The following comes from a February 26 The Catholic Thing article by Cardinal George Pell.
Interestingly, Jesus’ hard teaching that “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mt 19:6) follows not long after his insistence to Peter on the necessity of forgiveness (see Mt 18:21–35).
It is true that Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman who was threatened with death by stoning, but he did not tell her to keep up her good work, to continue unchanged in her ways. He told her to sin no more (see Jn 8:1–11).
One insurmountable barrier for those advocating a new doctrinal and pastoral discipline for the reception of Holy Communion is the almost complete unanimity of two thousand years of Catholic history on this point. It is true that the Orthodox have a long-standing but different tradition, forced on them originally by their Byzantine emperors, but this has never been the Catholic practice.
One might claim that the penitential disciplines in the early centuries before the Council of Nicaea were too fierce as they argued whether those guilty of murder, adultery, or apostasy could be reconciled by the Church to their local communities only once—or not at all. They always acknowledged that God could forgive, even when the Church’s ability to readmit sinners to the community was limited.
Such severity was the norm at a time when the Church was expanding in numbers, despite persecution. It can no more be ignored than the teachings of the Council of Trent or those of Saint John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI on marriage can be ignored. Were the decisions that followed Henry VIII’s divorce totally unnecessary?
Ummmm. This is just confusing. Is it an incomplete version of something he wrote? I have a hard time believing that Cardinal Pell writes for Crisis Magazine?
I can’t tell what he is trying to say and which side of the issue he is on.
What decisions that followed King Henry VIII’s divorce is he referring to? One’s made by the Church or by the King?
Which brings up an interesting point. If you cut off your wife’s head, you are free to remarry, but if you divorce her, not.
I stand with Tradition. I can’t tell at all where Cardinal Pell stands from this article.
Pell is speaking with a British sense of irony. Of course he condemns Henry’s actions.
When the California Catholic Daily provides links (in blue) within an article,
it is very helpful to read the linked stories. (See link to “Catholic Thing”).
Cardinal Pell does NOT support Catholics who choose to continue committing adultery being able to receive Holy Communion.
I clicked the link. It is the exact same thing, One of the comments on that page said it is from the forward to a book, the Gospel of the Family.
Looking on Amazon, the forward can be read as a preview and Cardinal Pell does commend the authors for upholding the traditional teaching of indissoluble marriage calmly and charitably.
He makes many interesting and important points in his preface.
This excerpt did not do justice to the Cardinal’s writing.
PELL and Burke do not support SACRILEGE against the Eucharist
– unlike Donald Weurl, Blasé Cupich, and Robert McElroy,
Baldiserri, Forte, Kasper, and Danneels who do.
That’s because, as it says it comes from what Cardinal Pell wrote – it doesn’t pretend to be his complete article.
anonymous— in answer to your question. if you cut off your wife’s head to marry another, you fall under the canon law “diriment impediment” of “crimen”, from which you cannot be dispensed.
caritas, thanks I did not know that.
But if you killed your spouse for another reason, you could remarry, right?
Life ….
jenny ?
Poor Henry — as the song goes “Ahead of My Time” (from “Joseph and His Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat”). Just think of all the history, and all the suffering, and death, of great men, and women, too, that believed (and paid for it).
Really, poor St. Thomas More. What is the point of fidelity, anyway, People? Perhaps the answer “is blowing in the wind” as another song goes. Success is simply trying to figure out what is up, and acting on it.
Makes Jesus out to be something like the typical con man, kind of like Prof. Harold Hill (“The Music Man”), if you believe the absolute tragedy of what Cardinals Wuerl and Kasper and Marx are selling. The must be one immutable Faith, which means something, and the violation of which also means something. If you can change it “based on the times” (see Fr. Rosica), then there is no real sin, and no real threat of damnation (see Fr. Barron).
Well, Holy Father, if all this is true, then there is no real reason to be Catholic. Go off and find whatever makes you “feel good” about God, and do that: golf, boating, stamp collecting, consenting sex (of all kinds), whatever. Or maybe find another “sect” that really believes in what they preach — like Fundamentalist Christians (and many, many Catholics are doing just that).
St. Thomas More was very faithful, God bless him for standing up for what is right.
This type of defiance from this King is nothing new. What is interesting is that this King Henry was once a faithful Catholic, even wrote good things that were Catholic. What went wrong later on that he wanted to break away from the faith. Sin makes people do bad things, they hurt others in the process. This king hurt many people by his actions, even the women he married. He was married 6 times Lots of rulers where like that.
Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong. Would the Church change that adultery is no longer wrong or a sin?……..just as sodomy is no longer wrong or a sin according to the Supreme Court. And IF you continually live in sin doesn’t that preclude receiving the Eucharist? I would say case closed!
But then again EVERYBODY receives Holy Communion at each Mass so there is no sin anymore,. Right?
There are many individuals and couples who do not go to Communion at the parish I attend.
Same here at the churches in my valley, Anonymous, whether they are the Ordinary Mass or the Extraordinary. The confessional lines are fairly long to very long, too. Some other areas or states might be different.
Regarding ADULTERY JESUS said:
JESUS on divorce and remarriage – Mk 10:6-12; Mt 5:32.
JESUS on adultery, mercy, and required repentance – “Go and SIN NO MORE ”
Jn 8:11.
GOD’s COMMANMENTS:
“Thou shall not commit Adultery” – GOD’s Commandment – Ex 20:14 ;
Deut 5:18.
“Thou shall not covet thy Neighbor’s wife” – GOD’s Commandment Ex 20:17 ; – Deut 5.20.
Doctrine of the Faith:
CCC: ” 1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed,
together with the RESOLUTION NOT to SIN AGAIN.”
The evil that Henry VIII did has had a tremendously negative impact on society. Because of his sins, England became Protestant and very anti-Catholic. So many souls were lost because of this Tudor king. It is a tragedy.
I agree Father Karl. I wonder if this King went through some midlife crises that he wanted to divorce his good wife to have another. Why are men committing such great evil. Same thing happens today. You see holy traditional families then all of a suddenly they find themselves vulnerable to divorce, separation, left humilated, children hurting all because the men that were suppose to protect their wife and children are not because they betray God, their vows, are caught up in infidelity. These men fall out of grace. They blame the church and spouse when actuality it is their own sinful choices that have produced all that division. I like the movie courageous. It encourages men to be men and do what is honorable. Just like what Cardinal Burke often teaches and encourages men to be men. Men after God’s own heart.
As Belloc noted: before England’s defection, the Reformation had the support of no major European power. Had England stayed Catholic, the other Catholic powers (France, Austria and Spain) might have restricted the Reformation to a few minor, mostly German-speaking territories.
Interesting stuff Tom….
Methinks the author doth obfuscate in a manner most contradictorily verbose.
That or kinda like got it just a teensy bit Rong, when summarizing:
“It is true that Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman who was threatened with death by stoning… He told her to sin no more (see Jn 8:1–11).”
Actually – that was a Aondemnation, of and from the First Order, and to marginalize it as a ‘no no’ is to ignore its vitally important lessons.. BTW, Jesus also saved the crowd from the ‘duty’ to Kill, and possibly break another Commandment.
Catholics Believe that the Soul is not Of the flesh, but during life contained therein, along with consciousness and a whole lot of human baggage.
When the Man Himself = Jesus the Christ – Directly tells You – that You have Sinned, and Better Stop… It does not get clearer than that, and is of far greater import to Your Immortal Soul than getting hit with a rock..
One suspects perhaps the author has some confusion between the temporal threat of Death of the body by Stoning, versus the Death of an Immortal Soul via Sin – that leads those without a Catholic Viewpoint to regard the former as worse than the latter.
Not So. We all owe God a Death, when we are to be Judged before the only power that matters. What happens forever afterward is far more important than what led up to it, although the one is definitely linked to the other…
– Hopefully we will pass peacefully, and with a whole lot of God’s Grace & Mercy as well.
His wive he wanted to divorce while he was having an affair, that could also explain his disconnect with her and cruel behavior: :Men get away often with behaviors like these:
Catherine of Aragon
Originally, Catherine of Aragon had been married to King Henry’s brother, Arthur. Once he died, Catherine and Henry were married. Story has it that Catherine was truly loved by the King. However, she bore him no sons who lived past infancy, which is the reason why many believe that he ultimately decided to divorce her.
King Henry asked for papal dispensation of the marriage because he said he had married his brother’s wife. However, he had already begun having an affair with Mary Boleyn, which is another cause for his request from the Pope.
The Pope would not grant his request for dispensation of the marriage, and this ultimately led King Henry to break away from the Roman Catholic Church and to start the Church of England.
Henry was also greatly inclined to acquire the wealth of the Church (and the subsequent income of Her vast properties) as he had driven England into the red financially. Being denied a son of ‘Catherine’ and putting forward that it was ‘God’s’ punishment for an incestuous marriage (The trumped up grounds for divorce) was merely a convenient excuse by which Henry could absolve himself (he thought) of doing ill by a thoroughly faithful, competent, legitimate and stalwartly CATHOLIC queen that England adored. The English hated Anne Boelyn.
Ann you are aware that Catherine was a widower when she married the King? She was perfectly fine to remarry. Maybe I misunderstood your post. Just clarifying.
He had a total of 6 wives from what I recollect, they were, its because he kept having affairs, he lost intimacy so easily because he was open to entertaining new ones, disrespecting women:
1.Catherine of Aragon
2. Anne Boleyn
3.Jane Seymour
4.Anne of Cleves
5.Catherine Howard
6.Catherine Parr
these women where also threatened to be beheaded if they did not do what he wanted especially when it came to bearing heirs.
Since porn was not like it is today but its some kind of sexual fantasy that these men have, breaking their bond of their sacramental marriage to experiment with all different types in bed. All these type of injustices committed against women, no wonder many where pushed to survival skills to help them endure the circumstances they could not escape. This King had sick sex issues, using women, its no wonder he couldn’t commit to one and love her and respect her as God commanded it, I’m sure the excuse is that its just a guy thing…..NO its not. Its when men do not fear and honor God and love their spouse, the way the Lord commanded it,
…don’t kid yourself about the porn. Medieval manuscripts, complete with drawings, are not the things of romantic fiction. And a king didn’t have need of a magazine when he could make use of the real thing – women or whomever – to do and act as he would command.
That’s why this new Synodal approach to the family is absurd. This kind of thing, with perhaps the exception of openly endorsed homosexual relationships and the open attempt to medically alter one’s gender, is not new. (Although the Emperor Nero, after killing his wife Poppaea, ‘married’ a young slave, Sporus, he had forcibly castrated.) It’s the same old rehash. And if the Church doesn’t respond with the requisite, NO, then compromise is all there will be.
And a compromised vault is a vault bereft of its treasure.
Well Ann Malley, with all due respect, I am not going to get into our church issues with you since you do not belong to our church and I respect that you have valid concerns as well. So no denying that.
I agree with you on the issue of porn back in those days, you do bring up a good point there. But today with the internet, with chat rooms and such, I am sure porn is much worst or just like as barbaric as it ever was. Just plain disgusting.
The english developed a mnemonic for keeping track of how Henry applied the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ to his desire for a successor to the line.
In order the 6 went as follows: Divorced, Beheaded, Died – Divorced, Beheaded, Survived.
He had two daughters – Mary & Elizabeth, with Elizabeth putting Mary to Death and having no children of her own – Civil War (in the English manner) broke out, as it did later with Cromwell & Parliament taking off the King’s head.
BTW – Victoria became Queen although about #50 in line of succession – because she was the First Protestant they reached. Victoria was also known as the ‘grandmother of Europe, although inbreeding amongst the ‘royalty’ led to the spread of her hemophilia throughout the Dynastic houses – and may have played a role in their collapse.
BTW – The Rule Still Stands – No Catholics on the Throne of England.