Addressing absurdity of divorced & remarried couples receiving communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter imo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well what would be your reason for that?

Have you disagreed on how to interpret impediments, or was it more of a matter of communication and interacting?
 
And how long do you think severe mental illness, to the degree of not able to give consent, would be detectable in a person? How would that severe of a case not be known in the family?

Even the State requires this to be filed within a year of becoming aware.
 
If someone is unable to consent due to mental capacity, that is a severe psychological condition. How long do you think it would take to discover a severe psychological disorder in a person? And wouldnt family (in most cases) be aware of this?
 
I had a similar discussion last year with a parishioner. I asked him if he’d actually read Amoris Laetitia - he admitted he’d only read what others had said about it. So the first things I’d say to anyone getting worked up about pastoral process (and anyone who writes for LifeSite News for that matter) is to actually sit down and read it - ideally the whole thing (it’s a beautiful document and quite easy to read) but at the very least the “notorious” chapter 8.

The other thing I’d say is that Pope Francis is addressing a very significant issuing in the Church but doing so in a way that’s both pastorally and doctrinally sensitive, effectively building on what JPII did before him. The process is, in a word, about accompaniment; helping couples to know that they are still members of Cod’s Church and trying to help them to be as fully integrate into the life of the community as possible. This should obviously include the tribunal process but there are times when a annulment is not possible (for example because of a lack of witnesses or an unwilling spouse). As AL also makes clear, the process particularly includes the sacrament of reconciliation - the Church doesn’t ask couples to be perfect she simply asks that they try.

There are also situations where living as “borth and sister” simply isn’t possible. For example, where one party refuses and the marriage is threatened. In such situations, the practicing Catholic party may not be guilty of serious sin and could therefore, in
some cases, receive the Eucharist.
Ammi said:
The last two were concerned with the number of annulments going on, and how they were being judged.

Francis’s reform is about streamlining, and eliminating checks and balances.
Click to expand...
The “checks and balances” still exist, it was only the automatic appeal which he eliminated (along with the fees). The decision can still be appealed by the applicant or the defender of the bond if they so desire. As far as the number of annulments goes, in a society where Married at first sight is a thing, is it any wonder!
 
I thought lawyees were excluded from that determination; put 3 in a room and you can get 4 answers.

At least. 😂
 
Wow, so if your partner does not accept to live like brother and sisters, then you are allowed to have sex outside marriage!!! This surely sounds like a extremely weak reason. Crazy times we are living…
 
Last edited:
Anyone whose free will is impaired or restricted by another cannot be guilty of grave sin and so is free to receive the Eucharist. The church isn’t in the business of breaking up families. It really is that simple.
 
So, if in a couple one of partners wants to contracept or make sex without the proper ending or a threesome, the “practicing Catholic” one is allowed too? Please, this must one of the most crazy irrational reasoning ever. Making sex outside the sacrament of marriage is as a sin as the things that I said above! It is not because one of the partners wants to sin that the other gain a free pass to it! This is such such craziness…
 
InThePew said:
Anyone whose free will is impaired or restricted by another cannot be guilty of grave sin and so is free to receive the Eucharist. The church isn’t in the business of breaking up families. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
Abstaining from adultery never breaks up a family.
 
Ammi said:
Abstaining from adultery never breaks up a family.
Click to expand...
As I said in another thread, my marriage is invalid due to a defect of canonical form. We should probably be living as brother and sister until radical sanation, but if I tried to enforce that we would be heading straight to divorce. It would indeed break our family and the only marriage each of us has ever contracted.
 
Why on earth would we do that ? I want the union to be convalidated, no dissolved.

If you reread what I wrote, you will see that the only reason my marriage is invalid is a defect of canonical form.
 
Are priests infallible? Anyway the Dubai cardinals are priests too and mainly 2000 years of tradition teaching the opposite, so excuse me to trust it.
 
Last edited:
Father @InThePew is not teaching the opposite of tradition, he is merely explaining that there are, as in all things, particular cases that justify that an exception be made for good pastoral reasons. He never said anything remotely close to a blanket statement like “Sex outside marriage isn’t a sin.” He simply explained the conditions (like whether or not the Catholic party acts under any form of constraint) which diminish, not abolish, the gravity of the sin.
 
It’s complicated. I’m a Protestant pastor right now, so this implies major life changes, and let’s just say my husband is neither enthusiastic nor supportive.
 
I dont understand why it is so complicated.

Either convalidate or be abstinent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top