Are divorced/remarried people really being denied communion? Why so much emphasis on this issue?

[PaulGH]

I am sure that most of you have seen the speculation and debates about whether Catholics who are civilly divorced (without an annulment) and then civilly remarried should be allowed to receive communion. As I understand it, Catholic teaching says that such persons should not receive holy communion because they are objectively living in a gravely sinful situation (i.e., an adulterous relationship), and no one who is in a state of mortal sin should receive communion. (Canon 915 is probably relevant here as well.) It would not even help for a person in such a situation to go to confession, unless he has the intent of ceasing the adulterous relationship (either breaking off the second marriage completely, or perhaps living as brother and sister), because it does no good to be sorry for a sin that you have no intention to stop committing. So far, so good, right?

But in actual practice, if a person is divorced (without annulment) and civilly remarried, what is stopping him from receiving communion if he decides in his own conscience to do so? (Please note I am not saying that such a person SHOULD decide to receive communion – in fact, he should not.)

First, the pastor or other Eucharistic minister may not even know that this person is divorced and remarried. For example, my wife and I are validly married, with no prior marriages. But we have moved more than once since our marriage, and no pastor at any parish we have attended has ever asked to see proof that we are validly married. If we were in an invalid marriage, there is no way that our pastor would know.

Second, if the pastor does know that the person is invalidly married, will he really refuse to distribute communion to that person during Mass, if the person presents himself? This seems unlikely to me, at least in most parishes that I have attended.

Third, even in the unlikely event that the pastor does refuse to distribute communion to a divorced/remarried person, what is to stop that person from attending Mass and receiving communion at a different parish?

At least in my experience, there simply is no process for verifying that people are in the proper state in life to receive communion. The assumption is that the individual has the responsibility for discerning whether or not he is in a state of grace, and thus allowed to receive communion.

So given what I have said here, why are people making such a big deal over this issue? Are there really places where people are effectively barred from communion for being divorced (without annulment) and remarried? Or is this just a convenient excuse for people to try to undermine the church’s teaching on marriage and on the Eucharist?

 

[OraLabora]

But in actual practice, if a person is divorced (without annulment) and civilly remarried, what is stopping him from receiving communion if he decides in his own conscience to do so? (Please note I am not saying that such a person SHOULD decide to receive communion – in fact, he should not.)

Nothing, really. If the pastor knows of the situation he can have a heart-to-heart talk with the couple and refuse to administer the sacrament when they come up, but nothing stops the couple from receiving in another parish where they aren’t known.

I know some people who do. It’s their conscience. The best to do is to pray and hand them over to the mercy of God.

On the other hand I know a couple in this situation (the husband is Catholic) and he attends Mass every Sunday, but does not, out of his conscience and in obedience, receive communion. I like to hope that God will be especially merciful to them, if for no other reason, for their obedience.

 

[Kay_Cee]

So given what I have said here, why are people making such a big deal over this issue?

Why such a big deal? Two reasons: because we are to love God and our neighbor.

Because we love God, we do not want Him to be gravely offended. (This goes for any grave sin.)

Because we love our neighbor, we do not want him to further blacken his soul by committing another grave sin.

 

[PaulGH]

Why such a big deal? Two reasons: because we are to love God and our neighbor.

Because we love God, we do not want Him to be gravely offended. (This goes for any grave sin.)

Because we love our neighbor, we do not want him to further blacken his soul by committing another grave sin.

I agree completely. But let me clarify my question: What I really want to know is why are people such as Cardinal Kasper and some in the media making such a big push to change the church’s practice on this issue? Why push to allow communion for the divorced/remarried, when it seems to me that no one is really stopping these people from receiving communion now?

 

[sw85]

I agree completely. But let me clarify my question: What I really want to know is why are people such as Cardinal Kasper and some in the media making such a big push to change the church’s practice on this issue? Why push to allow communion for the divorced/remarried, when it seems to me that no one is really stopping these people from receiving communion now?

Those people cannot receive communion licitly anywhere, so it is small comfort to them that they can always just sneak around and receive it somewhere else. It’s not about not being able to receive communion but about being told that their state in life is irregular and in need of correction.

 

[PaulGH]

Those people cannot receive communion licitly anywhere, so it is small comfort to them that they can always just sneak around and receive it somewhere else. It’s not about not being able to receive communion but about being told that their state in life is irregular and in need of correction.

That’s a valid point. However, if a person is not concerned about obeying church teaching regarding divorce and remarriage, why would that person be so concerned what the church teaches regarding reception of communion?

 

[Mumbles140]

I agree completely. But let me clarify my question: What I really want to know is why are people such as Cardinal Kasper and some in the media making such a big push to change the church’s practice on this issue? Why push to allow communion for the divorced/remarried, when it seems to me that no one is really stopping these people from receiving communion now?

So my understanding is that it is not about ‘blocking’ or ‘allowing’ people to receive the Eucharist (in the physical sense), but rather removing the sin from being in an adulterous marriage, which means those people could be considered in a state of grace, and therefore receive the Eucharist without committing another mortal sin by defiling the Body of Christ through unworthy reception.

If I am misguided on this, please let me know, but that was what I took from what I had seen.

 

[Mumbles140]

That’s a valid point. However, if a person is not concerned about obeying church teaching regarding divorce and remarriage, why would that person be so concerned what the church teaches regarding reception of communion?

Because it is easy for the flesh to overcome the spirit, but the Laws of God are written in the hearts of all of us. Why are there those who want the Church to allow the marriage of homosexuals? Because they know the Church possesses the Truth of Christ, they may be living outside of that truth, but they still desire it, and it is easier for the Church to change to their wants rather than them offering up their will to God’s will.

 

[Eternal_One]

That’s a valid point. However, if a person is not concerned about obeying church teaching regarding divorce and remarriage, why would that person be so concerned what the church teaches regarding reception of communion?

Perhaps because these individuals know in their heart that they are wrong, and not being able to receive Communion every week is a nagging reminder? If the Church OKed it somehow, theoretically the sin would be removed, and therefore the guilt would be gone too.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I agree completely. But let me clarify my question: What I really want to know is why are people such as Cardinal Kasper and some in the media making such a big push to change the church’s practice on this issue? Why push to allow communion for the divorced/remarried, when it seems to me that no one is really stopping these people from receiving communion now?

I don’t think anybody can explain somebody else’s behavior to you. Certainly nobody should be pushing for this.

 

[Joe_5859]

There are a lot of issues at play here, and a lot of that gets muddled in the media portrayal of these things.

First, we need to distinguish between canon 915 and canon 916:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Canon 915 is directed at the person administering the Eucharist. Canon 916 is directed at the person receiving the Eucharist. In that sense, the former pertains to external imposition while the latter pertains to internal conscience.

I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of someone being denied Communion under canon 915 for divorce and remarriage. But that doesn’t mean that canon 916 does not still apply (as it applies to all of us when we commit a mortal sin and do not go to Confession). This does not need to be a matter of external non-admittance for it to be important for the question to be addressed.

I do think too much has been made of this issue and it really is not the major topic of conversation for the forthcoming synod. And, certainly, I know plenty of Catholics who are divorced and remarried (and/or don’t go to Church on a regular basis) who nonetheless still receive Communion each and every time they go.

But just because there are those who don’t follow the “rules” does not mean we cannot look at the rules. There are those who do respect the Church’s teaching on this matter and any change would directly impact them. I don’t think it would be good to tell them that, if their conscience doesn’t bother them about being divorced and remarried, why should they sweat receiving Communion. That would just compound the problem, not solve it.

 

[marymary1975]

I agree completely. But let me clarify my question: What I really want to know is why are people such as Cardinal Kasper and some in the media making such a big push to change the church’s practice on this issue? Why push to allow commu**nion for the divorced/remarried, when it seems to me that no one is really stopping these people from receiving communion now?

I think I can give you am answer but the answer need to go back in history. Any years ago in the fifties if I am correct. In most civilization Divorce without a very good cause was forbiden. A push to introduce no fault divorce was created at that time the catholic church opposes no fault divorce on the grounds that it was going to destroy the natural family and it was going to have a negative impact on marriage. At that time the answer of promoters of no fault divorce was no one is forcing churches to grant divorces. It is just civil divorce. The churches are not requires to follow it. It is a state secular legal matter and it should be accepted. Having the ability to obtain a divorce is not going to affect no one else’s marriages, etc. Etc. Etc. In the end no faultbdivirce wins and is practically introduced all over the world. However the catholic church still refuses to accept. There is no divorce in the church. Secular society told the church but don’t worry…no one is going to force churches to accept divorces. In fact if anyone ever pushes for the church to accept divorce we all be against it. ( any familiarity with current situation is not a coincidence).

So years passed and people who unfortunately suffer from amnesia became used to the idea of no fault divorce and started forgetting that once in time The church was opposed to it but it was told no one is going to ever push you to accept divorce. Simply people forgot about it. Over time other worst issues came over the table: abortion, cohabitation, contraception, WTC until now that same sex marriage came on the table. By the time we got SSM almost everyone has forgoted about how divorce came to be and the church is so focused on these other more current issues that voila! The perfect time to push what it was promised that wasn’t going to push …has arrived. So the anti life movement takes back it original weapon that open their road for everything else and (now that no one remembers) divorce and remarriage and starts pushing the church to change its doctrine. That is why it is being done.

Simple there is an anti life movent that wants the church to change its policies on abortion, contraception, homosexuality etc. But they cannot go face to face to push the church to do it because it would be too shocking and there would be massive resistance to it. So what they do is through a very long term plan they little by little start pushing things in society in a very subtle way so it becomes accepted and by the time everyone gets so used to it, then they start pushing the church to change its doctrine.

That is exactly what is happening with the church and divorce/remarriage. It was successfully introduced a long time ago and by now everyone sees it solo common that if they attempt to get the church to change its position on it not to many will oppose.

 

[Cone]

The priest may not know that the communicant is living in sin, but surely the communicant knows.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

I think I can give you am answer but the answer need to go back in history. Any years ago in the fifties if I am correct. In most civilization Divorce without a very good cause was forbiden. A push to introduce no fault divorce was created at that time the catholic church opposes no fault divorce on the grounds that it was going to destroy the natural family and it was going to have a negative impact on marriage. At that time the answer of promoters of no fault divorce was no one is forcing churches to grant divorces. It is just civil divorce. The churches are not requires to follow it. It is a state secular legal matter and it should be accepted. Having the ability to obtain a divorce is not going to affect no one else’s marriages, etc. Etc. Etc. In the end no faultbdivirce wins and is practically introduced all over the world. However the catholic church still refuses to accept. There is no divorce in the church. Secular society told the church but don’t worry…no one is going to force churches to accept divorces. In fact if anyone ever pushes for the church to accept divorce we all be against it. ( any familiarity with current situation is not a coincidence).

So years passed and people who unfortunately suffer from amnesia became used to the idea of no fault divorce and started forgetting that once in time The church was opposed to it but it was told no one is going to ever push you to accept divorce. Simply people forgot about it. Over time other worst issues came over the table: abortion, cohabitation, contraception, WTC until now that same sex marriage came on the table. By the time we got SSM almost everyone has forgoted about how divorce came to be and the church is so focused on these other more current issues that voila! The perfect time to push what it was promised that wasn’t going to push …has arrived. So the anti life movement takes back it original weapon that open their road for everything else and (now that no one remembers) divorce and remarriage and starts pushing the church to change its doctrine. That is why it is being done.

Simple there is an anti life movent that wants the church to change its policies on abortion, contraception, homosexuality etc. But they cannot go face to face to push the church to do it because it would be too shocking and there would be massive resistance to it. So what they do is through a very long term plan they little by little start pushing things in society in a very subtle way so it becomes accepted and by the time everyone gets so used to it, then they start pushing the church to change its doctrine.

That is exactly what is happening with the church and divorce/remarriage. It was successfully introduced a long time ago and by now everyone sees it solo common that if they attempt to get the church to change its position on it not to many will oppose.

Very, very perceptive. Thank you for posting this.

 

[seagal]

But in actual practice, if a person is divorced (without annulment) and civilly remarried, what is stopping him from receiving communion if he decides in his own conscience to do so? (Please note I am not saying that such a person SHOULD decide to receive communion – in fact, he should not.)

[snip]

At least in my experience, there simply is no process for verifying that people are in the proper state in life to receive communion. The assumption is that the individual has the responsibility for discerning whether or not he is in a state of grace, and thus allowed to receive communion.

You’re exactly right. In the same way, the priest would have no way of knowing if someone committed other mortal sins, such as contracepting or masturbation or cheating on their taxes. It’s up to the individual and their conscious whether or not to add the sin of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Maybe that’s what priests should focus on, not just the remarriage issue but sin in general. They should be telling their congregations in no uncertain terms “If you go to communion with a mortal sin on your soul, you are compounding your state of sinfulness.”

So given what I have said here, why are people making such a big deal over this issue? Are there really places where people are effectively barred from communion for being divorced (without annulment) and remarried? Or is this just a convenient excuse for people to try to undermine the church’s teaching on marriage and on the Eucharist?

It’s not just this issue that people are trying to undermine the church’s position on (forgive the awkward sentence). It’s also homosexuality, living common law, contraception… and probably others I can’t think of at the moment. The divorced/remarried issue is in the forefront now probably because of the Synod of Bishops which will be held this month. One of the topics under discussion is exactly this issue. So some cardinals are getting their licks in early.

 

[PaulGH]

And, certainly, I know plenty of Catholics who are divorced and remarried (and/or don’t go to Church on a regular basis) who nonetheless still receive Communion each and every time they go.

Yes, exactly. And what you mention here is really at the root of my question. Those who are advocating a change in church doctrine and/or discipline on this issue make it sound as if divorced people are being denied admittance to holy communion, and I just don’t see this happening. In other words, it seems to me like they are arguing in favor of a situation that in practice already exists.

But just because there are those who don’t follow the “rules” does not mean we cannot look at the rules. There are those who do respect the Church’s teaching on this matter and any change would directly impact them. I don’t think it would be good to tell them that, if their conscience doesn’t bother them about being divorced and remarried, why should they sweat receiving Communion. That would just compound the problem, not solve it.

No, and of course I wouldn’t advise someone who is in a state of mortal sin (at least objectively speaking) to receive communion.

 

[PolycarpMeans]

The reason it is important that we interfere with misguided brethren who might try to receive the Sacrifice in an unworthy manner is that to receive the Sacrifice unworthily is to eat and drink condemnation. It is one of the gravest acts of sacrilege which it is possible to commit.

We ALL have a responsibility, as our brothers’ keepers, to interfere with our brethren when they attempt to walk in the evil way.

“So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but you will have saved your life.” - Ezekiel 33:7-9

If we knowingly allow the wicked to receive, we are condemned with him by our silence and inaction. THAT is why it is so important.

 

[PaulGH]

The reason it is important that we interfere with misguided brethren who might try to receive the Sacrifice in an unworthy manner is that to receive the Sacrifice unworthily is to eat and drink condemnation. It is one of the gravest acts of sacrilege which it is possible to commit.

We ALL have a responsibility, as our brothers’ keepers, to interfere with our brethren when they attempt to walk in the evil way.

“So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but you will have saved your life.” - Ezekiel 33:7-9

If we knowingly allow the wicked to receive, we are condemned with him by our silence and inaction. THAT is why it is so important.

I don’t think that this really answers my questions, but I do agree with what you say here.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think it would be good to tell them that, if their conscience doesn’t bother them about being divorced and remarried, why should they sweat receiving Communion. That would just compound the problem, not solve it.

It would more than compound it IMO since committing the sin of sacrilege is relatively easy to avoid. Then again, for some, maybe not… It is a pleasurable event after all.

Either way, it’s another sin which needs to be confessed eventually.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I agree completely. But let me clarify my question: What I really want to know is why are people such as Cardinal Kasper and some in the media making such a big push to change the church’s practice on this issue? Why push to allow communion for the divorced/remarried, when it seems to me that no one is really stopping these people from receiving communion now?

You have a point, of course. I think it’s because it’s a modern sensibility to command recognition for what you do from everyone around you.