“Church should take new approach towards question of communion for remarried divorcees"

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The issue is not the remarrying after divorce without annulment in-and-of itself. That is always a grave sin. The issue is how much blame each person has to bear. The issue is culpability.

In the play Les Miserables, the main character Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread. He took something that wasn’t his without permission and that is the definition of theft. He broke one of the ten commandments and so his actions were objectively sinful. He sinned - period - but he did it because his children were starving. The question then becomes how much blame he bears - what is his level of culpability?

If Jean Valjean has no culpability, if he cannot be blamed, then can he receive the Eucharist?

A divorced and remarried couple may be objectively culpable, in a state of sin, but they may have reduced subjective culpability, or not be culpable at all. That is what they are looking at.

It is an important question to ask. The Catholics Come Home ministry at our Church gets lots of couples who left the Church because they were told they could not receive, or people who want to come back but they have questions about their status. Some are told they cannot receive the Eucharist because they are in a state of sin and they walk back out the door and never come back. If they have no culpability then maybe they can receive???

I don’t know. That is up to the Church.

-Tim-
 
Ok, I give. You get the last word. :rolleyes: (response to Bookcat, not Tim :))
 
TimothyH said:
In the play Les Miserables, the main character Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread. He took something that wasn’t his without permission and that is the definition of theft. He broke one of the ten commandments and so his actions were objectively sinful. He sinned - period - but he did it because his children were starving. The question then becomes how much blame he bears - what is his level of culpability?

If Jean Valjean has no culpability, if he cannot be blamed, then can he receive the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Need to revisit this…

Such need not involve any theft.

Such is NOT the definition of the Theft.

Catechism:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. **This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) **is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#I

Such can be “not theft” by definition.
 
The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage
  1. If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. (91) There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church’s pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.(92) The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.
When legitimate doubts exist about the validity of the prior sacramental marriage, the necessary investigation must be carried out to establish if these are well-founded. Consequently there is a need to ensure, in full respect for canon law (93), the presence of local ecclesiastical tribunals, their pastoral character, and their correct and prompt functioning (94). Each Diocese should have a sufficient number of persons with the necessary preparation, so that the ecclesiastical tribunals can operate in an expeditious manner. I repeat that “it is a grave obligation to bring the Church’s institutional activity in her tribunals ever closer to the faithful” (95). At the same time, pastoral care must not be understood as if it were somehow in conflict with the law. Rather, one should begin by assuming that the fundamental point of encounter between the law and pastoral care is love for the truth: truth is never something purely abstract, but “a real part of the human and Christian journey of every member of the faithful” (96). Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage (97).

~ Pope Benedict XVI

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html
 
Bookcat said:
The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage
  1. If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. (91) There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church’s pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.(92) The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.
When legitimate doubts exist about the validity of the prior sacramental marriage, the necessary investigation must be carried out to establish if these are well-founded. Consequently there is a need to ensure, in full respect for canon law (93), the presence of local ecclesiastical tribunals, their pastoral character, and their correct and prompt functioning (94). Each Diocese should have a sufficient number of persons with the necessary preparation, so that the ecclesiastical tribunals can operate in an expeditious manner. I repeat that “it is a grave obligation to bring the Church’s institutional activity in her tribunals ever closer to the faithful” (95). At the same time, pastoral care must not be understood as if it were somehow in conflict with the law. Rather, one should begin by assuming that the fundamental point of encounter between the law and pastoral care is love for the truth: truth is never something purely abstract, but “a real part of the human and Christian journey of every member of the faithful” (96). Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage (97).

~ Pope Benedict xvi

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html
Click to expand...
OK, my last try. We know what the current practice is. We’ve (at least I) have read the same things you have. What we are discussing is the possibility that it could change and why that might not be a bad idea in some people’s opinions. You seem to be really threatened or something by that. I don’t know why it is that hard to understand. Nothing has changed yet and so to keep quoting the current documents isn’t adding to the discussion.
 
ProVobis said:
Good points.

I’m still of the old school that one doesn’t receive communion until after he’s gone to confession.
Click to expand...
I am really confused by this statement. Was it once taught that one must always go to confession prior to reception of Communion, even when regular examinations of conscience reveal no sins of grave matter?
 
AnneTeresa said:
OK, my last try. We know what the current practice is. We’ve (at least I) have read the same things you have. What we are discussing is the possibility that it could change and why that might not be a bad idea in some people’s opinions. You seem to be really threatened or something by that. I don’t know why it is that hard to understand. Nothing has changed yet and so to keep quoting the current documents isn’t adding to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Huh? Me threatened?

The Teaching of Christ on Marriage cannot Change.

If the first Marriage is a valid sacrament the Church cannot admit a person to receive Holy Communion if they are living “as husband and wife” with another person while the spouse is living.

Is it going to change that “the Pope is going to allow remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion” per se? No.

Could there be certain procedure changes in dealing with various cases? Perhaps. There is always room for betterment of such. Could there be other questions discussed in time and solutions found for certain aspects -certain particular cases? Perhaps.
 
AnneTeresa said:
Yes. It is an OBJECTIVE mortal sin. Subjectively, it may not be. .
Click to expand...
Are you aware that you just contradicted yourself here?

To be an objectively mortal wrong, that means (by definition) that is morally wrong everywhere, and under every circumstance.
 
mommamaree said:
I am really confused by this statement. Was it once taught that one must always go to confession prior to reception of Communion, even when regular examinations of conscience reveal no sins of grave matter?
Click to expand...
I was taught by Polish priests so all sins were considered grave. 🙂

But apparently I wasn’t the only one. Here is what I thought an interesting read about the Orthodox in the U.K. I believe this to be an opinion only and I apologize if this is in the wrong forum.
It does not matter which Local Orthodox Church you belong to: Confession is the norm before communion and it is not limited to just the Russian, Romanian, Serbian and Bulgarian Churches (90% of all Orthodox). The bad habit of some Greeks, especially in the Diaspora, who have over the last forty years or so fallen into the decadent Western practice of not having confession before communion and adopted by those who do not know any better, is not justified. Just because some have fallen into bad habits, this does not mean that they are to be aped. Communion without confession is NOT the Orthodox norm anywhere…
Click to expand...
orthodoxengland.org.uk/confessio.htm
 
AnneTeresa said:
OK, my last try. We know what the current practice is. We’ve (at least I) have read the same things you have. What we are discussing is the possibility that it could change and why that might not be a bad idea in some people’s opinions. You seem to be really threatened or something by that. I don’t know why it is that hard to understand. Nothing has changed yet and so to keep quoting the current documents isn’t adding to the discussion.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the significance of the opinions of some people. There are certain caveats: non-Catholics entering the Church, the dying. Aside from these (which have other mitigating factors) it is a corporal work of mercy to remind people that God’s law is binding.

“From the beginning it was not so” “one flesh”
 
Brendan said:
Are you aware that you just contradicted yourself here?

To be an objectively mortal wrong, that means (by definition) that is morally wrong everywhere, and under every circumstance.
Click to expand...
If she meant that the sin is objectively grave, but the culpability is subjective, then she’s right on. And I suspect that’s exactly what she meant.

Right now my head is spinning with all this. We’re discussing a hypothetical that hasn’t happened yet.

It could be nothing changes. It could be that the Holy Father simply streamlines the annulment process. It could be that they re-think culpability. He has already said he’s looking at the Orthodox approach.

Whatever happens, I think I’ll just put my trust in him and the Promise that Jesus made to St. Peter, and let the chips fall where they may. In any case it doesn’t even have any application to my circumstances. Only been married once, to the same lovely lady 🙂

I do know others hurt over this though, and until I can walk a mile in their shoes I’ll refrain from judging their situations.
 
Now, what about “facilitating inculpability?” Can there be anything said for that? If we are just saying, “Shh, don’t talk about it,” we are basically just denying catechesis to someone in hopes they remain uneducated/dumb enough to not be guilty. How can that be good?

I don’t see how one can’t be told, rationally, flatly, that “divorce” is wrong and isn’t real, that unless there is some good reason otherwise then a marriage must be presumed valid. I don’t see how if you say that to someone in as clear and forceful (but charitable) a way as possible, and they still don’t get it, you wouldn’t have to begin to question their intelligence or competence to comprehend information. What else can a priest/tribunal member say at that point to himself other than, “I tried my hardest, there is nothing I can do further, and I will not endanger my own conscience by creeping too close to falsity and misinformation?”

Yes, passions can compromise our ability to understand. However, passions aren’t always high, and if they are, then I suppose that isn’t anyone’s “fault.” (See above “I tried my hardest…”)
 
AnneTeresa said:
…
The church is right about the permanence of marriage. But how that applies in today’s messy world of divorce, remarriage, bad teaching, etc. and what to do with people ALREADY in this situation is the issue here. The church failed many people over the years by its lack of teaching …
.
Click to expand...
Anne Teresa is right about the problem of bad teaching. For 50 years many Catholics got ambiguous teaching (from some Catholic sources, and society at large) about marriage. Some Catholics made bad decisions about cohabitating and second marriages. I wouldn’t say bad teaching caused it, but bad teaching made it easier to happen. Past bad teaching doesn’t make it any less harmful for them to continue destructive behavior now. The problem isn’t “bad teaching” but some clergy, religious, religious writers and educators who said it’s compassionate and “pastoral” if we omit teaching about remarriage (and contraception, etc). Catholic teaching was good, sometimes teachers were not.

I know other people who started a pattern, smoking, years ago when teaching about it was ambiguous. Regardless of why you started smoking it’s better to quit. I’d urge people to break bad patterns (smoking, or “living together”), since continuing such patterns hurts them, now. Even if someone got hooked on smoking, or in a problem second relationship, before they were mature enough, the compassionate response NOW is to help them not continue that pattern.

As a social worker it troubles that so few posters mention children, and the fact that child abuse and domestic violence are far more common in relationships outside of, or after, an original marriage. The value of the Church’s teaching is more evident now than 50 years ago.
 
AnneTeresa said:
OK, my last try. We know what the current practice is. We’ve (at least I) have read the same things you have. What we are discussing is the possibility that it could change and why that might not be a bad idea in some people’s opinions. You seem to be really threatened or something by that. I don’t know why it is that hard to understand. Nothing has changed yet and so to keep quoting the current documents isn’t adding to the discussion.
Click to expand...
With due respect, are you not the one acting defensively and threatened? Why should the Pope’s words bother you? It is a pattern on these threads. It doesn’t matter if it is a homosexual relationship, masturbation or in this case, objective adultery awaiting the process of investigation into the validity of the first marriage. The trend I’ve noticed here seems to be for Catholics to demand that sin not be treated as sin because it is a sin they personally struggle with. Aren’t gay Catholics also required to carry the same cross of abstinence that is being asked in your case? Why should it be different for you than it is for them? They did not choose their condition, yet the demands of Christian life cannot acquiesce the sin they would fall into should they not surrender to abstinence. IMO, their cross seems just as heavy, considering there remains for remarried couples, the possibility that an investigation into the circumstances of the previous marriage may lead to a decree of nullity of the former, considering one’s former ignorant state of mind. There remains hope that the continence you are called to practice is only temporary. Why can’t you submit your case to such an investigation? Considering your former ignorance, it is likely that the first marriage may not have been binding.
 
One_point said:
With due respect, are you not the one acting defensively and threatened? Why should the Pope’s words bother you? It is a pattern on these threads. It doesn’t matter if it is a homosexual relationship, masturbation or in this case, objective adultery awaiting the process of investigation into the validity of the first marriage. The trend I’ve noticed here seems to be for Catholics to demand that sin not be treated as sin because it is a sin they personally struggle with. Aren’t gay Catholics also required to carry the same cross of abstinence that is being asked in your case? Why should it be different for you than it is for them? They did not choose their condition, yet the demands of Christian life cannot acquiesce the sin they would fall into should they not surrender to abstinence. IMO, their cross seems just as heavy, considering there remains for remarried couples, the possibility that an investigation into the circumstances of the previous marriage may lead to a decree of nullity of the former, considering one’s former ignorant state of mind. There remains hope that the continence you are called to practice is only temporary. Why can’t you submit your case to such an investigation? Considering your former ignorance, it is likely that the first marriage may not have been binding.
Click to expand...
Wow. If that is respect you fooled me. Not that its any of your business but I am in my first marriage. My husband was married before. His ex-wife remarried. Her priest told her she had an annulment and gave her a piece of paper of some sort… It may have been an internal forum thing. No one knows. My husband and I returned to church after 25 years years of marriage. We wanted to do the right thing even though our priest didn’t care one way or the other. He filed for annulment even though it had been over 40 years ago. It was granted… So much for your theory. It’s a great example of people judging others they know nothing about.

The pope s words do not threaten me. Having been through this I think it is worth looking at the process which is what I understand he may do. That said I am outta here. This discussion has taken an ugly turn and I really d on t appreciate the things you said to me.
 
UbiCaritas15 said:
I don’t understand the significance of the opinions of some people. There are certain caveats: non-Catholics entering the Church, the dying. Aside from these (which have other mitigating factors) it is a corporal work of mercy to remind people that God’s law is binding.

“From the beginning it was not so” “one flesh”
Click to expand...
Is it a corporal work of mercy or a spiritual work of mercy?
 
AnneTeresa said:
Wow. If that is respect you fooled me. Not that its any of your business but I am in my first marriage. My husband was married before. His ex-wife remarried. Her priest told her she had an annulment and gave her a piece of paper of some sort… It may have been an internal forum thing. No one knows. My husband and I returned to church after 25 years years of marriage. We wanted to do the right thing even though our priest didn’t care one way or the other. He filed for annulment even though it had been over 40 years ago. It was granted… So much for your theory. It’s a great example of people judging others they know nothing about.

The pope s words do not threaten me. Having been through this I think it is worth looking at the process which is what I understand he may do. That said I am outta here. This discussion has taken an ugly turn and I really d on t appreciate the things you said to me.
Click to expand...
Im sorry you’re offended. I did not mean to insult. You did present yourself as speaking as a person who is in this special position by experience and dismissed others who supposedly don’t know, not being in your special position, and only knowing about “rules”. I’m happy you are in a good position now with regards to your marriage. My suggestion was made in good faith, because the reasons you were bringing up for why those second marriages occur, like the breakdown of catechisis, are good reasons for annulment from what I’ve heard about it. I hope other Catholics do the same as you and your husband did. You are right that It’s not my business what you and your husband do but you made your personal lifestyle a part of this discussion, not me.
 
AnneTeresa said:
He filed for annulment even though it had been over 40 years ago. It was granted…
Click to expand...
More importantly you were willing to work with the Church on this and accept their decision to be able to receive the sacraments or not. That’s a whole lot different than someone turning away from God and the Church forever IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top