Vote No for Proposition Kasper

With the current buzz in the Church regarding the topic of the Synod, I wanted to take an opportunity to give a few thoughts on marriage and divorce. I haven’t been the most astute at following all the news presented in the press recently, mostly because it is a poor source for definitive statements regarding the matter. There are however many good sources that can help in understanding what has been going on:

• Jimmy Aiken put out a concise enumeration of the ideas presented that I found very informative. They can be read here.     
• Raymond Aroyo also gave a candid interview with Cardinal Burke -the voice for truth within the synod. 
• I would also like to encourage anyone to stand by for my Parish Priests recent sermon that was given today that may be posted on Audio Sancto or his website at a later date. In it he properly defines what a decree of nullity is, the means by which one is decreed null and interesting statistical truths regarding the abuse of the annulment process by many within the church.
• Remaining in the Truth of Christ is a book that has recently been published by Ignatius Press that defends the traditional view of marriage by a number of currently presiding Cardinals. I plan on purchasing this book and giving it a read to augment my knowledge on the topic.

I think it is safe to say that the complexity of situations in marriages are matched by the complexity of cannon law, to which is designed to handle said situations. This design has been developed over centuries of defending the truth of marriage and has been very carefully articulated; it may not be perfect in that the process can be subverted, but it has been effective in handling the situation. I have to admit that this topic is one in which I am least polished in. However, the topic has been broached by friends and family recently not to mention that from the synod. From these conversations, I have been reminded how complex these situations can be. One does not have to be a canon lawyer to understand what is basically at stake here and the antagonist behind the issues at hand.

I see the heart of the matter to be whether marriage is dissoluble. We have heard from our Lord that “it was not so from the beginning.” This is an indication that it is the jurisdiction of Natural Law -that from the beginning it was not so. We also know from our Lords words, “that marriage is between a man and a woman, and what God hat joined together, let no man put asunder.” These are orthodox Truths of Christ that are being tampered with and discussed by the Synod.

The only one audacious enough to outwardly contradict the teachings directly, are Cardinal Kasper and indirectly, by Pope Francis. They are subtle, advocating for “pastoral changes”, changes in processes by which a decree of nullity is said. I am being specific in the terms decree of nullity, because it is important to distinguish nullity from decree of nullity. The Church cannot nullify a marriage; however, they can decree that one was null or non-existent. The improvement to the processes in place are encouraged to be simplified. As I had mentioned before, marriage situations can be very complex in nature and to simplify those methods may not do justice to what is deserved by the situation. My Priest touched on the gravity of this matter by emphatically stating that souls are at stake when determining whether a marriage was null. It is in fact a greater act of mercy for the spouses in question to have their case thoroughly examined by experts, rather than having an inexperienced parish priest decide (which is happening regularly at the parish level). My priest gave a good example of this by likening it to a random citizen putting on Judges Robes and writing a decree in opposition to the law and stating it just, when in actuality, that decree is worthless and those citizens simply do not have the authority which they are attempting to express.

I am not yet sure what the pastoral changes will be or even if they will come to pass. However, I must point out that whatever changes do come, it would be a scandal from the clear teaching of the Church -in that the practices must not be separated from the doctrines. This concept is bound to all dogmas of our faith especially recent ones in question, namely the indissolubility of marriage and acceptance of homosexual unions. No matter how you sugar coat it, the practical application of truth must be in conformity with the truth it supports. A digression from this is without question contradictory and scandalous to the faithful. If visibly, the Church says you must simply seek confession then perform a penance as a means to reconciling your condition, you are still left with the problem of the first marriage. What about the spouse and or children that have been left abandoned? This new practice of reconciliation leaves unreconciled the existence of your real spouse and you continue to remain in an adulterous union –not a marriage.

Recently, there have been two cases where I had a conversation with a cohort which it was revealed that my interlocutor had a divorce. In the first discussion, the reason for divorce was that they were young, incompatible and had no children as justification for said divorce. The second didn’t give as much detail, however indicated incompatibility as well. I felt it was inappropriate for me to protest the truth, simply because of the relationship between us, but an interesting thought occurred to me. In future conversation with them, would it be erroneous for me to refer to their partners as wife or spouse? Should we not instead name them as partner or something more precise? Technically they would not be married and it may be an inconspicuous way of indicating the nullity of their relationship. This may do harm, but I am not one to roll over and give in to heresy in order to maintain civility. Either way, it would be a passive way of admonishing the sinner to those whom you are not in a relationship that merits more overt exhortations.

One thing is certain, the Pope has not been clear as to his stance regarding these issues –some are calling this scandalous, others call it an air of mercy. However, he has connoted an approval of Cardinal Kasper’s view as a merciful form. He specifically had mentioned possibly taking a stance similar to that of the Orthodox faith. That being a stance which views the invalid marriage as a “Penitential Marriage”. I am not sure what this exactly means, but it isn’t orthodox that’s for sure.

Cardinal Kasper has said in an interview to America Magazine, “We cannot simply take one phrase from the gospel of Jesus and from that deduce everything. Discipline can change, so I think we have here a theological fundamentalism, which is not Catholic.” It seems here that Kasper is trying to impregnate Jesus’ clear teaching on divorce and add or “change a discipline” to fit his modern idea, rather than a fundamental or orthodox teaching. This smells too much like a protestant mentality, one in which you can pick and choose what you want. This may be another case of Cafeteria Catholicism. Cardinal Burke says it well, “When you attempt to drive a wedge between discipline and doctrinal truth, it is simply false in the Catholic Church. Discipline is at the service of the teaching of some sacred reality.”

This is I feel is a great problem today especially amidst so much pruning of truth by other Christian denominations. How can we claim stalwart perennial truths, if our actions demonstrate the contrary? Non-Catholics do not understand our terminology, but what they do see are people getting decrees of nullity and to them this is Catholic divorce. The approval of copious amounts of petitions for decrees are scandalizing to those whom we are boasting orthodoxy in our faith –this is a poor witness.

The enemy has dubbed their innovations as a merciful way of dealing with the problem of marriage and divorce. Kasper says, “Divorced and remarried people should find a good priest who accompanies them for some time and if this second civil marriage is solid, then the path of new orientation can end with a confession and absolution.” At face value this does seem merciful to the couple; however, truth is has been undermined in this scenario and the marriage is completely left out of the conversation. No, I do not mean the new union, I mean the original marriage. What about the spouse or children who have been left, what about the truth of Jesus, what about chastity? A confession and absolution are only one part of the process; restitution must be made to the true marriage as well. When this is done, the scales are made right; however, the one-sided solutions do not zero in Kasper’s proposals. Unfortunately, in this new scenario, the parties remain outside a state of grace, continue to be unworthily able to receive communion and could potentially end up in Hell.

       “Pope Pious the XII in a talk to the tribunal of the Roman Rhoda, set forth the beauty and appreciation of the decrees of nullity process in a way that it gets to the truth of about the claim that a marriage is null so that the parties can really be at piece that the declaration of nullity serves their good and is not just a Catholic divorce. (Cardinal Burke).” This again, is why the annulment process is as complex and thorough as it is – for the good of the souls. If so be it a decree cannot be granted, it is for their own good. They must both live in chastity with their current partner and do their best to live according to the teaching of the Church. This is not easy, but is it worth disobeying the teaching of Christ and suffering for eternity? The nullity process is not a Divine Law; however, you cannot expect the Church not to have a process by which to determine objectively with a degree of moral certitude that a marriage is null –it would be asinine to assert otherwise. If you revert to a quick once over method, you do no favors, are acting irresponsible, and are not shepherding souls.