Archbishop Coleridge says synod 65/35 against Communion for the divorced and remarried

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Before a person receives Communion, they have to be in a state of grace. So how would a divorced and remarried person, who is not living as brother and sister with their spouse, and may have no intention of seeking to live as brother and sister, be able to attain a state of grace?

Isn’t this one of the most important questions about the debate about Communion for the divorced and remarried!? Do you know if anybody in the Clergy, such as Cardinal Kasper, who supports Communion for the divorced and remarried, has addressed this?
The Pontifical Council for the Family worked on the question throughout the year since the first synod and has created a book for the work of this synod “Family and Church: An Indissoluble Bond”. One of the serious considerations was a ‘Penitential path’ which could be considered as existing within the bounds of the Sacrament of Penance. There is apparently some precedent for such a path in the early Church. CNS summarised some of the thoughts of that work here… next post…
 
Their consensus is that the church must do something to present more clearly its teaching on marriage; it must do more to help young couples prepare for marriage; it must be more effective in helping couples in trouble; and it must reach out to those who divorced and remarried without an annulment.

At the same time, the text indicates that many bloggers and reporters are wrong when they try to pigeon-hole church leaders as being in either-or categories of loving ministers of God’s mercy or strong defenders of God’s truth. The challenge lies in being both.

The meetings brought together two dozen participants, men and women, most teaching at pontifical universities in Rome, including the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. The experts – Europeans, an Indian, Africans and South Americans – met in January, February and March.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the family council, told an Italian Catholic magazine that finding pastoral approaches to express God’s mercy while being faithful to church teaching is complicated. However, he told Famiglia Cristiana, “It is pharisaical to limit ourselves to repeating laws and denouncing sins. The church must be frank in admonishing, but it also must be ready to find new paths to follow.”

One of the paths suggested before and during last year’s extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family was a “penitential process” that gradually would lead some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to confession, absolution and Communion.

Participants at the family council’s meetings explored the idea, giving suggested steps and highlighting potential pitfalls beginning with the obvious danger of signaling to the couples and the world at large that perhaps some sacramental marriages are not indissoluble after all. But doing nothing, several said, risks signaling that entering a new union – even after being abandoned by a husband or wife – is the only situation where the church cannot be a minister of God’s forgiveness.

In his presentation, Father Giampaolo Dianin, an Italian professor of moral theology, insisted forgiveness is not “some kind of amnesty.” In Catholic teaching it is “a free and full gift of God which asks for and provokes a commitment to repair, begin again and rebuild.”

A possible “penitential path,” he said, would include:

– A diocesan bishop appointing a priest or a team of qualified people to evaluate individual cases and accompany the applicants, first determining if they have the grounds for an annulment, which would allow them to have their new union blessed as a marriage.

– For a spouse who was abandoned, the process would aim at promoting forgiveness of the offending party. For all involved, the process would include recognizing their sins and ways they contributed to the destruction of the marriage.

– Evaluating the solidity of the second union and the commitment of the couple to live seriously as Christians.

– **“Readmission to the sacraments could be full or partial.” Some might maintain that permanent readmission downplays the fact that the second union is not a sacramental marriage, Father Dianin said; they would allow the couple to receive absolution and Communion during the Easter season and on special occasions.

In Father Dianin’s process, there is no requirement that the couple abstain from sex, living “as brother and sister.” In current church practice, that is what is required of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who want to receive the sacraments.

Father Dianin and several other participants said that beyond the difficulty, and perhaps impossibility, many couples would have in fulfilling that requirement, there is a theological problem in suggesting that the spiritual and corporal aspects of love can and should be separated. In addition, Father Alberto Bonandi, another theologian, said it gives the message that the sexual relations in a new union are the only way the couple is living in conflict with their original marriage bond when, in fact, they have withdrawn their affection and are building a life with someone else.**

**Father Eugenio Zanetti disagreed. The Italian canon lawyer outlined not a “penitential path,” but what he called a “path of conversion to Love,” meaning to God who is love.

The process would begin with a year of individual and group prayer and reflection, particularly looking at the obligations that remain to the spouse and any children from one’s sacramental marriage, he said. During Lent, the prayer would intensify and the reflection would include attention to the Christian understanding of sexuality. At the end of Holy Week, the couple would be invited to confession, “recognizing their sins, including their complex and not fully correct marriage situation.” As a condition of granting them absolution, the church would ask for a promise that they abstain from sexual relations during the Octave of Easter, which would permit them to receive Communion on Easter and on Divine Mercy Sunday.**

Publishers have announced the coming release of other books on Catholic teaching and the family before the world Synod of Bishops on the family begins Oct. 4. One of them, coming from Ignatius Press, is: “Eleven Cardinals Speak on Marriage and the Family: Essays from a Pastoral Viewpoint.”

The book, widely expected to be cautious about broadening the church’s “penitential path,” is described by the publisher as steering “a wise and merciful course that engages genuine concerns, while avoiding false compassion, which compromises both truth and authentic love.”

catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2015/penitential-path-theologians-discuss-promise-pitfalls-of-process.cfm
 
– **“Readmission to the sacraments could be full or partial.” Some might maintain that permanent readmission downplays the fact that the second union is not a sacramental marriage, Father Dianin said; they would allow the couple to receive absolution and Communion during the Easter season and on special occasions.

In Father Dianin’s process, there is no requirement that the couple abstain from sex, living “as brother and sister.” In current church practice, that is what is required of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who want to receive the sacraments.

Father Dianin and several other participants said that beyond the difficulty, and perhaps impossibility, many couples would have in fulfilling that requirement, there is a theological problem in suggesting that the spiritual and corporal aspects of love can and should be separated. In addition, Father Alberto Bonandi, another theologian, said it gives the message that the sexual relations in a new union are the only way the couple is living in conflict with their original marriage bond when, in fact, they have withdrawn their affection and are building a life with someone else.**

**Father Eugenio Zanetti disagreed. The Italian canon lawyer outlined not a “penitential path,” but what he called a “path of conversion to Love,” meaning to God who is love.

The process would begin with a year of individual and group prayer and reflection, particularly looking at the obligations that remain to the spouse and any children from one’s sacramental marriage, he said. During Lent, the prayer would intensify and the reflection would include attention to the Christian understanding of sexuality. At the end of Holy Week, the couple would be invited to confession, “recognizing their sins, including their complex and not fully correct marriage situation.” As a condition of granting them absolution, the church would ask for a promise that they abstain from sexual relations during the Octave of Easter, which would permit them to receive Communion on Easter and on Divine Mercy Sunday.**
When I first read your post, I thought this “penitential path” had been presented
at the Synod. I’m glad to see it’s an excerpt from a book.

I’ll be praying that this is not seriously presented at the Synod as a path for the Church to follow.
 
In Father Dianin’s process, there is no requirement that the couple abstain from sex, living “as brother and sister.” In current church practice, that is what is required of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who want to receive the sacraments…

…The process would begin with a year of individual and group prayer and reflection, particularly looking at the obligations that remain to the spouse and any children from one’s sacramental marriage, he said. During Lent, the prayer would intensify and the reflection would include attention to the Christian understanding of sexuality. At the end of Holy Week, the couple would be invited to confession, “recognizing their sins, including their complex and not fully correct marriage situation.” As a condition of granting them absolution, the church would ask for a promise that they abstain from sexual relations during the Octave of Easter, which would permit them to receive Communion on Easter and on Divine Mercy Sunday.
So correct me if I’m wrong, but…when in confession you pray “I firmly resolve with the help of your grace to sin no more and to avoid the narrow occasion of sin”, you are promising to God that you will do you best to NEVER engage in sinful activity, and to avoid those situations that tempt you to sin. What the above “paths” imply is that you are really telling God “I firmly resolve with the help of your grace to sin no more for only the next few weeks, and I have no intention of avoiding narrow occasion of sin”.

Am I missing something???
 
So correct me if I’m wrong, but…when in confession you pray “I firmly resolve with the help of your grace to sin no more and to avoid the narrow occasion of sin”, you are promising to God that you will do you best to NEVER engage in sinful activity, and to avoid those situations that tempt you to sin. What the above “paths” imply is that you are really telling God “I firmly resolve with the help of your grace to sin no more for only the next few weeks, and I have no intention of avoiding narrow occasion of sin”.

Am I missing something???
Nope. You got it.
 
So correct me if I’m wrong, but…when in confession you pray “I firmly resolve with the help of your grace to sin no more and to avoid the narrow occasion of sin”, you are promising to God that you will do you best to NEVER engage in sinful activity, and to avoid those situations that tempt you to sin. What the above “paths” imply is that you are really telling God “I firmly resolve with the help of your grace to sin no more for only the next few weeks, and I have no intention of avoiding narrow occasion of sin”.

Am I missing something???
I don’t think they are proposing that you begin with full confession. They are suggesting a path of penance which while not fully there, affords people something of the economy of the sacraments. It’s just thoughts and suggestions that are put out there for theological examination.

The reality that the grace of the sacraments is a healing balm and is currently reserved for only those in situations open to mending with repentance and resolve to abstain from sin. This particular situation though, is one where there can be repentance and remorse for some actions, but the ability to fix it is sometimes not available. Does God have some answer for us? That is the first question.
 
…This particular situation though, is one where there can be repentance and remorse for some actions, but the ability to fix it is sometimes not available. Does God have some answer for us? That is the first question.
Certainly the situation is perplexing. Does one continue to “sin” against the first marriage or do “violence” toward the second?
 
The reality that the grace of the sacraments is a healing balm and is currently reserved for only those in situations open to mending with repentance and resolve to abstain from sin. This particular situation though, is one where there can be repentance and remorse for some actions, but the ability to fix it is sometimes not available. Does God have some answer for us? That is the first question.
Yes, His answer came through St. Paul " I can do all things in He who strengthens me"
 
Certainly the situation is perplexing. Does one continue to “sin” against the first marriage or do “violence” toward the second?
That operates on the premise that there IS a second marriage… That premise is far from certain.
 
Yes, His answer came through St. Paul " I can do all things in He who strengthens me"
So prior to the dropping of Limbo of Infants in 1992 if a mother said I can’t accept that my deceased child is not in heaven with Jesus… would you have said that to her?
 
That operates on the premise that there IS a second marriage… That premise is far from certain.
I could have used the word relationship instead of marriage. There are real people involved, perhaps children etc. The statement about doing harm to others and to the relationships I think stands. The difficulties don’t evaporate by declaring the second relation not to be a valid marriage for the Catholic member(s). It is certainly easier to be dogmatic prior to formation of the second relationship than after. The synod is not struggling with the matter for no reason!
 
So prior to the dropping of Limbo of Infants in 1992 if a mother said I can’t accept that my deceased child is not in heaven with Jesus… would you have said that to her?
Who dropped it? It was never held as doctrinal by the Church.

So I would have said the same thing that I would say now; “pray for your child”
 
I could have used the word relationship instead of marriage. There are real people involved, perhaps children etc. The statement about doing harm to others and to the relationships I think stands. The difficulties don’t evaporate by declaring the second relation not to be a valid marriage for the Catholic member(s). It is certainly easier to be dogmatic prior to formation of the second relationship than after. The synod is not struggling with the matter for no reason!
You should have used the word ‘relationship’ instead of marriage, as that is what it is. Do not expect the Synod to make any changes in that regards.

And yes, these do involve real people, and part of the challenge is to instruct others that not all relationships are healthy for your soul, and some do great damage to it. The Church, as teaching Mother, has a duty, a merciful, pastoral duty, to teach the flock how to recognize such relationships, and how to alter them so that the soul might attain Grace.
 
Certainly the situation is perplexing. Does one continue to “sin” against the first marriage or do “violence” toward the second?
So if a divorced and civilly remarried person who has children with the second spouse separated from their second spouse, wouldn’t that harm the children? I thought that the Church taught that children should be raised with a mother and a father?
 
So if a divorced and civilly remarried person who has children with the second spouse separated from their second spouse, wouldn’t that harm the children? I thought that the Church taught that children should be raised with a mother and a father?
What is called for, in that case, is for the couple to live a life of abstinence.

In that way, the adultery ends, but both parents are present to parent and to witness a Christian life to the children
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
Familiaris Consortio 84 - Pope St John Paul II
 
Who dropped it? It was never held as doctrinal by the Church.

So I would have said the same thing that I would say now; “pray for your child”
You’re being revisionist to suit your narrow perspective. Limbo was considered what we would call today ‘doctrinal development’. Prior to that the fate of unbaptised infants was considered hell. The Councils of Lyons II and Florence for instance wrote it this way…

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.”

There was no provision given for people to ‘make up there own minds’ on the subject. It was all part and parcel of the doctrine of original sin.

The reason that developments continue to happen is because theology, philosophy and knowledge of human nature and the world continued to develop calling into question the scope of the doctrine. The Church is motivated to theological study of doctrine not by God coming down from heaven an giving new teachings, but through the needs of the people of world wanting to know God in all His fullness.

That is what is happening now with the circumstances of divorced/remarrieds.

PS. I do have other words from the doctors and theologians from the past concerning the fate of infants, but they are a little distressing and I don’t think would add anything more helpful than the above from Lyons II and Florence on the subject of unbaptised infants.
 
So prior to the dropping of Limbo of Infants in 1992 if a mother said I can’t accept that my deceased child is not in heaven with Jesus… would you have said that to her?
As to Limbo, I would have said that there is not a contradiction between a child being “in” Limbo and being in heaven with Jesus. Limbo was conceived of as a place of perfect natural happiness, but lacking the Beatific Vision. Actually the teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism remains, so the problem remains, but it has been restated in such a way as to allow for the hope that God, not being himself limited by the sacraments, may find a way to confer sanctifying grace without Baptism, either of water or desire or martyrdom.
 
As to Limbo, I would have said that there is not a contradiction between a child being “in” Limbo and being in heaven with Jesus. Limbo was conceived of as a place of perfect natural happiness, but lacking the Beatific Vision. Actually the teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism remains, so the problem remains, but it has been restated in such a way as to allow for the hope that God, not being himself limited by the sacraments, may find a way to confer sanctifying grace without Baptism, either of water or desire or martyrdom.
Aside from all the theology and theorising that go into the examination… there is the experience of the bereaved family. There was always a strong undercurrent of experience at that level that these children could not be anywhere else but in the arms of Jesus in heaven. That may have been discouraged by rigourist clergy, but it has alternately been allowed for by clergy who’ve discerned the experience of the family to be godly.
 
You’re being revisionist to suit your narrow perspective. Limbo was considered what we would call today ‘doctrinal development’. Prior to that the fate of unbaptised infants was considered hell. The Councils of Lyons II and Florence for instance wrote it this way…

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.”

There was no provision given for people to ‘make up there own minds’ on the subject. It was all part and parcel of the doctrine of original sin.

Yes, but Trent noted
If anyone says that the Grace of Baptism is not required for salvation, let them be anathema.
 
I don’t think they are proposing that you begin with full confession. They are suggesting a path of penance which while not fully there, affords people something of the economy of the sacraments. It’s just thoughts and suggestions that are put out there for theological examination.

The reality that the grace of the sacraments is a healing balm and is currently reserved for only those in situations open to mending with repentance and resolve to abstain from sin. This particular situation though, is one where there can be repentance and remorse for some actions, but the ability to fix it is sometimes not available. Does God have some answer for us? That is the first question.
Isn’t the “healing balm” for Christians the sacrament of confession?

Certainly there are people are in difficult situations, but they chose those situations (if they are in a second marriage), and they are freely choosing to engage in sex outside of their marriage (the first, real marriage). So anything less than a full confession appears as if the penitent is not really that sorry…kind of sorry…but not really sorry.

Perhaps an analogy might be a person with cancer who goes to the doctor to be healed, but only wants part of the cancer removed. They will still die without having it all removed. I fear for the souls who might be led to believe they can receive the body and blood of Christ without being wholly sorry, and confessing ALL of their sins, and have full intention to avoid any situation that would cause them to sin again. I also worry about the “millstone” for the person that encourages them to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top