Archbishop Chaput: divorced/remarried must live as brother and sister to receive Communion [CC]

[otjm]

I meant the gay couples can stay gay couples which is distinct from this forum where people claim a SSA individual has to run away from anything which might seem like a romantic relationship in the slightest or in general getting too attached to someone.

I would presume that anyone in a gay couple marriage has about the same sexual attraction and sexual drive that a heterosexual couple has. The latter if they are in an irregular marriage are counseled to separate and I suspect that in a given case, the same would be given to a homosexual couple; and if that is not possible, then both couples are to live chastely.

And the same advice would be given to individuals contemplating marrying according to the laws of the State - both are considered to be in invalid union. And both unions are occasions of sin, to be avoided.

And the real world has a whole lot of people who moved beyond the “avoided” stage and entered into an invalid arrangement. So, if they cannot unwind the relationship, they are to live chastely.

No one is suggesting here that SSA individuals form relationships in which sexual activity takes place; but the same is said for heterosexual couples.

So. The theory applies to each. And the practical side finds couples in invalid relationships.

 

[otjm]

This whole question of divorced/remarried Catholics…those living in homosexual relationships…receiving communion …while there is clear church teaching on this… non the less it doesn’t seem that teaching is being strictly adhered to in some …if not many circumstances…I can relate one example…a cousin of mine (does not live here in the US) is living in a homosexual relationship…he would be one of the most generous caring and loving people I know…loves the Catholic Church…donates his own time and expense helping at overseas Catholic missions…his partner has gone through RCIA at their church…he was recently received into the Catholic Church and confirmed by the Arch Bishop of the city where they live…they both are quite involved in their local parish…of course I don’t know for sure if they are living celibate lives together…while I personally don’t agree with that sort of relationship I find it hard to fault him because at least in his caring and compassion…and his charity work he exemplifies what Christ commanded us to do …to love your neighbor as yourself…I know what the church teaches on these matters…so I don’t need a lecture on who can and who can’t receive communion thank you…I’m just pointing out one example of why some Catholics probably have a hard time accepting that teaching either for their own circumstances or for those they know…and yet they may be leading good Christian lives except they are out of communion with the church…to be perfectly honest I agree more with the Orthodox approach to divorce and remarriage…although as a Catholic I abide by the church teaching.

Attorneys have a saying: hard cases make bad law. At the end, when we are judged, it will be God doing the judging. The Church can only say, and repeat, and repeat, and then repeat again, what God has taught us.

 

[saomi]

can someone help me understand why just abstaining from sex makes it okay for a remarried person to receive the sacraments? The marriage continues, there is much more to a marriage than just the " marital act" The couple still live out their marriage in many ways. Seems almost a technicality. I am sure there are many married couples who can not have sex and consider themselves married. Thank you!

 

[TCEL]

can someone help me understand why just abstaining from sex makes it okay for a remarried person to receive the sacraments? The marriage continues, there is much more to a marriage than just the " marital act" The couple still live out their marriage in many ways. Seems almost a technicality. I am sure there are many married couples who can not have sex and consider themselves married. Thank you!

I’m sure someone more eloquent than I should be taking a stab at this, but if sex is only a technicality, then abstinence shouldn’t be a big deal, right?

The answer to your question is huge. Here’s a start:

Reflecting on the Genesis accounts of creation, Pope John Paul II underscored the way in which the body reflects or expresses the person. The human person discovers his dignity through his body and its capacity to express his ability to think and to choose, unlike the animals, who lack this ability. (See Genesis 2:19-21.)

Yet humanity is radically lacking in its expression in only one sex. The full meaning of the body and hence the human person is revealed only when the man stands over against another unique way of being human–woman. This distinctive way of being a person and a gift for others, male and female, reflects what the late pope called “the nuptial meaning of the body.” Coming together in the profound partnership of marriage, man and woman live for the other in mutual love and deference. This union is expressed concretely in the couple’s bodily gift of themselves to one another in sexual intercourse. Here they speak a profound language of total self-gift and unconditional fidelity. foryourmarriage.org/the-theology-of-the-body-according-to-pope-john-paul-ii/

Or, how I’ve summarized it in my head, is that sex isn’t just sex, it’s an incarnational and holy reality. What we do with our bodies matters. Our bodies aren’t just a vehicle for our soul; otherwise why else would God become flesh? Sex isn’t just a technicality. I can’t elaborate more right now. I suggest doing research on Theology of the Body. That would help answer your question.

 

[JimG]

can someone help me understand why just abstaining from sex makes it okay for a remarried person to receive the sacraments? The marriage continues, there is much more to a marriage than just the " marital act" The couple still live out their marriage in many ways. Seems almost a technicality. I am sure there are many married couples who can not have sex and consider themselves married. Thank you!

Jesus said that one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. But the essence of adultery is having sexual relations with someone who is not one’s spouse. So, although the two parties in a second civil marriage may remain civilly married, with no sex they do not commit adultery.

 

[godisgood77]

Matthew 5 - 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Not so fast… Jesus also had this to say…this explicit statement by Jesus blows away the idea that adultry is limited to the sexual act. Seems like we are dumbing marriage down to the sex act and making it a mechanical arrangement which in turn cheapens it. Pope Francis is working to remedy this problem.

 

[TCEL]

Matthew 5 - 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Not so fast… Jesus also had this to say…this explicit statement by Jesus blows away the idea that adultry is limited to the sexual act. Seems like we are dumbing marriage down to the sex act and making it a mechanical arrangement which in turn cheapens it. Pope Francis is working to remedy this problem.

Of course, marriage isn’t only about sex, but doesn’t it seem strange to use this argument? It’s like saying eating isn’t only about nutrition.

Is anyone arguing it’s only about sex? What bothers me more is the dualistic mentality that wants to insist sex matters only when we want it to, or that sex really is something casual. We’ve glorified sex so much that now it’s casual. That contradiction should bother people.

 

[godisgood77]

Of course, marriage isn’t only about sex, but doesn’t it seem strange to use this argument? It’s like saying eating isn’t only about nutrition.

Is anyone arguing it’s only about sex? What bothers me more is the dualistic mentality that wants to insist sex matters only when we want it to, or that sex really is something casual. We’ve glorified sex so much that now it’s casual. That contradiction should bother people.

I don’t think we disagree… although your eating analogy doesn’t quite work in my view. Nutrition is the most fundamental reason for eating. While sex is not the most fundamental reason for marriage, but instead self giving love.

The issue is that according to the Church the remedy to remarried divorcees is that you have to abstain from sex… not stop being married. Who is making only about sex? Not me…

 

[Robert_Bay]

being discussed on another thread

 

[TCEL]

I don’t think we disagree… although your eating analogy doesn’t quite work in my view. Nutrition is the most fundamental reason for eating. While sex is not the most fundamental reason for marriage, but instead self giving love.

The issue is that according to the Church the remedy to remarried divorcees is that you have to abstain from sex… not stop being married. Who is making only about sex? Not me…

But surely, mere nutrition isn’t the only reason you eat, or the only thing you get out of eating? There’s fellowship, taste, atmosphere, etc. We eat the Eucharist, which surely isn’t primarily about earthly physical sustenance. We must eat to live, we must propagate to live as a species. Why on earth wouldn’t there be a spiritual significance to the latter?

These past few posts implied that Catholics were trying to reduce it to being only about sex. I’m objecting to a culture which indeed makes everything about sex, and then presumes(!) to lecture the Church about making it all about sex! Pot, meet kettle. Not to mention, people are missing out on something if sex is “just sex.”

 

[godisgood77]

Again, I think we agree. Both the culture and the Church have contributed to what you are describing - both have an unhealthy preoccupation with sex.

 

[TCEL]

Again, I think we agree. Both the culture and the Church have contributed to what you are describing - both have an unhealthy preoccupation with sex.

I don’t think the Church’s reflections on sex are an unhealthy preoccupation, but beautiful insights into the Trinitarian nature of God and our reflection of His image. I reject attempts to either make everything about sex or to downplay its importance, and its importance has been dragged through the mud and distorted. I reject efforts to tamp down the significance of our bodies.

 

[Brendan]

The issue is that according to the Church the remedy to remarried divorcees is that you have to abstain from sex… not stop being married. Who is making only about sex? Not me…

Since they are NOT married, it would be hard for the Church to ask them to stop being something they are not.

What the Church IS doing is asking them to stop engaging in evil, and it does so with all of us.

 

[godisgood77]

I reject attempts to either make everything about sex or to downplay its importance, and its importance has been dragged through the mud and distorted.

As do I and most.

I reject efforts to tamp down the significance of our bodies.

As do I and most. I haven’t seen any comment that suggests a tamping down in this conversation… so we are good

 

[godisgood77]

Since they are NOT married, it would be hard for the Church to ask them to stop being something they are not.

You are arguing semantics… replace the word marriage with cohabitation and the same argument stands.

 

[TCEL]

As do I and most.

As do I and most. I haven’t seen any comment that suggests a tamping down in this conversation… so we are good

Saying sex is a technicality, or that the Church is reducing marriage to sex, isn’t realizing the importance of sex. It can come across as almost gnostic, that the body can be dispensed with.

 

[saomi]

Thank you all for your thoughtful posts. My use of the word “technicality” was a poor choice. I respect and appreciate the gift that sexuality is in marriage. I am not understanding though how by abstaining from that part of marriage you are considered “unmarried enough” to receive the sacraments. My difficulty wording the question reveals my confusion. My husband and I for various reasons have gone periods of time without intercourse but we are very married all the while? Thank you again for your thoughtful replies.

 

[TCEL]

Thank you all for your thoughtful posts. My use of the word “technicality” was a poor choice. I respect and appreciate the gift that sexuality is in marriage. I am not understanding though how by abstaining from that part of marriage you are considered “unmarried enough” to receive the sacraments. My difficulty wording the question reveals my confusion. My husband and I for various reasons have gone periods of time without intercourse but we are very married all the while? Thank you again for your thoughtful replies.

Thanks for such a graceful demeanor and thoughtful question. Again, I personally urge deeper exploration into Theology of the Body. That’s what answered a lot of my own questions on the contraception thing, which to me seemed no big deal.

The thing I love about being Catholic is the stubborn insistence (I say that lightheartedly) to focus on both/and. Sure, sex alone isn’t what defines marriage, but sex is unique in the way God ordered it. It’s an expression of love so concrete that by the nature of it’s existence, it may need to be named in the next few months.

Marriage is a covenant where we give ourselves bodily to our spouse. Sex is the visible expression of that union. The Eucharist is a covenant where Christ gives Himself bodily to us, and ourselves to Him. It’s a kind of nuptial exchange. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is a consummation of His love for his bride, and sacramental marriage is a reflection of that, though our efforts may fall short. The Church fathers saw the blood and water flowing forth from Christ’s side as the birth of the Church’s sacramental life, as Eve was drawn from Adam’s side, and as the new life of a child comes from the spouses giving themselves bodily.

There’s more, but read up on TOB. It might help. Then ask one of the apologists in the “Ask an Apologist” section of the forum. I don’t want to say more. But those truths above hit me like a 2x4 over the head when I went to Mass after I was married.

 

[Brendan]

You are arguing semantics… replace the word marriage with cohabitation and the same argument stands.

Adult males and females living at the same address is not necessarily sinful. My grandmother lived with us once. That certainly was not sinful.

 

[MissBorgia]

May God Bless my Archbishop!

We miss him dreadfully in the Diocese of Rapid City !