ISTM that you are suggesting that rather than “less difficult” cases being sent to the tribunal, it will be just hashed out (pastorally) between “the couple” (which of the 3 will be involved?) and (an already over-worked) parish priest? IOW, the internal forum which is where we all began?
The issue is adultery, and the Church does not teach that a second marriage is in itself adultery. There has long been a provision that permits such a divorced and remarried person to receive communion.
Yes, it is well known there are other rules regarding the reception of the Eucharist. But my comments should be understood in the context of the question that was before the synod, for which a recommendation was made in the final synod document. This recommendation is relevant to the OP, and it is in question here. That it has been answered by providing only existing teaching looks like legalism.
No, it really isn’t.*Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. (Aquinas ST II-II 60,1)
With all due respect to the point you are attempting to make, it is not “legalism” to rely on the existing (as opposed to the non-existing?)teaching of the Church for guidance.
Three provisions, in fact: to separate, to live as brother and sister (limited), or to obtain an annullment. Since I have specifically specified *unrepenant D&R w/o A, *your statement is unclear.
Why should your comments be understood in this way, since you have not made that clear?
The Church will not change its stance on divorce and remarriage. Well that is good to know
I believe what will change is a more pastoral approach to dealing with such situations and the couple themselves being more directly involved in discerning the reasons for the end of their first marriage. They will be discerning with their parish priest. This should always be the case that we should turn to our pastor so that we may get a greater understanding of where we went wrong. Will a priest have the power to grant an annulment? I do not wee they have the time, experience and resources to claim this. I know when I went through the process my priest helped the process along after hearing about the deficiencies in my first “marriage” It was easily discerned that I qualified for the annulment. It was handled quickly by the tribunal. So this I think was always in place certainly in my case.
The tribunals will be in place for more difficult situations or those cases a pastor can’t handle, for whatever reasons. I think a man who has been in a long term remarriage constitutes a more difficult situation as there is more info that needs to be brought up. But certainly going to the preist first should always be ones first response.
There will not be a barrage of annulments for every situation, people can relax about this.
There already is a barrage of annulments for every situation and has been happening for the last couple of decades. I believe it is due to our poor understanding of what marriage is. I just hope we don’t muddy the waters more pretending that the nitty gritty of church teaching on marriage isn’t watered down./COLOR]
Jim
i have known the teaching for at least the past sixty years, and it concerns adultery and not remarriage. Whether or not adultery is in fact occurring is not objectively known. It is a presumption, and that is the point. It would not be a presumption under the recommendation of the synod, where discernment of the validity of the first marriage would be a question rather than the presumption it now is.
The question of the divorced and remarried without an annullment is the topic of the OP, and it is disingenuous to maintainin otherwise. Many comments on the thread attempted to construe what the archbishop said in this respect to mean what he clearly did not say:
I know of no penalty of going through civil divorce. I would use the word “tolerates” though. I see no mention of “may divorce,” can you?
Congratulations.
Clearly, since a widow’s remarrying is not a problem. It is the committin g of adultery under the guise of a purported marriage, as far as the Church can tell without an investigation and ruling to the contrary, which causes the apparent adultery.
Objectively it is known: it fits the category of adultery. It is not subjectively known.
Do you have a quote for that? I hadn’t heard that the synod had gone so far as to say anything like that.
Finished that quote off for you. It is in fact the critique of the proposed changes which are the topic.
What is a rejection of what you judge to be legalism? Why do you consider it legalistic?
Fixed that for you. And there have been several defenses on this thread of what actually IS the current discipline of the Church on grounds other than the fact that it is current.
Could be a good point, if it were true.
This is simply not the case.
Again, source for this?
Thank goodness it will be the Pope deciding. He has not indicated any support for the idea of allowing the internal forum solution to allow reception of the Eucharist.
I see. What was originally the “objective state of mortal sin” is now “apparent adultery” that is objectively known. While this is progress, it is nevertheless necessary to ask what exactly is apparent adultery that fits the category of adultery and how is it objectively known? :hypno:
Quotes from the synod showing that the bishops recommended “discernment of the validity of the first marriage would be a question rather than the presumption it now is”?
“Finally, there are those who have entered in a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid. Therefore, it is the duty of priests to accompany those concerned along the path of discernment…” --Section 85, Final Synod Report (emphasis added)
I think this may be a case of careless wording (No, civil divorce no longer results in excommunication) or was simply an incorrect assumption. There was a penalty of excommunication for those who divorced and remarried, which was rescinded in 1977, but I see no evidence that this penalty ever existed for those who simply divorced. This is explained by this reference: * In the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), it was decreed: “We establish the penalty of excommunication, reserved to the Ordinary, to be incurred ipso facto by those who, after obtaining a civil divorce, dare to attempt marriage” (n. 124). This penalty was in force until it was abolished by Bl. Paul VI in 1977 (see Canon Law Digest, v. 8, pp. 1213-1214).
It’s possible that it just wasn’t carefully worded, but it seems that the only reason for the divorce was the intention to get remarried back then whereas today more are probably getting divorced either to live as single people or to cohabitate without civil marriage. Legal separations are quite rare today. But we still keep talking divorce and remarriage as though it is one word.
Was there a penalty of excommunion for two Catholics who entered a civil marriage that was a first marriage? I’m thinking there might have been prior to around 1970.
