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

[ProVobis]

Seems like you got it. The remarry part would be in civil terms. Divorce is a precondition of procuring an annulment but one would have to be married in order to be divorced.

In Church terminology, an annulment means there was never a valid marriage to begin with. So we wouldn’t be remarrying from that standpoint. OTOH, if our spouse had died first, then we would be validly remarrying.

 

[pnewton]

I’m a little confused. Can someone explain what is meant by "remarried divorcees.

To me that means that a person was in a VALID marriage before and if so then no annulment is possible. That being the case receiving Holy Communion is impossible if they legally divorce their first spouse and get remarried.

That is correct. Those are one group the Holy Father wants to examine and see if something better might be done to minister to these people.

 

[Desertsilver]

pn, And I’m happy to this day I went through the process of annulment before making any decisions about my future marital state. The annulment process is more than just a formality as it is designed to heal a lot of wounds besides. IMO.

In what way was it a healing experience? I went through a bad divorce years ago, with child protection etc involved. I have been dragged in to court 3 times, having to go through interviews and psychological evals over and over again as he attempted to get custody…

I would love an annulment, and to be free to date- but the thought of dredging all that muck up again one more time is just totally daunting.

 

[hotdiggity]

It’s not possible for divorced and re-marrieds to receive the Eucharist without a declaration of nullity regarding their first “marriage.” That being the case, what exactly could be changed in this case?

My wife and I have been going through this process since Spring 2012 and have just received the good news that we will be received into full communion with the Church 12-14-2013

We have been attending Mass since Easter 2012 and are usually the only people who don’t go down for Communion. It was a bit uncomfortable for me at first as I always felt like I was in the way of people trying to get out of the pew, or back into the pew, but that changed over time.

While I can appreciate there is a whole segment of individuals in irregular marriages which prevent their communing, and I share some small understanding of how that feels, but what I don’t understand is how this situation can be addressed in a way to make Communion a possibility for this group.

Maybe I misunderstand the focus of any proposed change. Maybe it’s more of an initiative to reach out to people in this situation and assure them of God’s love and the Church’s teachings than an attempt to change doctrine regarding the Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

One question I have never understood is how this affects evangelism to those who are remarried. Now, one has to get an annulment to be received into the Church. It would seem that this is the only sin that is not forgivable, even though it is not a subjective mortal sin in this case. After all, if one is not Catholic, then there simple is no knowledge of the moral teaching regarding divorce an remarriage. This is not something like stealing or lying that every with a conscience is aware of. In fact, pretty much every other Christian denomination view the sin of adultery as an event and not a state, as does the Catholic Church pretty much every other sin (one does not live in a state of being a thief, for example).

I personally would be interested in this being investigated more and am glad the Holy Father has taken this on.

Herein lies the problem, to confess a sin for the purpose of forgiveness, one has to be sorry. If one is living in adultery and doesn’t try to heal the marriage, there is no contrition, therefore, no forgiveness. It would be merciful to beg and plead for the healing of marriages. It would be merciful for priests to believe in marriages and for the Church to take responsibility for verbal excommunications as Paul says: So that souls may be saved in the day of the Lord.

 

[pnewton]

Herein lies the problem, to confess a sin for the purpose of forgiveness, one has to be sorry. If one is living in adultery and doesn’t try to heal the marriage, there is no contrition,

I do not agree with that last statement. One can be divorced for many legitimate reasons that preclude healing the marriage. I believe contrition for the sin of re-marriage may well exist even if one believes that healing the previous and presumed valid marriage is practically impossible. The first action (divorce) is not something that is objectively sinful. That part may not require any contrition or action to redress.

I would like to note that never in confession have I been asked to take extreme actions to qualify as contrition. If one watched inappropriate material on television, does the priest require for contrition that one ditch the television for life?

I do not know what the answer would be. Hopefully something new would come up. The only thing I have ever thought of is to treat the situation similar to most other sins and based on the idea of living as brother and sister. The couple could resolve, even if they do not agree with the idea that they should live as brother and sister, to seek to understand the mind of the Church and to work toward the state of brother and sister required of the Church. Thus, the contrition could be real, if imperfect, and the couple could together work for the most perfect relationship permitted by moral law. If the process takes a while, meaning they continue to have sex sometimes, but remain committed, then allow them the same access to reconciliation every other sinner has.

 

[Brendan]

In the case of being a hit man, he could receive absolution with the sincere intention of quitting the job. If he did it again because of some circumstances, he could again receive absolution. How many times? Seventy times seven?

Yes, what you say is true. But the same also holds true for a couple in an irregular marriage.

They could choose to live a continent life, sort of like choosing to abandon the mob

If they fall from continence, that is something that can be confessed and absolved. Like the hitman with whom circumstance force to take another ‘contract’.

But their intent MUST be to live a continent life.

The only thing I have ever thought of is to treat the situation similar to most other sins and based on the idea of living as brother and sister. The couple could resolve, even if they do not agree with the idea that they should live as brother and sister, to seek to understand the mind of the Church and to work toward the state of brother and sister required of the Church. Thus, the contrition could be real, if imperfect, and the couple could together work for the most perfect relationship permitted by moral law. If the process takes a while, meaning they continue to have sex sometimes, but remain committed, then allow them the same access to reconciliation every other sinner has.

I suppose that will be the thrust of the new mission to those in irregular marriages. To inform them of this option of continence and provide the necessary resources and spiritual guidance to live such a life.

Will it be difficult?, certainly, but that is the mission of the Church; to transform the world to live according to the Gospel.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

I do not agree with that last statement. One can be divorced for many legitimate reasons that preclude healing the marriage. I believe contrition for the sin of re-marriage may well exist even if one believes that healing the previous and presumed valid marriage is practically impossible. The first action (divorce) is not something that is objectively sinful. That part may not require any contrition or action to redress.

I would like to note that never in confession have I been asked to take extreme actions to qualify as contrition. If one watched inappropriate material on television, does the priest require for contrition that one ditch the television for life?

I do not know what the answer would be. Hopefully something new would come up. The only thing I have ever thought of is to treat the situation similar to most other sins and based on the idea of living as brother and sister. The couple could resolve, even if they do not agree with the idea that they should live as brother and sister, to seek to understand the mind of the Church and to work toward the state of brother and sister required of the Church. Thus, the contrition could be real, if imperfect, and the couple could together work for the most perfect relationship permitted by moral law. If the process takes a while, meaning they continue to have sex sometimes, but remain committed, then allow them the same access to reconciliation every other sinner has.

It is perfectly fine if you don’t agree with me. I only know the truth that is mine.

First, there is a difference between a situation wherein separation is necessary, but we are far from a time where a woman was legally ineligible to support herself. There is no good reason to "re"marry in the case that one has a valid sacramental marriage.

Up to the conscience cannot apply to oaths that are sworn as a community agreement. A marriage is just that. Leaving items up to conscience opens the door to carte blanche annulments.

Divorce is objectively sinful, separation however for the health of spouses and children is NOT. "‘For I hate divorce’ says the Lord (Mal 2:16)

Marriage is itself an extreme action. "Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Matt 19:8-10
Asking someone to repent from their sin is no extreme action. My hunch is that openly practicing homosexuals, promoting such action to the community shouldn’t receive communion. This is the no different.

“living as brother and sister.” perhaps for the abandoned spouse. But for the unrepentant spouse, this forces the abandoned and faithful spouse to sleep alone every night, to risk estrangement or loss of his/her children, the loss of the souls of all involved.

To each his own, but my family has been decimated by the lack of decisive action in terms of the mercy of loud excommunication. Decimated. Abandoned. And mocked openly by the lack of action of the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

In what way was it a healing experience? I went through a bad divorce years ago, with child protection etc involved. I have been dragged in to court 3 times, having to go through interviews and psychological evals over and over again as he attempted to get custody…

I would love an annulment, and to be free to date- but the thought of dredging all that muck up again one more time is just totally daunting.

If at any time something makes you uncomfortable to talk about, say so. You will have representation before the tribunal, before which you don’t have to appear. It’s been over 20 years since my annulment and I don’t remember too much of it, but I do remember it wasn’t a matter of finger pointing as you have in court. OTOH, maybe there are a few out there where the process (and it can be overwhelming at times, I won’t kid you) it becomes just as much if not more painful than in court.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

If at any time something makes you uncomfortable to talk about, say so. You will have representation before the tribunal, before which you don’t have to appear. It’s been over 20 years since my annulment and I don’t remember too much of it, but I do remember it wasn’t a matter of finger pointing as you have in court. OTOH, maybe there are a few out there where the process (and it can be overwhelming at times, I won’t kid you) it becomes just as much if not more painful than in court.

Very often, one never has to see the other party. And your lawyer will want to hear what you have to say. It can be a long process… that is the worst part, I think.

 

[Brendan]

Divorce is objectively sinful, separation however for the health of spouses and children is NOT. "‘For I hate divorce’ says the Lord (Mal 2:16).

One thing to keep in mind is that the sinfulness does not necessarily fall on both parties

CCC 2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law.

There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.178

And, in the case of abusive relationships, the culpability for the divorce falls upon the abuser, not the one who took legal action to protect themselves and any children. The fault, and therefore sin, falls upon the “one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage”

Now, of course, even in abuse, that does not sever the marital bond, so the aggrieved party is still not permitted to contract another marriage.

I know that you made no claim to accusing every recipient of a civil divorce of committing the sin of divorce, but there are many lurkers here, and I wanted to make the Church’s position clear.

 

[pnewton]

It is perfectly fine if you don’t agree with me. I only know the truth that is mine.

First, there is a difference between a situation wherein separation is necessary, but we are far from a time where a woman was legally ineligible to support herself. There is no good reason to "re"marry in the case that one has a valid sacramental marriage.

Up to the conscience cannot apply to oaths that are sworn as a community agreement. A marriage is just that. Leaving items up to conscience opens the door to carte blanche annulments.

Divorce is objectively sinful, separation however for the health of spouses and children is NOT. "‘For I hate divorce’ says the Lord (Mal 2:16)

Your truth is good. It is the teaching of the Church. Yet still the Holy Father wants change to minister to these people. You said that there is not good reason to re-marry and such a marriage is objectively sinful. The latter is true. The former would be true for anyone who understands the Sacramental nature of Matrimony.

That is the rub. Outside of the Catholic Church, such a teaching does not exist. It is not intuitively immoral, as stealing, adultery and murder are. Not only is it not intuitive, the vast majority of non-Catholic ministers will support re-marriage as a legitimate. Anything that happened previously, if sinful, is seen as an action, forgiven, move on. Now for evangelizing and bringing these people into full communion, we are dealing with people that subjectively have no burden of sin in re-marrying. They do not think it is a sin. Their ministers do not think it is a sin. Their denomination does not have it as a doctrine. So when they come in contact with the Catholic Church, they are taught that this is an objective sin, when before it was not sin (subjectively).

It is a head-banger of a situation. I am glad our Holy Father has taken the initiative on this.

 

[pnewton]

I know that you made no claim to accusing every recipient of a civil divorce of committing the sin of divorce, but there are many lurkers here, and I wanted to make the Church’s position clear.

Thank you and I understand the doctrine underlying canon law very well. I understand why canon law is the way it is. Canon law can be changed, but must do so in a way that does not contradict doctrine. In all things, the love and mercy of God must prevail, but must do so in truth.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

Your truth is good. It is the teaching of the Church. Yet still the Holy Father wants change to minister to these people. You said that there is not good reason to re-marry and such a marriage is objectively sinful. The latter is true. The former would be true for anyone who understands the Sacramental nature of Matrimony.

That is the rub. Outside of the Catholic Church, such a teaching does not exist. It is not intuitively immoral, as stealing, adultery and murder are. Not only is it not intuitive, the vast majority of non-Catholic ministers will support re-marriage as a legitimate. Anything that happened previously, if sinful, is seen as an action, forgiven, move on. Now for evangelizing and bringing these people into full communion, we are dealing with people that subjectively have no burden of sin in re-marrying. They do not think it is a sin. Their ministers do not think it is a sin. Their denomination does not have it as a doctrine. So when they come in contact with the Catholic Church, they are taught that this is an objective sin, when before it was not sin (subjectively).

It is a head-banger of a situation. I am glad our Holy Father has taken the initiative on this.

I am glad as well. I think we might come to an agreement when someone was raised outside of the Church. So much attention needs to be focused on pre-Cana and homilies in general explaining the mystery of marriage. My personal belief is that marriage is the center of the Church, creation and understanding the Trinity, which is the perfect family. This is of the utmost importance.

(When I say marriage and the Trinity, I don’t want to be taken out of context. There is no earthly understanding of marriage here, rather what earthly marriage points to: the perfect union of wills and ultimate fidelity)

 

[UbiCaritas15]

One thing to keep in mind is that the sinfulness does not necessarily fall on both parties

And, in the case of abusive relationships, the culpability for the divorce falls upon the abuser, not the one who took legal action to protect themselves and any children. The fault, and therefore sin, falls upon the “one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage”

Now, of course, even in abuse, that does not sever the marital bond, so the aggrieved party is still not permitted to contract another marriage.

I know that you made no claim to accusing every recipient of a civil divorce of committing the sin of divorce, but there are many lurkers here, and I wanted to make the Church’s position clear.

You know, for almost 20 years I struggled with wanting to blame only one party for the situation of my family. I have since determined that most situations, while only one party may ask for divorce, consist of alienating of affection on one or both parts and other sordid decisions. This is certainly not the case for all, but I do think most (IMO.)

In abusive situations I would never hesitate to council separation.

The problem, in the US, with the civil divorce is this. There are seven states that allow for no fault divorces. This would have opened the Church up to lawsuits in regards to the annulment process, if one seeks an annulment before a divorce. For expediency the US adopted the policy of a civil divorce as a requirement to seek an annulment. This plays a dangerous mind game with those seeking annulments. They have a legal divorce. What right has the Church to say otherwise? This is a very big problem.

I don’t intend to be harsh. Merely, realistic. The mercy God has worked in my life has been mainly in the form of tough love mercy. I very nearly lost my soul and it took that much for me to ask forgiveness. If that is what it takes, that is what it takes. But it is in no way merciful to skirt the details. I hope for the restoration of many to the Church, following a joyous preaching on the sanctity of marriage.

 

[ProVobis]

Asking someone to repent from their sin is no extreme action. My hunch is that openly practicing homosexuals, promoting such action to the community shouldn’t receive communion. This is the no different.

“living as brother and sister.” perhaps for the abandoned spouse. But for the unrepentant spouse, this forces the abandoned and faithful spouse to sleep alone every night, to risk estrangement or loss of his/her children, the loss of the souls of all involved.

To each his own, but my family has been decimated by the lack of decisive action in terms of the mercy of loud excommunication. Decimated. Abandoned. And mocked openly by the lack of action of the Church.

I could see in these situations where the Church may extend communion (and last rites) to those dying in such states. The Church after all doesn’t condemn people to Hell.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

I could see in these situations where the Church may extend communion (and last rites) to those dying in such states. The Church after all doesn’t condemn people to Hell.

As Paul instructed, the purpose of penance is remedial. I hope that on my deathbed I could be absolved, as should anyone be able. Eternity is nothing to play with. I would be very sad to hear anyone ever went to hell

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That is the rub. Outside of the Catholic Church, such a teaching does not exist. It is not intuitively immoral, as stealing, adultery and murder are. Not only is it not intuitive, the vast majority of non-Catholic ministers will support re-marriage as a legitimate. Anything that happened previously, if sinful, is seen as an action, forgiven, move on. Now for evangelizing and bringing these people into full communion, we are dealing with people that subjectively have no burden of sin in re-marrying. They do not think it is a sin. Their ministers do not think it is a sin. Their denomination does not have it as a doctrine. So when they come in contact with the Catholic Church, they are taught that this is an objective sin, when before it was not sin (subjectively).

This is a point that I’ve attempted to beat home incessantly over the years. Fact is, the vast majority of non-Catholics do not concur with the Catholic Church’s definition of marriage, in particular with regard to permanency. Even in the stricter cases, it is taught, or at least accepted, that divorce and remarriage is permissible in limited cases (notably adultery). Given that situation, the validity of a significant percentage of non-Catholic marriages may in fact be invalid if examined by a Tribunal. It’s not just my opinion either; somebody quoted a Cardinal on this forum several months ago that basically stated something similar.

 

[commenter]

“Outside of the Catholic Church, such a teaching does not exist” (from earlier post). Wrong. Actually, most, probably all, Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish groups opposed almost all divorce and remarriage. In the US, almost every state had laws severely limiting divorce until a few decades ago, except in very rare circumstances. These laws were passed when state legislators and governors were heavily Protestant. (The anti-birth control laws were also passed by Protestant politicians, but held in place by Catholics later, when Protestants lost interest in those Protestant moral traditions).

This is not a “Catholic” type rule, like Mass on Sunday or Friday abstinence. This is something older than the Catholic Church, one of many universal principles that almost everybody formerly upheld, but most others have surrendered on now. It is only recent that people point it out as a “Catholic” thing, because the Church, alone, didn’t surrender on it. As Protestants learn their own heritage - and how much was lost - some of them now are becoming Catholics. We uphold the traditional Jewish teaching on abortion. We defend the traditional Lutheran position against gay marriage. We represent the wisdom of Methodism against artificial birth control. We defend the centuries-old tradition Presbyterians on indissolubility of marriage; even if most of them today don’t defend it, may not even know it.

In a few years people will describe as “rigid” and “narrow denominational” the Catholic position on killing disabled newborns; because the other religions by then will “get with the program”. We won’t.

 

[thistle]

Seems like you got it. The remarry part would be in civil terms. Divorce is a precondition of procuring an annulment but one would have to be married in order to be divorced.

In Church terminology, an annulment means there was never a valid marriage to begin with. So we wouldn’t be remarrying from that standpoint. OTOH, if our spouse had died first, then we would be validly remarrying.

Okay. Thanks. I hope there is not the suggestion that such persons can receive Communion because they would be in a state of mortal sin and like anyone in such a state (whatever the mortal sin is) they may not receive Communion.