different praxis. They follow the theology of economy, and they give a second chance: they allow that. But I think that this problem – and here I close the parenthesis – should be studied within the framework of matrimonial pastoral care. One of the themes that the Council of Cardinals will consider in the meeting in … October is how to proceed in relation to matrimonial pastoral care. A few days ago I met with the secretary of the Synod of Bishops, for the theme of the next Synod and, speaking … we saw this anthropological theme: how faith helps in the planning of the person, in the family, and enters into the pastoral of matrimony. We are on the way towards a deeper matrimonial pastoral care. This is a problem for many people.”

This may also be a shrewd move to bring the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches closer together, Ut unim sint ...
0
...
written by Michael Paterson-Seymour, March 03, 2014
Byzantine legislation on divorce was heavily influenced by notions derived from the Roman jurists of the first and second centuries, for whom marriage required, not merely an initial consensus or agreement, but a continuing one. In technical language, this was called “maritalis affectio/adfectio” – which should not be translated “affection.” Rather, it means will, volition or inclination. Withdrawal of maritalis affectio automatically ended the marriage.

So strongly had this idea influenced Roman and Byzantine culture that Christian emperors, such as Constantine, Theodosius and Justin, whilst they enacted harsh penalties for divorce, except under a narrow range of conditions, nevertheless did not regard the marriage as subsisting.

I have no doubt that this is what influenced later Orthodox practice. The West escaped this particular legacy of Roman jurisprudence.
0
...
written by Manfred, March 03, 2014
The real question is why Pope Bergoglio chose Kasper to give the address in the first place. While head of the Pontifical Commission on Christian Unity he gave a Catholic bishop's pectoral cross to the Archbishop of Canterbury, signifying that in some way 6that the archbishop was in communion with Rome. de Mattei is very clear in his denunciation of this address, stating that the Church gave up the "Kingdom of England" rather than give Henry VIII his divorce. The horrific persecutions of Catholics in Britain and Ireland followed for hundreds of years and now we are going to admit that if the Pope in 1535 had only been more "pastoral", all of that could have been obviated? Tell SAINTS More and Fisher, the Carthusian monks who were starved to death in Newcastle prison et al. that they were all martyred in vain. Can anyone imagine being a mertyr today? Who would know what the Church even taught? It would just be assumed that It could change Its teachings tomorrow.
BTW, what happens when the second marriage doesn't work? As the priest-author on another site commented, your first marriage had training wheels-this one is now for real! Let's be blunt, there is not an ADULT in the entire leadership of the Church.
0
...
written by grump, March 03, 2014
I like what Lincoln said: "Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory."
Better yet, from Rodney Dangerfield: "It's tough to stay married. My wife kisses the dog on the lips, yet she won't drink from my glass."

0
...
written by william manley, March 03, 2014
The Pope is playing with fire here. By raising this issue he is a) raising expectations for divorced Catholics that a magic wand exists to suddenly change 2 millennia of Catholic teaching and doctrine on marriage, and b) telling the faithful that they were dupes for being, well…faithful to the teachings of the Church. Right now the only thing holding the Church together in the develop[ed world is the faithful remnant. To the pull the rug out from under this remnant will give complete victory to Martin Luther. Once an admirer of this Pope, I am now officially scared to death of him. My faith is shaken. Why did the Holy Spirit guide this man's election? Of course it's quite possible I am overreacting. The annulment process as it has been administered in the past 40 years has made a mockery of marriage. This latest development is surely a logical outgrowth of that train wreck.
0
...
written by Dennis Larkin, March 03, 2014
Saturday I had coffee with a friend whose divorce came through six months ago. He said that he received materials in the mail from the Chancery to apply for an annulment. He found the requirements onerous, and if they didn't accept his short-and-sweet explanation of what went wrong, "I'll leave; and the Catholic Church will lose every divorced Catholic." I thought, this man is an American first and a Catholic later.

If the Church is to lose one party or the other, let it be the divorced and not those trying daily to keep their marriages in working order.

German pastoral theology is no model for the Church.

Was Christ naive or not? Why did He have any problem with the woman at the well? Why any problem with her at all?
0
...
written by florin, March 03, 2014
March 3rd, I do not believe that any major changes will occur regarding the sacrament of marriage. The changes will be in the pastoral approach to those whose first marriages have failed and who may be in a second marriage and who long to be able to receive the Eucharist. Many marry when they are immature; there are extended preparations if one wants to become a teacher or a scientist or a doctor or a basketball coach, etc...but a weekend retreat for marriage or several weekend gatherings are simply not enough to prepare a person for such a profound sacrament. In Religious life one must go through stages of preparation, postulant, novice, temporary vows and then permanent vows. Often the newly married know only what they experienced at home - their parents are their role models and often that is disastrous. Perhaps it would help if a Pastor who knows well his people and who is following the teachings of the Church, could meet with couples who have divorced, get to know them and their situation - and their former situation in the failed marriage. Then, after a good length of time, the Pastor could advise the Bishop on whether or not this couple should have their first marriage annulled. There are many Catholics whose first marriages have failed and who are now remarried who really don't care if they receive the Sacrament, but those who do should receive pastoral care until a decision is made. By the way, I always wonder why there is such strong determination about keeping divorced and remarried Catholics away from the Eucharist while those who aid and abet the mass slaughter of babies in the womb are permitted to receive the Eucharist. There are Catholic politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Andrew Cuomo who are aggressively and publicly promoting (not just accepting) the slaughter of the innocents and are working hard to get this to happen even until the 9th month of gestation - and yet they blithely and smugly thumb their noses at the Church, her Bishops and her teachings and go up and receive the Eucharist - Biden and Pelosi even tweeted from Rome after Pope Francis' inaugural Mass that they had indeed received Communion. Mother Theresa of Calcutta used to say: "If we would kill the baby in the womb, what would we not do?" And I say: "If we allow those who aid and abet the mass slaughter of human babies to receive communion, why should we deny anyone else?"
0
...
written by Sue, March 03, 2014
This whole issue smacks of Alinsky's RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

We have enough problems with faux annulments and the pastoral problems they have created in the children left behind from the first (true) marriage. Why are the "reformers" ignoring these hurting children who are left twisting in the wind.

Why cannot everyone's marriage this year be annulled because they are entering it with the very real understanding the Church may approve its divorcing in future???

The USCCB annulment mills and the parish "divorcecare" social groups for remarrieds are starting to look like the "Star Off Machine" complex of Sylvester McMonkey McBean (Dr Seuss).

Perhaps (not!) we can attract back some Protestants back to the Church if we issue a 500 year retroactive annulment. Oops! sorry about that Thomas More your witness was just too friggin judgmental. If anyone had a hardluck case it was Henry VIII who was just trying to get an heir to his throne!

Stand strong, Pope Francis and double down on Humanae Vitae.
0
...
written by Manfred, March 03, 2014
Post Script: In my home is a photo taken in 1920 showing my grandfather, who was employed as a chauffeur, his stay-at-home wife, a former novice from French Canada, and their NINE children, including my father. Do you recall the s0-called "birth control commission" of the 1960s? The majority opinion voted FOR the acceptance of the use of birth control, and by the time Humanae Vitae was published in July, 1968, the battle was lost. Catholics en masse were contracepting. The same procedure will occur here. First the camel's nose is under the tent, the laity and their bishops (starting in Germany) will begin to receive Communion as divorced and remarried catholics, and that will then become "the pastoral norm". Lefebvre and the SSPX had the measure of this fifty years ago. A new "religion" was begun at the Second Vatican Council.
As Flannery O'Connor said in 1961 (before Vat II): "One of the effects of modern liberal Protestantism.........And religion is our own sweet invention."
0
...
written by Deacon James Stagg, March 03, 2014
I don't see a reference to real authority here, yet, so I will offer one: Google canonlawblog.

Don't hold your breath for any substantial changes to present practice............and law.
0
...
written by Seanachie, March 03, 2014
Last year Pope Francis was quoted as saying, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Perhaps the Pope's test should apply to divorce in the same way. That is, if a divorcee searches for the Lord and has good will, who is anybody (other than God) to judge? As a conservative Catholic, I have no difficulty with a divorcee remarrying and receiving all the sacraments to the extent they are searching for the Lord and have good will. Remaining in a genuinely "unworkable" marriage is neither good for spouses, children, and society (including the Church).
0
...
written by Robocop, March 03, 2014
Folks need to demonstrate a better Faith in the Holy Father and Our Church. Expressing such lack of faith due to a press release is, at best, extremely premature. We simply do not have enough facts to make a sound assessment of this matter. On a much grander scale, no one lives in such state of grace as to so harshly condemn others for mistakes possibly made at a spiritually immature age or under duress.
0
...
written by Dennis Larkin, March 03, 2014
I have never met the guilty party in a divorce, only the innocent party. And dozens upon dozens of those. I've never met the person who caused the marriage to fail.

The Church won't change its teaching on marriage for whose marriage at all could sustain an investigation bent on nullity? Is it really true that there are husbands or wives who have never had one such excuse for nullity from their spouse, were they bent on it?
0
...
written by Richard, March 03, 2014
I know many heartbreaking cases of first marriages on the rocks. In some cases, it's pretty clear that one of the parties entered the marriage with predatory intentions. Annulments should work. Others not so.

The Church is severely bound by the clear teachings of Jesus. One can argue from Christ's treating of adultery in the first marriage for this being a special case, but otherwise the partners in the second marriage are living in adultery. Not the Pope and all the religious and laity in the world have the power to set aside the teachings of Jesus. If they do, as many Protestant denominations, then they diverge from the teachings of Jesus and disestablish their credentials as an authentically Christian church.

Best,

Richard
0
...
written by Diane, March 03, 2014
I am afraid of what is happening in the Catholic Church. It seems to have been taken over by the liberals even amongst the clergy. How can we defend the teachings of Christ when it all seems to be coming down on the Church. We need to eliminate all liberal clergy, it is time to clean-up from within. I too am afraid of this Pope.
0
...
written by DeGaulle, March 03, 2014
Richard, that's a great post. As you say, the only quarter that Our Lord gave was to the victims of marital adultery. If a spouse runs off with another, abandoning the family, why should they be assisted by the Church in what would be a double betrayal? On the other hand, it is difficult not to have the utmost sympathy for an innocent, abandoned spouse who might perhaps desire another more successful marriage, continuing in good faith. But legitimising the remarriage of an adulterer would be an abomination and a direct repudiation of the Word of God. Would the Catholic Church be the Catholic Church any more? Then what are we to do? May the Holy Spirit guide His Church.
0
...
written by Nancy D., March 03, 2014
Those who deny the truth about the Sanctity of Human Life from the moment of conception and the Sanctity of Marriage and The Family from The Beginning are allowed to present themselves to receive The Holy Eucharist even though by denying the truth about the Dignity of the Human Person they deny God and are thus apostates to Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
0
...
written by Howard Kainz, March 03, 2014
There is a certain logic in ethical/canonical positions. If a priest or bishop admits public pro-abortionists to the sacraments, how can he consistently support withholding the sacraments from a divorcee? non-sequitur
0
...
written by Winston, March 03, 2014
Folks, if you were familiar with the Word of God, you would know that God/Jesus Christ forgives anyone who comes to Him with a contrite heart and forgives that person. Forgiveness does not come from the Catholic Church; it comes from God. This is not an endorsement to behave badly so don't conveniently misunderstand me. Further, there is no authority ANYWHERE in the Bible for a Catholic priest to turn the Eucharist wafer into the body and blood of Christ. You folks had better read the Bible and rethink what the Catholic Church has taken completely out of context in the Bible.
0
...
written by Nancy D., March 04, 2014
Catholic Canon 750, makes it clear that one cannot support abortion and same-sex sexual relationships, and remain in communion with Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
0
...
written by Nancy D., March 04, 2014
See page 117 of the book, "On Heaven and Earth" regarding same-sex sexual relationships that are "private", do not include children, and are not called marriage.
0
...
written by Nancy D., March 04, 2014
If the question regarding those persons who present themselves to receive The Holy Eucharist even though they have excommunicated themselves from Christ's Church is not addressed, then this "revolution on marriage" would appear to exist as a deflection from the obvious revolution that has allowed those who have excommunicated themselves from Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, to continue to receive The Holy Eucharist even though they know they are not in a state of Grace.
0
...
written by Chris in Maryland, March 04, 2014
Winston:

Per Jesus - on his transmission of the authority to forgive sins to ordained men - see John Ch. 20: 19-23:

[19] Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. [20] And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples were glad, when they saw the Lord.
[21] He said to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

On the Holy Eucharist - held to be the real presence of Jesus by both the witness of both the Orthodox and Western Church - unchanged - from the beginning - you may begin by reading John CH. 6, and understand why so many disciples left Jesus, and then Jesus turned to Peter and asked him "Will you also leave me?" and Peter replied "Where shall we go Lord - you have the words of etenal life."

But to sum up St. John's Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God....And The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us....He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life."

In Christus Veritas
0
...
written by Diane, March 04, 2014
The Catholic Church is the Church that was instituted by Jesus Christ. The Last Supper was the first Mass and Jesus instituted Holy orders at that time. He then made Peter the first Pope and the Apostles were his first ordained priests. He then gave them the authority of the Eucharist which is consecrated to the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is the fullness of Christianity. The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
0
...
written by Matt, March 04, 2014
Does everyone comprehend the gravity of the situation; the slippery slope? Under Cdl. Kaspar's "change of paradigm" the Church would permit those continuing in the sin of adultery to sacrilegiously receive the Holy Eucharist - for pastoral reasons. If Church praxis breaks from doctrine then a gay couple sacrilegiously receiving the Body of Christ is also being debated especially if they adopted children - for that scenario requires a "pastoral approach" as well. If the Church permits the mortal sin of adultery the new liberty then why not the mortal sin of sodomy? Why not a couple living together obstinate in the sin if Fornication as is the new norm?

When the church herself degrades the sacrament of marriage and THE highest sacrament entrusted to her- the Body of Christ - it ceases being. That is how serious it is.
0
...
written by Sue, March 05, 2014
Perhaps this is another sign of end times...that marriage is dissolving as a human institution as we know it will be extinguished in Heaven?
0
...
written by Diane, March 05, 2014
New article in NEWSMAX today 'Pope -Church should tolerate some Civil Unions.

Is this Pope Catholic????? So, is he sanctioning living in sin for same sex couples and will they be able to receive the Sacraments.

If that is true, then, he must sanction pre-marital sex between a man and a woman.

This is absolutely shameful and we need to ask for a new Pope if this is the direction he is going.

0
...
written by Norma Lewis, March 13, 2014
I have been reading all the above comments. Some of them have genuine solutions to the question of allowing communion for the divorced. Only a priest, after hearing the confession of the divorced can say whether the first marriage was a real marriage or not. There has to be a heart felt sorrow for the failure of the first marriage. It is possible that one party is the innocent victim. Once that annulment is allowed, there can never be a third marriage. And yes, those who advocate abortion should never receive Communion. Let this first be enforced before the question of communion for the divorced is tackled. Only then can I believe that the will to preserve the sacredness of Holy Communion is genuine.
0
...
written by Robert, March 13, 2014
Heresies are all these practices. What part of God's Holy Bible that speak to these subjects (and some on-existent)does the Vatican not understand? I thought VC II was bad with tearing down all that attracted Catholics to fill the Churches;the onslaught continues at every turn (or breath). A form of "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is in play here. When Jesus spoke of divorce and adultery He spoke clearly, no if's and, or buts. The Pope and his blind followers are taking Jesus at His word about what the Pope does or says to apply on earth, will also apply in Heaven. Jesus also said not to alter His words one tittle. Is not that action a continuation of the Catholic Menu most Catholics abide by, and, by golly, right there in the Vatican proper, of all places for disobedience to exist. Pope Francis has shaken my over 80 year old faith. I must find myself emulating the early saints by being Catholic in thought, word and deed - after the Apostles all passed. Church structures were not always convenient and available. I cannot participate in a distorted Mass. I'll settle for the time being, praying unceasingly feeling my God close.
Before they distort the book (singularly) or books (4 volumes)of Divine Mercy I recommend for silent reading of what is superb religious understanding,with the three-years Mass cycle of your faith. Fr. Gabriel (long deceased)of Mount Carmel,(translated into many languages)is a treasure. VC II got to my long-held set early in the 60s but had little impact on altering Fr. Gabriel's valuable text. appropriate and meaningful prayers follow each article of biblical and Mass explanation. You ought to never have a sense that you abandoned your God; you must be bold for Jesus. Actions speak louder than words; your action says you will not condone irreverance and twisting the sacred. I've found the "next best thing" to participating in a questionable service drawing the mind to distraction,is to visit the Adoration Room and spend quiet time with Jesus. Also, saying prayers at 3 O'Clock is another recommended time to be quiet with Him. Divorced and remarrieds have a life; if their love of the Blessed Trinity is sound, they will find a way to resolve any difficulty they created with God. First is to learn of Him, He is Love, meek and humble of heart, and merciful. For everyone, from the Pope down to the parish priest and deacon, and all His children everywhere, have no doubt, God is watching. God help us.
0
...
written by @FMShyanguya, March 15, 2014
Cf. Dr. Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray discussion on the Pope’s first anniversary with Raymond Arroyo.

If Cardinals Burke and O'Malley, Dr. Royal, Fr. Murray, and Mr. Arroyo all say that this is a no-go (with reasoning supported from and by our Catholic patrimony) and Dr. Royal says above: "The Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has said that Kasper's thinking is in tune with the Pope's", then hell is on the loose.

PS I initially wanted to write, all hell should break loose.
0
...
written by @FMShyanguya, March 16, 2014
Should the Pope and the upcoming Synods implement the Kasper proposal, how will they explain the Holy Family going every year to Jerusalem in obedience to the LORD/His command?
They went when they were exempt (the LORD of the temple, the giver of the Law, was with them, the same LORD had the Holy Spirit without reserve - cf destroy this temple, - Our lady being overshadowed by His Power and the Holy Spirit coming upon her, etc.) yet every year they went.
Surely they could have said, 'you know, Jerusalem is far, and the journey long ...'

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner