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

[Rau]

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?

You reinforce my point, which is that the situation is difficult.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You reinforce my point, which is that the situation is difficult.

They should live as brother and sister. While it may sound incredibly difficult and I’m sure that it probably is for many at times, there are courageous people who are divorced and remarried who are living this way.

 

[Rau]

They should live as brother and sister. While it may sound incredibly difficult and I’m sure that it probably is for many at times, there are courageous people who are divorced and remarried who are living this way.

Yes that’s right, and I struggle to see how the Church could come to any other conclusion on this point, but it does not change the observation that this solution may harm the stability of the current relationship with adverse consequences (eg. for children). Perhaps the Catholic in the couple is willing to comply, but the other party not. And yes, it is the Catholic parent who set those consequences in motion.

 

[Lorelael]

Let me throw this out there. Cradle Catholics should know about this, that there should only be one marriage, and no divorce. (I’m simplifying things) They know that if they were to civilly divorce they cannot remarry. Annulment is just there for the cases that a marriage was never valid in the first place.

But take into consideration someone that was not brought up Catholic. How are they to know that they shouldn’t have gotten divorced? Should they always be denied the Eucharist? They didn’t know Catholic doctrine, until they decided to join the Catholic church and are going through class. They can never even get their sacrament of confirmation until they go through and annulment process (if it is even proven that it was an invalid marriage). Meaning, they are never full members of the Body of Christ.

Before people start throwing judgmental moral sin stones, they should stop and consider that there are some lost sheep that Jesus left his flock to go and retrieve. The Holy Father even stated the Communion is not a trophy for the Holy, but medicine for the sick. I really pray that they Synod looks at the devastating impact on divorcees and their inability to receive communion, in particular their inability to join the church. It isn’t necessarily a change in doctrine, as it is an interpretation on where mercy and compassion come into play.

I for one hit a very low point in my life when I went to join the church a year ago and was told “I wasn’t good enough” because my husband had a previous marriage. That is how I felt, the class was very warm and inviting mind you. I watched my entire RCIA class joyously received into the church, while myself and my family sat in the pew and cried. I would attend daily mass and feel anger, hurt, sadness, loss, that I wasn’t good enough for Jesus. When we attend mass on Sundays, we are “kicked” out before the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It was very hard not to just throw my hands up in the air and say, I’m going to that church down the road because they will accept me.

We have finally gotten it annulled and will receive our reception into the church this Sunday (10/11/15), but some of the very hateful comments I have seen on this thread, don’t take into consideration certain situations. Please be mindful, God loves all of children. Remember the parable of the prodigal son, the father threw a feast for him when he returned.

 

[Rau]

…
I for one hit a very low point in my life when I went to join the church a year ago and was told “I wasn’t good enough” because my husband had a previous marriage. That is how I felt…

I am sure you felt hurt and disappointed, but I am sure you were not told you weren’t good enough.

…When we attend mass on Sundays, we are “kicked” out before the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

I assume this is hyperbole?

some of the very hateful comments I have seen on this thread, don’t take into consideration certain situations.

If you’ve seen hateful comments, please call them out, or report them.

 

[Lorelael]

I am sure you felt hurt and disappointed, but I am sure you were not told you weren’t good enough.

I assume this is hyperbole?

If you’ve seen hateful comments, please call them out, or report them.

We were never told we weren’t good enough, however, this predicament can cause these feelings. I’m very lucky that my family and I were able to pray and stay strong and makeit to the finish line, but we did have several members of the class quit because they felt those feelings.

No, we are actually “kicked” out. All catehumans and candidates have to leave after the homily. We go to a little room and discuss the homily. While this intention is great, one can’t help but feeling totally depressed and unwanted, even though you know that is not the purpose.

As for hateful comments, to some they might not come across that way. I read them as people that have very hardened hearts. Hence, I don’t report them, but pray that the Holy Spirit might open their eyes to realize that even though they may not intend to do it, they hurt several people. I have reported extreme ones in the past.

 

[Rau]

Lorelael:

No, we are actually “kicked” out. All catehumans and candidates have to leave after the homily. We go to a little room and discuss the homily. While this intention is great, one can’t help but feeling totally depressed and unwanted, even though you know that is not the purpose.

So rather than being “kicked out” (suggesting your presence is inappropriate or that you are unworthy), what you mean is that the RCIA program in your parish uses that time for another purpose. Not quite what I’d call “being kicked out”, but not a good approach in my view either.

As for hateful comments, to some they might not come across that way.

Anything on this site that qualifies as “hateful” (a very strong word…) needs to be called out. Some comments lack empathy, or appear to do so, but I think “hateful” is rare.

 

[Lorelael]

So rather than being “kicked out” (suggesting your presence is inappropriate or that you are unworthy), what you mean is that the RCIA program in your parish uses that time for another purpose. Not quite what I’d call “being kicked out”, but not a good approach in my view either.

Anything on this site that qualifies as “hateful” (a very strong word…) needs to be called out. Some comments lack empathy, or appear to do so, but I think “hateful” is rare.

Like I said, “kicked out” is more the feeling that we get. Even parishioners there that know us, can see the hurt on our faces as we leave. It is a very real feeling. Even though the intentions for it are good, if you read most missals, they show after the Liturgy of the Word, that candidates and catehumens are dismissed.

As for hateful, you are right, that might be a strong word to use, however, when you have been on the side that has been hurt by the church (obviously not intentionally), things do come across different and can be taken in a totally different way than was intended. But you are correct, people that are very stuck in “this is the way it is and the Synod is wrong if they take a different approach”, really do lack empathy. It’s wonderful that they have grown up in the church and the faith, but sometimes this lack of being exposed to another side of the story give them a great lack of understanding or an inability to appear welcoming and loving to the outsider that is trying to get in. I honestly would think most do not intend to do that, but it is something that does happen.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, but Trent noted

If anyone says that the Grace of Baptism is not required for salvation, let them be anathema.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. I wasn’t implying that doctrine ‘changed’. It developed. Applying our understanding of the doctrine with the light of various ages since Limbo took a part in the doctrine of original sin, is a different thing to how the people of the time understood it. That’s how doctrine is. The Church develops in its understanding of them. Limbo was accepted by people as an integral part of the doctrine of original sin because the Church in her wisdom said so.

So what new knowledge of human nature in this regard came about since Trent?

Are we less fallen?, are we less in need of Grace? Is God less or more free to grant Grace as He sees fit?

So what new insights of human nature or philosophy came since Familaris Consortio?

It amazes me when people ask these questions as though development is not a feature of the universe and the people in it. It’s a real thing. At the present time, the number of failed Catholic marriages has motivated a deeper look at what constitutes validity of sacramental marriage. That’s got to be a good thing in the long run and go towards helping people in the future contract true sacramental marriages.

Pope Benedict in this 2013 speech to the Roman rota noted the conditions of todayl…

1. Contemporary culture, marked by accentuated subjectivism and ethical and religious relativism, places the person and the family before pressing challenges. Firstly, it is faced with the question about the capacity of the human being to bind him or herself, and about whether a bond that lasts a lifetime really is possible and corresponds with human nature or whether, rather, it contradicts man’s freedom and self-fulfilment. In fact, the very idea that a person fulfills him or herself living an “autonomous” existence and only entering into a relationship with the other when it can be broken off at any time forms part of a widespread mindset

And in regards to this modern day situation he reflects on how the resultant failure of faith might preclude the validity of a marriage…

I recognize the difficulties, from a juridical and practical viewpoint, of clarifying the essential element of the bonum coniugum, so far understood mainly in relation to the hypothesis of incapacity (cf. CIC, can. 1095). The bonum coniugum also assumes importance in the context of the simulation of consent.

Of course, in the cases submitted to your judgement, it will be the investigation in facto that will ascertain the possible grounds for this reason for annulment, prevalent or co-existent with another reason of the three Augustinian “goods” of marriage: procreativity, exclusiveness and permanence. One must not, therefore, disregard the consideration that can arise in the cases in which, precisely because of the absence of faith, the good of the spouses is jeopardized, that is, excluded from the consent itself; for example, in the hypothesis of subversion on the part of one of them, because of an erroneous conception of the nuptial bond, of the principle of equality, or in the event of the refusal of the conjugal union that distinguishes the marriage bond, together with the possibly concomitant exclusion of fidelity and of the practice of conjugal relations in humano modo, a truly human manner.

With these reflections, I certainly do not intend to suggest any facile automatism between the lack of faith and the invalidity of the matrimonial union, but rather to highlight how such a lack may, although not necessarily, also damage the goods of the marriage, since the reference to the natural order desired by God is inherent in the conjugal pact

In a sense, if many of those Catholics in second marriages are unaware of this failure of faith caused by the whole secularised culture they’ve grown up in, they may be able to be helped by the Church to see how that failure impacted on the first marriage and be helped to eventually regularise the second union officially.

 

[sarah_j]

All Catholics are required to go through pre-Cana counseling.
If couples aren’t being properly counseled prior to marriage
then the Church should beef up its counseling.

Regarding the argument that due to our immoral secular culture that people
can’t grasp the idea of fidelity and permanent committment -
To me that sounds like throwing in the towel. It’s the duty of the Church
to stand strong against immorality, not to give it a wink and a nod.

I think that sense of throwing up our hands in the face of the number of Catholics who divorce
and remarry is what Cardinal Chaput was alluding to when he said that the
Synod’s working document 'engenders a subtle hopelessness".

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26344

 

[_Abyssinia]

All Catholics are required to go through pre-Cana counseling.
If couples aren’t being properly counseled prior to marriage
then the Church should beef up its counseling.

Regarding the argument that due to our immoral secular culture that people
can’t grasp the idea of fidelity and permanent committment -
To me that sounds like throwing in the towel. It’s the duty of the Church
to stand strong against immorality, not to give it a wink and a nod.

I think that sense of throwing up our hands in the face of the number of Catholics who divorce
and remarry is what Cardinal Chaput was alluding to when he said that the
Synod’s working document 'engenders a subtle hopelessness".

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26344

If only a divorced and remarried couple who were living chastely, as brother and sister, could have given a talk at the Synod and provided faces to people in such situations. They could of been a source of inspiration to others who are divorced and remarried and to the Synod fathers. I doubt any such couple has been invited to attend.

 

[ARSpade]

They should live as brother and sister. While it may sound incredibly difficult and I’m sure that it probably is for many at times, there are courageous people who are divorced and remarried who are living this way.

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried” – G. K. Chesterton

ETA: You know, left out of these discussions is always the abandoned spouse, it seems. How much fun would it be to get to see your ex-husband, who promised permanance, get to fully participate in the body of Christ with his new toy half your age and not only be celebrated by the culture but by the Church as well.

 

[LongingSoul]

All Catholics are required to go through pre-Cana counseling.
If couples aren’t being properly counseled prior to marriage
then the Church should beef up its counseling.

Regarding the argument that due to our immoral secular culture that people
can’t grasp the idea of fidelity and permanent committment -
To me that sounds like throwing in the towel. It’s the duty of the Church
to stand strong against immorality, not to give it a wink and a nod.

I think that sense of throwing up our hands in the face of the number of Catholics who divorce
and remarry is what Cardinal Chaput was alluding to when he said that the
Synod’s working document 'engenders a subtle hopelessness".

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26344

But the discussion about how to stem the flow of divorce has been going on for years and years without much working. Premarriage courses are well structured and with sound doctrine but the fact is that ‘faith is caught not taught’ as the old ladies used to say. There is a need for something more efficacious than learning theory.

 

[ARSpade]

Premarriage courses are well structured and with sound doctrine but the fact is that ‘faith is caught not taught’ as the old ladies used to say.

LOL

That’s a good one.

ETA: And woe to the Priest who says, “You know, you guys may have booked the reception hall and everything (which is the important bit, dontcha know) but you’re just not ready for this and may never be.”

 

[HeartnSoulMan]

Divorced remarried Catholics are unable to use the sacrament of penance because they are not living in a condition where they could meet the criteria for absolution.

The situation is further confused by the fact that they may not have even applied for an annulments which would mean they may actually be denied an annulment and already be re-married and committing adultery.

Further, no one seems to remember a sin called scandalous behavior which can also be a mortal sin especially in this type of public sin.

My problem is trying to imagine any Catholic Bishop even considering such a course that would require the intentional sacrilegious use of the Blessed Sacrament. Our saints would turn over in their graves.

Beyond that is the careful phrasing of stable non-traditional relationships. That just about makes me vomit. I believe they are talking about recognizing value in homosexual activity if they just keep partners longer then usual. Chasity is the only activity for a catholic person who has homosexual tendencies. Did any of these prelates read the dogmas on which our sacraments are based.

Perhaps no one there remembers that to refuse to believe in even one dogma or the stubborn refusal to accept even one dogma is ipso facto excommunication for heresy.

Unless they are saying that common-law marriage, civil unions and pre-marital sex with a longer term partner should be okay-ed for holy communion as well.

Is anyone sure if these are Catholic Bishops who have been sent to represent us in this synod maybe they were replaced with united church prelates.

If only one bishop of the Catholic church made these suggestions like Cardinal Kasper I would assume he was mad. If 35% would consider these ideas we have a cancer in the Church. I hope at least some of the true Catholic Church survives until the second coming of Christ which I hope will be very soon. If we wait much longer there won’t be a Catholic church just Judas look a likes in miters.

I do not think that we are looking at any new fresh pastoral approach to assisting individuals trapped in sin to find freedom. I think we are looking at a combination of Modernism and Antinomianism combined to try to make it sound reasonable and loving when it is just trash already dealt with.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Cardinal Kaspers proposal for couples in some circumstances to do a “period of penance,” in my opinion just doesnt work. Who knows when the true husband or wife will come back into the picture, and then what? You will have a big mess. Not to mention, most importantly it undermines the indissolubilty of marriage.

 

[pnewton]

But take into consideration someone that was not brought up Catholic. How are they to know that they shouldn’t have gotten divorced? Should they always be denied the Eucharist? They didn’t know Catholic doctrine, until they decided to join the Catholic church and are going through class.

This situation is one that is becoming more and more common. It is one I would like to see more thoroughly addressed. In such a case, there might not be any actual sin, state of sin, grave or venial, that should prove a barrier to the reception of communion. All we have is an objective state of sin, which actually may not even be objective (if the current marriage is the only valid marriage). A person could be in nothing but a canonical state of sin, though no such animal exists.

 

[pnewton]

. Did any of these prelates read the dogmas on which our sacraments are based.

I think that is a safe assumption, as the Pope chose them for this task.

 

[Melancholic]

I watch these proceedings with an increasing sense of dread…

Will adultery remain “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”? Is the goal to redefine what adultery is, or to downgrade it from mortal sin to venial sin? Or is it to call into question the validity of most/all marriages (since the divorce rate is so high)?

If a divorced and remarried person intends to stay in the second marriage and continue with adultery, how can they be absolved of the adultery, even temporarily?

If adultery is still classified as a mortal sin, and the Eucharist may now be received by those committing adultery, why can’t everyone receive regardless of the sins they commit (sexual or not)? What makes adultery get a pass? Just the sheer amount of people who are divorced today? The hard-luck cases, the true-love cases, the children? People argue that Jesus ate and drank with sinners, the lost sheep must be sought after and not excluded, the Eucharist is a healing balm for sinners and not a prize for the perfect, and it is merciful to stop excluding sinners from receiving Him. Even when those sinners don’t intend to recognize their sin or change their ways…

 

[JimG]

We were never told we weren’t good enough, however, this predicament can cause these feelings. I’m very lucky that my family and I were able to pray and stay strong and makeit to the finish line, but we did have several members of the class quit because they felt those feelings.

No, we are actually “kicked” out. All catehumans and candidates have to leave after the homily. We go to a little room and discuss the homily. While this intention is great, one can’t help but feeling totally depressed and unwanted, even though you know that is not the purpose.

As for hateful comments, to some they might not come across that way. I read them as people that have very hardened hearts. Hence, I don’t report them, but pray that the Holy Spirit might open their eyes to realize that even though they may not intend to do it, they hurt several people. I have reported extreme ones in the past.

I have to agree that regardless of the doctrine involved, the whole experience for a non-Catholic can seem not only daunting but feel like a kind of rejection.

It isn’t, of course; it’s just trying to put marriage matters right.

I understand the reasons for and the early history of having the catechumens leave after the Liturgy of the Word, but perhaps it worked better in the early Church than it does now. I have been an RCIA sponsor for a non-Catholic spouse who had attended Mass weekly and faithfully with his wife for decades. Then, when he is about to become Catholic, he could no longer attend the full Mass with her!

And the matter of prior marriages, I think, must be explained up front, at the very first session of RCIA. Every marriage, Catholic or not, is presumed valid until shown not to be. It’s too bad that the matter can not be decided more quickly by tribunals, but that’s where we stand now. It isn’t a very fast process.