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

[pnewton]

“Outside of the Catholic Church, such a teaching does not exist” (from earlier post). Wrong.

I hate it when people use “Wrong” as a one word sentence to contradict an opinion. Oh, and I am correct. The sentence I used was in the present tense. I did not use past tense, as per your historical summary. I was raised in a strict Baptist area and had national interaction in that denomination. Even in the seventies it was universally accepted that a person could, in some circumstances, remarry without sin. Even those who did sin and divorce and remarry under terrible circumstances could ask God for forgiveness and continue in their present marriage fully forgiven.

BTW - to cut out the strawman here, no one is arguing that this is correct or allowable and the Catholic Church is wrong. Catholic doctrine is a given, and has been, in this whole discussion.

 

[miguel]

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.

Respectfully, I don’t think this is anything new. Henry VIII didn’t concur either. And because of that he declared himself head of the Church in England and executed anyone with the temerity to disagree. We will know them by their fruits. In Mathew 19:9, Jesus (King of Kings) gave us his law: “Now I say this to you: Anyone who divorces his wife-I am not speaking of an illicit marriage-and marries another, is guilty of adultery.” That law applies to Kings and everyone else. No doubt Henry VIII rediscovered it when he met his King. The Catholic Church speaks for Jesus Christ, with authority. Non-Catholic churches do not. It shouldn’t be too suprising that some of these churches have over time departed from God’s law in this particular area or in other areas. God’s law is for our good. Without it, death. Hand in hand with our need for law, is our need for legitimate authority. In Mt 16:18-19 Jesus also said “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” St Thomas More, martyr of Christian marriage, pray for us. God Bless.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I will quote myself in what I said in the German Church disputes CDF’s ruling on Divorce and Communion

pnewton;11457521:

I am sympathetic to the plight of the divorced and remarried. I understand the reasoning behind refusing communion, yet it must be hard to be in the only situation that the Church considers a “state”. I mean, it is not like all rich are denied communion because of the temptation of greed. It is not like I am forever refused communion because I am in a state of using filthy language that I can not seem to break 100%. I would bet that there is not a soul here that has had to re-confess a particularly difficult sin multiple times.

Yes, Jesus spoke on the sin of adultery as it relates to re-marriage. He spoke of the sin of denying Him, yet he sat at table with the Great Denier, Peter. The Holy Father is concerned with this topic and is asking for (name removed by moderator)ut across the world from the clergy. I am hopeful that some clarification will come and some pastoral alternative will be found.

Yes but temptation is not itself a sin. Presuming to not be married to someone you are (presumptively) married to while also presumptively pretending to be married to someone you are not married to is sinful, doubly in that case. You could be said to be lying twice, perhaps.

You are not in a state of using filthy language. Use of filthy words and phrases are instances, not stretches of time, so to speak.

A woman who pretends to be a priest is living in a sinful “state,” and this seems to be somewhat analogous here. Her “state” of sinfulness does not end until she stops pretending to be a priest. Period. Now, if there can be a pastoral help with this, it might be in better catechesis on why the priesthood is reserved by God to men alone. And there are some other pastoral helps I can think of. But until a “woman priest” stops pretending to be a priest, she is in a perpetually sinful state, and it is public, which is a factor in its perpetual-ness.

Similarly, marriage is a public, perpetual thing. You aren’t married here and there, this moment and not the next, at 12:36 PM but not 12:37 PM, when you’re awake but not when you’re asleep, etc. You’re married in perpetuity (but not forever), unless the Sacrament/natural institution is ended normally (by which I chiefly mean the death of a spouse). And you are presumed to be married, because we have to presume it, until a certain degree of no-it-didn’t-really-happen-because-blah-blah-blah/nullity is come to by the competent person(s).

This perpetuity, by which I mean not subject to an on-off-on-off pattern (and I distinguish perpetuity from indissolubility here) is just, shall we say, a natural (by which I mean flowing from its substance, so maybe you can say “substantial”) aspect of some actions/doings/experiences of humans, and God for that matter. It is not supernatural (because only God is supernatural) but it is of divine precondition, let’s say, and it’s not something we can change, no matter how hard we want and try.

This is just a logical thing to me, really. Now, how we translate the sacramental, dogmatic, doctrinal realities–which afaik none of them can be changed–into pastoral action that does not contradict these realities (because Catholics, even clerics, much less the Pope have the authority to contravene these things) is the difficulty, and I can agree that this can, may, and probably needs to happen. And that will be a great challenge. For it we should pray.

ps: please disregard my atrocious style and grammar, i just wrote an essay for class and don’t care anymore…

and

pnewton;11461437:

I am sure that is the very question that will be examined.

A couple in an irregular marriage can live as brother and sister. So, what does this mean? No sex. Is there any other requirement? I haven’t heard of any. Since sex is an act, and not something one is constantly doing, is it necessary to view it as a persistent state?

That is similar to what I was thinking, with the understanding that this may take a while to achieve perfectly.

No, pnewton (third question)! I think we agree.

Once people stop acting as though they are married, then the perpetual state itself ends. They can still sin by having sex, and it can be expected that they probably will mess up, but in such a case this is not a state of sin but an instance of an instantaneous (if we can contrast that with perpetual) sin. I think this is pretty much what the Church teaches are the logical sequelae of Her teaching on marriage.

NOTE to all: in this and my last post I use the terms instantaneous, perpetual, etc., in a certain way and yes, I made them up and no, I don’t know if they are official and yes, I know there are probably more appropriate terms and no, I don’t know them, and no, I don’t know where to find them, and no, I will not summarily enroll in my nearest dogmatic theology program just to learn them. I think my ideas are right. However, I know my theological language is that of a 4th grader. Theology classes in a few years…

 

[Phemie]

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.

I find that an interesting comment. I grew up in the 50s & 60s and at that time probably fewer than 50% received Communion at any given Mass. You let those who were going to Communion get out of the pew and back in at the appropriate time and never gave a thought that you might be in their way. You weren’t inconveniencing them by not going to Communion and they weren’t inconveniencing you when they returned while you were praying.

It also wasn’t uncommon to have one or two in the pew go to Communion at the beginning and some at the end, it wasn’t row by row as has developed in many parishes over the last couple of decades.

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. **

And that, I venture, is exactly what the Holy Father has in mind.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Respectfully, I don’t think this is anything new. Henry VIII didn’t concur either. And because of that he declared himself head of the Church in England and executed anyone with the temerity to disagree. We will know them by their fruits. In Mathew 19:9, Jesus (King of Kings) gave us his law: “Now I say this to you: Anyone who divorces his wife-I am not speaking of an illicit marriage-and marries another, is guilty of adultery.” That law applies to Kings and everyone else. No doubt Henry VIII rediscovered it when he met his King. The Catholic Church speaks for Jesus Christ, with authority. Non-Catholic churches do not. It shouldn’t be too suprising that some of these churches have over time departed from God’s law in this particular area or in other areas. God’s law is for our good. Without it, death. Hand in hand with our need for law, is our need for legitimate authority. In Mt 16:18-19 Jesus also said “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” St Thomas More, martyr of Christian marriage, pray for us. God Bless.

Maybe nothing new, but you post refers specifically to the Catholic Church. Not everybody is Catholic, and basically all non-Catholics allow divorce and remarriage in at least some certain circumstances. In other case, Catholics with improper formation (myself and just about all my peers included) don’t really understand the Church’s position. The Pope understands this, and thankfully wants to deal with this.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Link

Second, is the necessity for an annullment a discipline or a dogma? What i mean is, *can *this be changed?

Seems to me that since it’s a church procedure, sure, it could be changed. It’s the way the church has decided to deal with people in this situation. They could definitely change it to something else.

Also, the decision to not allow remarried people to communion is a church discipline, which could be changed too. Just saying…

 

[Brendan]

Seems to me that since it’s a church procedure, sure, it could be changed. It’s the way the church has decided to deal with people in this situation. They could definitely change it to something else.

Also, the decision to not allow remarried people to communion is a church discipline, which could be changed too. Just saying…

I would say that it is the opposite, that it is a doctrinal matter not open to change.

If a marriage bond exists, then it is clear from Scripture than an attempt at remarriage is an act of adultery. They Church cannot change that.

Likewise, the Church cannot change the fact that adultery is a grave sin, nor can it change that those guilty of grave sin cannot receive Holy Communion without doing grave harm to their souls.

None of those are within the power of the Church to change.

 

[miguel]

Maybe nothing new, but you post refers specifically to the Catholic Church. Not everybody is Catholic, and basically all non-Catholics allow divorce and remarriage in at least some certain circumstances. In other case, Catholics with improper formation (myself and just about all my peers included) don’t really understand the Church’s position. The Pope understands this, and thankfully wants to deal with this.

Maybe it would help if you explained how you are hoping he will deal with this and or what about the teaching you think is hard to understand? I realize not everyone is Catholic. I also realize God in his ultimate judgement of individuals could make allowances for people who sincerely don’t know or understand or are deceived about Apostolic teaching. But he’ll also be able to sort out the posers on this from the truly ignorant. There is no fooling God. And the teaching isn’t exactly rocket science either, IMO. It’s the teaching of Jesus. “He who hears you (said to the apostles), hears me.”

 

[miguel]

Also, the decision to not allow remarried people to communion is a church discipline, which could be changed too. Just saying…

Is the commandment not to commit adultery dogma or discipline? God is holy. He makes his followers holy also when they cooperate with his grace. St Paul, in 1 Cor 11:27 said “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement on themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” If someone is living in a state of unrepentant serious sin, that is an objective state of unworthiness to receive. As long as a person willfully chooses to remain in that state, he remains unworthy to receive. This can’t possibly change.

 

[OraLabora]

nor can it change that those guilty of grave sin cannot receive Holy Communion without doing grave harm to their souls.

Actually this is wrong. Those conscious of committing mortal sin, not grave sin, may not receive communion. The other two conditions need to be met (full knowledge and full will) for sin to be mortal. If one is not conscious of committing mortal sin, one cannot have had full knowledge. Full will may not be possible in some cases (addiction, severe pressure from another person, depression, etc.)

It is possible for someone to have committed a grave sin, but the culpability is lessened so that it is equivalent to a venal sin, in some cases.

This is something that can be established in the confessional.

Many if not most cases of divorce and remarriage are messy and therefore circumstances lessening culpability may be present. This may indeed be the area where the Holy Father is asking that some mercy be shown. This does not require changing doctrine.

I’m pretty sure though that the Church won’t perform a second marriage except where a decree of nullity has been granted. This is perhaps another area where mercy can be shown… by streamlining the process of getting an annulment.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually this is wrong. Those conscious of committing mortal sin, not grave sin, may not receive communion. The other two conditions need to be met (full knowledge and full will) for sin to be mortal. If one is not conscious of committing mortal sin, one cannot have had full knowledge. Full will may not be possible in some cases (addiction, severe pressure from another person, depression, etc.)

It is possible for someone to have committed a grave sin, but the culpability is lessened so that it is equivalent to a venal sin, in some cases.

Maybe in the English but in the it seems Polish it seems “grave sin” and “mortal sin”
are practically interchangeable, depending on use. How is it in the French?

 

[AnneTeresa]

Is the commandment not to commit adultery dogma or discipline? God is holy. He makes his followers holy also when they cooperate with his grace. St Paul, in 1 Cor 11:27 said “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement on themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” If someone is living in a state of unrepentant serious sin, that is an objective state of unworthiness to receive. As long as a person willfully chooses to remain in that state, he remains unworthy to receive. This can’t possibly change.

Adultery is a sin. The problem is not everyone knows this situation is a sin or entered into a remarriage knowing it. So subjectively it may not be a sin in each case . Then they are stuck in a situation they cannot get out of. They may not be living in a state of unrepentant sin… each situation is different. They are being held responsible for something that cannot be fixed. Saying they can’t have sex solves their situation of this marriage being a sin is rather ridiculous in my opinion. Having a canonical way to help … annulment… is how the church chose to deal with these situations. And so yes, it could be changed.

 

[pnewton]

Second, is the necessity for an annullment a discipline or a dogma? What i mean is, *can *this be changed?

It is part of canon law. Therefore it is a discipline. However, unlike most disciplines, this one is a discipline that is rooted in doctrine. It is rooted in the words of Jesus. It cannot be changed in any manner convenient. Any change would have to be equally rooted in the Church’s doctrine of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. That is why this is such a head-scratcher. It can be changed, but is there any change that would not contradict Church teaching?

 

[OraLabora]

Maybe in the English but in the it seems Polish it seems “grave sin” and “mortal sin”
are practically interchangeable, depending on use. How is it in the French?

“Matière grave” is used to define the objective nature of the sin. Péché mortel, or péché véniel, are used to define culpability, just like in English.

 

[ProVobis]

It is part of canon law. Therefore it is a discipline. However, unlike most disciplines, this one is a discipline that is rooted in doctrine. It is rooted in the words of Jesus. It cannot be changed in any manner convenient. Any change would have to be equally rooted in the Church’s doctrine of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. That is why this is such a head-scratcher. It can be changed, but is there any change that would not contradict Church teaching?

I would agree with this. It is also rooted in St. Paul’s epistles. Trent used the term “apostolica disciplina” in some doctrinal matters. I’m no expert on what can be changed or not (or how easily, as you make a good point of), but I wonder if this falls into that category as well.

BTW, the doctrine of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is written up as part of Trent’s 24th session.

 

[miguel]

Adultery is a sin. The problem is not everyone knows this situation is a sin or entered into a remarriage knowing it. So subjectively it may not be a sin in each case . Then they are stuck in a situation they cannot get out of. They may not be living in a state of unrepentant sin… each situation is different. They are being held responsible for something that cannot be fixed. Saying they can’t have sex solves their situation of this marriage being a sin is rather ridiculous in my opinion. Having a canonical way to help … annulment… is how the church chose to deal with these situations. And so yes, it could be changed.

I agree there are many very difficult and messy situations. I don’t agree things can’t be fixed. People choose to stay in these situations. Jesus said if we love any person in this world more than him (that’s idolatry), we’re not worthy of him. Jesus called these divorce and remarriage situations adultery. I don’t think it’s ridiculous. The Church is only the messenger. God Bless.

 

[AnneTeresa]

I agree there are many very difficult and messy situations. I don’t agree things can’t be fixed. People choose to stay in these situations. Jesus said if we love any person in this world more than him (that’s idolatry), we’re not worthy of him. Jesus called these divorce and remarriage situations adultery. I don’t think it’s ridiculous. The Church is only the messenger. God Bless.

I think that you (and some others) are taking Jesus’ words and extrapolating them to defend the church’s current discipline of no communion for those in second marriages.

We have no idea if a person in a second marriage is loving something more than God. I prefer to take Jesus’ comments in context of ALL he taught. He forgives any who sincerely repent. By saying “no sex” to someone who has been remarried for 25+ years or even 10+ years–because they didn’t know it was wrong–we are simply covering up the situation by a law that God never made. I disagree that someone in a second marriage has “not repented” as so many are quick to say. We do not know their heart. That is why I say they are “stuck” in a way. Two wrongs do not make a right. (as it would be in leaving a second family). To say that not having sex makes it all ok is ridiculous because it places all the emphasis on sex which is only one part of the marriage. I understand why the church says this. But the couple is still married–sharing home, family, daily living, etc-- whether they are having sex or not. And remember no one else would know that the couple is or is not having sex so the issue of scandal may or may not apply.

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 and now many people are already in second marriages without having known (or in the case of Protestants it didn’t even apply). These are the people who need compassion. I believe this is what the Pope plans to discuss and figure out if it can be addressed in a better way.

For everyone who will jump in now and say that then everyone can just divorce and remarry, I am not talking about people who KNOWINGLY end a marriage by divorce for selfish reasons and then enter a second marriage saying who cares what the church thinks. But not every divorce/remarriage is such a case! Those people deserve compassion and not to be cut off from receiving Christ which they (and we all) desperately need.

As far as the person who quoted receiving Christ unworthily, yes, of course. But again, no one rule (no communion for remarried people) covers every instance. One must look in one’s own heart to see if they are receiving worthily. That is true no matter WHAT the circumstance.

By placing canonical rules over everyone and saying “no exceptions”, people think they can judge someone else’s heart and situtation. They cannot. Only God can. What you see on the outside may not be at all what is going on in someone’s heart.

God bless you too.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually this is wrong. Those conscious of committing mortal sin, not grave sin, may not receive communion. The other two conditions need to be met (full knowledge and full will) for sin to be mortal. If one is not conscious of committing mortal sin, one cannot have had full knowledge. Full will may not be possible in some cases (addiction, severe pressure from another person, depression, etc.)

It is possible for someone to have committed a grave sin, but the culpability is lessened so that it is equivalent to a venal sin, in some cases.

If one lacks the knowledge etc - one does not “commit a grave sin” but one “commits a venial sin” (though it is grave matter).

See more below.

Maybe in the English but in the it seems Polish it seems “grave sin” and “mortal sin”
are practically interchangeable, depending on use. How is it in the French?

Yes the terms: Mortal sin and grave sin and serious sin and deadly sin and grevious sin --refer to the same thing. Yes they are interchangabl and they can bring out differing aspects of it (that it is serious not light…that it kills the life of grace etc).

One commits such (is guilty of such) when there is together: grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent.

One can refer to the nature of sinful act (omission, thought, desire etc) in itself:

Adultery* is *a: Mortal sin, grave sin, serious sin, deadly sin, grevious sin.

And it remains such always and every here in its objective nature.

But one may not be “guilty” of committing such for one may lack the needful knowledge or deliberate consent. The sin “committed” -that is in terms of guilt - can be venial though the matter involved is yes still grave etc.

One does not “commit” a grave sin there (though yes the act itself is gravely sinful) one commits say a “venial sin” due to say lack of knowledge.

---

Now to the main question (not directed to the two persons above -for I have not followed the thread and know not what a particular person has said or not…)

Now aside from the question of subjective guilt -there is the “objective reality” of a person not being in a valid marriage - and living as if they are. Such an “ongoing state” (aside from the question of subjective guilt) is not compatible with approaching Holy Communion.

 

[ProVobis]

Adultery* is *a: Mortal sin, grave sin, serious sin, deadly sin, grevious sin.

FWIW, the courts (or at least one which I know) consider adulterous behavior as sufficient as grounds for divorce. Can we apply the same principle here?

 

[Bookcat]

FWIW, the courts (or at least one which I know) consider adulterous behavior as sufficient as grounds for divorce. Can we apply the same principle here?

I do not get into secular legal divorce discussions much

What I was noting is that the terms are as noted “interchangable”.

One does not want to say:

“John committed a grave sin when he committed adultery (remarriage when prior marriage is valid and spouse is living) but it was not mortal sin due to his lack of knowledge”…

One would want to say something like:

“Adultery (remarriage when prior marriage is valid and spouse is living) is a grave sin (mortal sin) -but John did not know any better -he thought he honestly thought he was doing good - hence he did not commit a grave sin (mortal sin)…” (however that does not mean he may approach Holy Communion).