Am I understanding this Communion issue correctly?

[CrossofChrist]

I’m not sure I understand Communion for the divorced/remarried. I thought that if subjectively they were innocent (i.e lack full consent or knowledge) then they could receive Communion, even if objectively they were committing adultery. But then I read this which was said by Cardinal Muller:

Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his carnal existence, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he is not subjectively guilty. Exactly because his carnal life is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by thus receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”

And the good Cardinal also said:

Without entering into this question in a deeper way, it is sufficient to point out that this footnote refers in a general way to objective situations of sin, and not to the specific cases of the civilly remarried divorcees. Because this latter situation has its own distinctive characteristics which differentiate it from other situations (bold mine).

So it appears to me that even if the divorced/remarried aren’t subjectively guilty, and are in a situation where they could receive without giving scandal, they still cannot receive Holy Communion because they have yet to go to Confession. Is this correct? Would fornication or masturbation have similar rules, or is this strictly for adulterers?

 

[Reuben_J]

As it stands now, I think the word of the good Cardinal is self-explanatory. Basically it means to say, if one is divorced and remarried without the approval of the Church, to put it in a nutshell, then one should not receive Holy Communion because one is living “in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage.”

So to your question, I would say, yes, they still cannot receive Holy Communion until such time they are allowed by the Church, which of course involves sorting their marriage predicament.

For one who is on the outside, which means to say I would sympathize with couples who are in such situation, being ignorant of the ‘subjective sin’ is moot point. Any Catholic married couple who had received the Sacrament of Matrimony would have been told that there would be no divorce and if that should happen and they remarry, then they cannot receive Holy Communion.

The same applies to other sexual sins that you mentioned. As long as the Church considers them sins, they need to be confessed in order for one to be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion.

The exclusion of divorced/remarried couples from receiving Holy Communion undoubtedly is a pain that the whole Church experienced which has untold consequences. Recently Pope Francis, in his speech, was musing with the idea that the Church may take more kindly to such couples but stop short of saying that they will be allowed Communion in the future because he has to no power to decide on which is God, and God’s prerogative alone.

God bless.

 

[Vico]

I’m not sure I understand Communion for the divorced/remarried. I thought that if subjectively they were innocent (i.e lack full consent or knowledge) then they could receive Communion, even if objectively they were committing adultery. But then I read this which was said by Cardinal Muller:

Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his carnal existence, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he is not subjectively guilty. Exactly because his carnal life is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by thus receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”

And the good Cardinal also said:

Without entering into this question in a deeper way, it is sufficient to point out that this footnote refers in a general way to objective situations of sin, and not to the specific cases of the civilly remarried divorcees. Because this latter situation has its own distinctive characteristics which differentiate it from other situations (bold mine).

So it appears to me that even if the divorced/remarried aren’t subjectively guilty, and are in a situation where they could receive without giving scandal, they still cannot receive Holy Communion because they have yet to go to Confession. Is this correct? Would fornication or masturbation have similar rules, or is this strictly for adulterers?

Scandal is given when people are mislead, through bad example even if the act that gives scandal is not sinful. The difficulty with scandal given is that the persons scandalized are weak or they would not be mislead. So read FC 84 to understand:

1. … Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the church, for as baptized persons they can and indeed must share in her life. 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 in favor of 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. Let the church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon sacred scripture, of not admitting to eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the church which is signified and effected by the eucharist. Besides this there is another special pastoral reason: If these people were admitted to the eucharist the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of penance, which would open the way to the eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the convenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons such as, for example, the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2FAMIL.HTM

 

[CrossofChrist]

Scandal is given when people are mislead, through bad example even if the act that gives scandal is not sinful. The difficulty with scandal given is that the persons scandalized are weak or they would not be mislead. So read FC 84 to understand:

1. … Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the church, for as baptized persons they can and indeed must share in her life. 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 in favor of 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. Let the church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon sacred scripture, of not admitting to eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the church which is signified and effected by the eucharist. Besides this there is another special pastoral reason: If these people were admitted to the eucharist the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of penance, which would open the way to the eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the convenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons such as, for example, the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2FAMIL.HTM

My question isn’t so much about scandal as it is about the bolded part. What is meant by “objective”? ISTM that Cardinal Muller is saying the divorced and remarried can’t receive Communion if they haven’t stayed chaste, irrespective of subjective guilt and scandal given to others. Similar to how someone who is not baptized can’t ever in any conceivable circumstance receive any other sacrament even if he is subjectively innocent. If this is the case, it doesn’t make any sense to in theory give Communion to the divorced and remarried under any circumstances in any situation.

On the other hand, if the “objectivity” of the situation does not per se preclude the subjectively innocent but unchaste divorced/remarried from receiving Communion, then it is possible at least in theory to give Communion to the subjectively innocent but unchaste divorced/remarried in certain cases.

 

[FrDavid96]

My question isn’t so much about scandal as it is about the bolded part. What is meant by “objective”? ISTM that Cardinal Muller is saying the divorced and remarried can’t receive Communion if they haven’t stayed chaste, irrespective of subjective guilt and scandal given to others. Similar to how someone who is not baptized can’t ever in any conceivable circumstance receive any other sacrament even if he is subjectively innocent. If this is the case, it doesn’t make any sense to in theory give Communion to the divorced and remarried under any circumstances in any situation.

On the other hand, if the “objectivity” of the situation does not per se preclude the subjectively innocent but unchaste divorced/remarried from receiving Communion, then it is possible at least in theory to give Communion to the subjectively innocent but unchaste divorced/remarried in certain cases.

With regard to the issue of divorce, a person might be innocent of any wrongdoing. That’s why this part can sometimes be “subjective.” For example, if the husband is abusive, the wife might be completely innocent (indeed sometimes obligated) to end the life together.

However, with regard to the issue of attempted re-marriage (w/o annulment), there is no “subjectivity.” One cannot be innocent of attempting re-marriage while still bound by the first marriage. The attempt at re-marriage is always objective, never subjective.

That’s a start. There’s more to this, of course, but I limited my post to just that part for now.

 

[CrossofChrist]

With regard to the issue of divorce, a person might be innocent of any wrongdoing. That’s why this part can sometimes be “subjective.” For example, if the husband is abusive, the wife might be completely innocent (indeed sometimes obligated) to end the life together.

However, with regard to the issue of attempted re-marriage (w/o annulment), there is no “subjectivity.” One cannot be innocent of attempting re-marriage while still bound by the first marriage. The attempt at re-marriage is always objective, never subjective

Yes, I agree.

What I meant by “subjectively innocent” is lacking complete consent or full knowledge/sufficient reflection. My understanding is that whether or not all 3 conditions for a mortal sin are met are between the individual and God, and so why we don’t judge others (obviously the Church has rules…excommunications, interdicts, etc., but we don’t know the state of their soul).

That’s a start. There’s more to this, of course, but I limited my post to just that part for now.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Ok, now I’m confused. Here’s an exchange with Cardinal Schonborn:

Antonio Spadaro, SJ: Please explain this to me: Pope Francis speaks here of an “objective situation of sin.” Obviously, therefore, he is not referring to those who
have received a declaration of the nullity of their first marriage and who
have then married, nor to those who succeed in satisfying the requirement
of living together “as brother and sister.” (Their situation may be
irregular, but they are not in fact living in an objective situation of sin.)
Accordingly, the Pope is referring here to those who do not succeed in
realizing objectively our concept of marriage and in transforming their
way of life in accordance with this requirement. Is this correct?

Cardinal Schonborn: Yes, certainly! In his great experience of accompanying people
spiritually, when the Holy Father speaks of “objective situations of
sin,” he does not stop short at the kinds of cases that are specified in
nr. 84 of Familiaris consortio. He refers in a broader way to “certain
situations which do not objectively embody our understanding
of marriage. Every effort should be made to encourage the
development of an enlightened conscience” while “recognizing the
influence of concrete factors” (AL 303).

 

[JillyAnn]

There is a lot of language here that confuses the issue for me.

As I understand this issue from my personal experience with divorce and annulment, and correct me if I am wrong, if you divorce, you must have your marriage annulled before you can receive communion. If you are divorced and remarried you need to get an annulment from your first marriage and have a convalidation of the second in order to receive Communion.

Innocent makes no difference, that comes out in the annulment process.

 

[felsguy]

There is a lot of language here that confuses the issue for me.

As I understand this issue from my personal experience with divorce and annulment, and correct me if I am wrong, if you divorce, you must have your marriage annulled before you can receive communion. If you are divorced and remarried you need to get an annulment from your first marriage and have a convalidation of the second in order to receive Communion.

Innocent makes no difference, that comes out in the annulment process.

The portion of your statement which I have bolded is incorrect. A divorced person needs to seek an annulment only if he/she wishes to “remarry.”

 

[JillyAnn]

IF you are divorced and living as though you are still married and have not had an annulment you can receive communion. However, if you are divorced and not annulled and are dating or in a relationship with another person you cannot receive Communion.

 

[Vico]

My question isn’t so much about scandal as it is about the bolded part. What is meant by “objective”? ISTM that Cardinal Muller is saying the divorced and remarried can’t receive Communion if they haven’t stayed chaste, irrespective of subjective guilt and scandal given to others. Similar to how someone who is not baptized can’t ever in any conceivable circumstance receive any other sacrament even if he is subjectively innocent. If this is the case, it doesn’t make any sense to in theory give Communion to the divorced and remarried under any circumstances in any situation.

On the other hand, if the “objectivity” of the situation does not per se preclude the subjectively innocent but unchaste divorced/remarried from receiving Communion, then it is possible at least in theory to give Communion to the subjectively innocent but unchaste divorced/remarried in certain cases.

For divorced and remarried, their state and condition are not objectively contradictory when they repent and separate, or when not possible to separate, repent and abstain from the acts proper to married couples while avoiding scandal in reception of the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[otjm]

There is a lot of language here that confuses the issue for me.

As I understand this issue from my personal experience with divorce and annulment, and correct me if I am wrong, if you divorce, you must have your marriage annulled before you can receive communion. If you are divorced and remarried you need to get an annulment from your first marriage and have a convalidation of the second in order to receive Communion.

Innocent makes no difference, that comes out in the annulment process.

No; if you were the cause of the divocrce, then at a minimum you need to go to confession before receiving Communion.

If you were the “innocent” spouse, then you may receive communion.

You need to receive a decree of nullity before you may remarry.

If you were divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity, then you need to obtain the decree, and then have the marriage convalidated. But that, of course, presumes that you could receive a decree of nullity. Not all who seek one do receive.

 

[otjm]

IF you are divorced and living as though you are still married and have not had an annulment you can receive communion. However, if you are divorced and not annulled and are dating or in a relationship with another person you cannot receive Communion.

No. Unless by the word “dating” you mean involved in sexual relations with the other individual; in that case you need to refrain from Communion.

The advice always is that you should never date until you have requested and received a decree of nullity. All too many people don’t follow that advice.