“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.
AnneTeresa said:
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.
Click to expand...
You people are mixing issues. Everyone has to leave something when they convert to life in Christ, must leave whatever is incompatible with this new life. Some people have to leave their entire families. Someone who remarried while still married validly to another, when the former was a sacramental marriage and not just a natural one, cannot be guilty of his past decisions if he did not know any better. However, now that he knows, he must leave everything and follow Christ. He cannot persist in adultery. If you are living with your boyfriend for many years and he refuses a wedding, when you follow Christ you must move out. You cannot just say that because we have done it before now it’s ok. Before you didn’t know any better. But now you know. You cannot apply the mind of your former ignorance once you have seen the light. Abstinence will not kill you, for goodness’ sake.

People here waiting for the church to say that it’s ok to receive communion while CONTINUING to live a “married” life that is adulterous in reality, you will be very disappointed when the church relays the plain truth yet again. You have a problem, you take it up with Jesus. It is he who called it adultery, not the church. And it was he who inspired St. Paul to say that those who receive communion unworthily are receiving condemnation unto themselves. Receiving communion while engaging in adultery without intending to stop is definitely receiving un worthily. AnneTeresa, Your comment that the church made up this law shows you have very little understanding of the foundations of catholic beliefs and doctrines. I don’t mean that as an insult.
 
One_point said:
You people are mixing issues. Everyone has to leave something when they convert to life in Christ, must leave whatever is incompatible with this new life. Some people have to leave their entire families. Someone who remarried while still married validly to another, when the former was a sacramental marriage and not just a natural one, cannot be guilty of his past decisions if he did not know any better. However, now that he knows, he must leave everything and follow Christ. He cannot persist in adultery. If you are living with your boyfriend for many years and he refuses a wedding, when you follow Christ you must move out. You cannot just say that because we have done it before now it’s ok. Before you didn’t know any better. But now you know. You cannot apply the mind of your former ignorance once you have seen the light. Abstinence will not kill you, for goodness’ sake.

People here waiting for the church to say that it’s ok to receive communion while CONTINUING to live a “married” life that is adulterous in reality, you will be very disappointed when the church relays the plain truth yet again. You have a problem, you take it up with Jesus. It is he who called it adultery, not the church. And it was he who inspired St. Paul to say that those who receive communion unworthily are receiving condemnation unto themselves. Receiving communion while engaging in adultery without intending to stop is definitely receiving un worthily. AnneTeresa, Your comment that the church made up this law shows you have very little understanding of the foundations of catholic beliefs and doctrines. I don’t mean that as an insult.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t see it the way you do, having lived through it I know what I am speaking of personally. I don’t think everyone in a second marriage is committing adultery for the reasons I already explained. (nor did many priests I consulted at the time) You just can’t speak for other people’s individual circumstances.

No offense, but I have studied the catholic faith nearly obsessively for the last four years as well as struggled daily, painfully, with these issues personally. I can’t explain how painful it is to be “stuck” because you can’t follow a church rule over something you did over 25 years ago.

I have taken it up with Jesus and it is rather rude of you to say that to me. 🤷 Which is why I’m bothering to try to communicate with people here about this at all. Some of the things I read on here are just ill informed and people quote rules that are intended to be guidelines, without realizing there has to be an application of them in real life in specific situations. Hence each person has to struggle to figure these things out on their own. Living the Christian life is not a matter of following a rule book. Although it’s frustrating to see how many Catholics think that is what it is. God is against adultery, but not everyone in a second marriage is living in “ongoing adultery.”
 
Catechism summary:

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
Code: 
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.161
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#V
 
There’s another thread on CAF that is discussing this issue “Pope Francis: No more business as usual”

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=842276&page=3 - starting with about post 34.

People there are doing a much better job than I can of explaining what is allowed to be changed, culpability for objective mortal sin, and allowing individuals to discern themselves.
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church summary:

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
Code: 
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.161
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#V
 
Yes, it says this, and this “could” change if the Pope chooses. That’s what this thread is about.
 
AnneTeresa said:
Yes, it says this, and this “could” change if the Pope chooses. That’s what this thread is about.
Click to expand...
Can a person who is remarried -that is was validly married in a sacramental marriage and is now living as husband and wife with another person receive Holy Communion (while the other is living)?

Such is not possible.
 
AnneTeresa said:
Yes, it says this, and this “could” change if the Pope chooses. That’s what this thread is about.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but isn’t this a moral issue that can’t be changed?

To wit:
If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law.
Click to expand...
 
AnneTeresa said:
Read the other thread I linked to.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of that thread. There seem to be a lot of links and issues here and there. What specifically are you referring to that demonstrates that issues of morality can be changed?
 
ProVobis said:
I’m aware of that thread. There seem to be a lot of links and issues here and there. What specifically are you referring to?
Click to expand...
communion for remarried people is a discipline, not a moral consideration
 
AnneTeresa said:
communion for remarried people is a discipline, not a moral consideration
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I wasn’t referring to communion but this statement in the catechism:
If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law.
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
Just to clarify, I wasn’t referring to communion but this statement in the catechism:
Click to expand...
Yes. It is an OBJECTIVE mortal sin. Subjectively, it may not be. That is why I suggested reading the other thread which explains it more fully.

To summarize, in case you don’t go to that thread which really has better words than I do, something can be objectively sinful, but one’s culpability can be less than full so it could be either subjectively a venial sin or no sin at all. That is God’s call, not ours to make for someone else, and I know some priests are also uncomfortable making that call. I finally understand now why it seems that you can get different answers from different priests on the same issues–they are forming an opinion based on what they can see in the person before then (one reason why Internet discussions can only go so far).

This is why just quoting the catechism on something is only part of what we must do in living this life. We must also take what it says, apply it to the situation, use our properly formed conscience, and make decisions in a prayerful and informed way. As I said before, the christian life is not just reading a book and following the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top