At synod, Cardinal Marx openly promotes Communion for divorced-and-remarried

[JimG]

And this brings up a question I have not heard mentioned in the Synod recaps. What about Confession? A person who remarries civilly after a divorce isn’t just “barred” from Communion, he/she is unable to receive absolution due to the continued situation. How can they ever be fully reconciled with the Church if they can’t receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

In the linked article at the start of the thread the cardinal is quoted as saying “we should seriously consider the possibility – based on each individual case and not in a generalizing way – to admit civilly divorced and remarried believers to the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion.”

So, he is proposing admitting them to both sacraments. The question remains, must they intend to refrain from sex within the admittedly invalid second marriage? From the way I read it, apparently not. It seems that the sin they are expressing contrition for is the failure of the first marriage, not the sexual relations outside of a valid marriage.

It certainly doesn’t seem like a viable proposition to me. And yet it is being proposed.

 

[Usige]

I can’t think of who needs to receive communion more.

That is a problem I have always had: that the people who need it most are not allowed to receive it. Most of the divorced people I know are not the ones who initiated the divorce themselves. I’m so glad the church is thinking about this. I hope that it works out.

Except those who are in mortal sin receive no sacramental graces from receiving the Eucharist. Medication strengthens us, but does us no good when we are dead. Mortal sin kills the grace of God in us so, without repentance and intent to amend, receiving the Eucharist is roughly equivalent to giving penicillin to someone that is dead. At best it would provide actual graces to repent, but seems most in that situation don’t see any reason to have to repent.

Cardinal Marx is talking about persons who are validly married to another person, and persisting in a sexual relationship outside that marriage, are some how not in a state of mortal sin. I simply do not understand how the problem can be resolved without a complete rewrite of our understanding of the economics of sacramental graces.

 

[ProVobis]

It certainly doesn’t seem like a viable proposition to me. And yet it is being proposed.

Fair enough. But wasn’t there also a proposal to allow an “unsacramental” confession for those who have otherwise been denied a full one? Without sacramental communion, of course.

 

[OriginalJS]

This is a difficult issue for the church in the US because divorced and civilly remarried Catholics do one of two things: continue to receive; or, leave and go elsewhere. If this involved only a few people it wouldn’t be a pressing problem, but that isn’t the case anymore. I wish the synod every success.

 

[JimG]

This is a difficult issue for the church in the US because divorced and civilly remarried Catholics do one of two things: continue to receive; or, leave and go elsewhere. If this involved only a few people it wouldn’t be a pressing problem, but that isn’t the case anymore. I wish the synod every success.

And yet I have known people who exercised a third option: remained in the Church, attended Mass every Sunday, and remained active in their parish except for confession and communion.

 

[Usige]

This is a difficult issue for the church in the US because divorced and civilly remarried Catholics do one of two things: continue to receive; or, leave and go elsewhere. If this involved only a few people it wouldn’t be a pressing problem, but that isn’t the case anymore. I wish the synod every success.

True, but many Catholics contracept and continue to receive also. Does that mean the Church should ditch that teaching also? Many Catholics gossip and still receive. Should bearing false witness be ignored also?

Really the point is that many Catholics have put themselves in this position. Not necessarily by divorcing, but by remarrying when they know or suspect that their first marriage was valid. One might argue that converts do not have that understanding, but then I suspect that their consent was defective from the beginning and their original attempt at marriage was invalid. Notice that Cardinal Marx is not talking about those who could receive an annulment and then validly marry, but those that have a valid marriage and marry another. In essence he is saying as long as you are really, really, really sorry then we should ignore God’s law and pretend it is not a grave matter.

I assume that everyone here that supports turning a blind eye would be okay with their spouse having a long term affair? I mean if they will be really, really, really sorry some time in the future then no harm, no foul, right?

 

[LittleFlower378]

This is a difficult issue for the church in the US because divorced and civilly remarried Catholics do one of two things: continue to receive; or, leave and go elsewhere. If this involved only a few people it wouldn’t be a pressing problem, but that isn’t the case anymore. I wish the synod every success.

The only way to get attendance up in the Church is to preach the truth. People want the truth. They may leave but God will pick at their soul to come back. We should not fear people leaving the Church because we preached the truth. People left Jesus when he preached the truth, the rich man in last weeks Gospel.

All this saddens me because these are no brainer discussions and more than a few of our OWN Bishops are causing friction and scandal. It really is sad.

 

[LongingSoul]

This completely ignores the issue of the civil marriage being a sin itself as are all marriages of Catholics outside of the Church. By this reasoning (the Cardinal’s not yours, Jim), the Church would not prevent anyone who chooses to marry outside the Church from partaking of the Sacraments. Surely a couple in a civil marriage that** also** has in place another, canonical, marriage isn’t in a better place than a couple that **only **has a civil marriage.

There is that persistent issue though of the lack of faith of a baptised Catholic and how that impacts on their culpability.

 

[graciew]

There is that persistent issue though of the lack of faith of a baptised Catholic and how that impacts on their culpability.

Could we not just be obedient?
We were baptized after all.
I don t get that part. It is difficult for me to grasp it.
I am referring to self justification ( in Confession too)

 

[eamonnroma]

I notice that many posts are sin-centric. Why do we go out of our way to look for sin in every situation? Why do we constantly quote rule after rule? Where is compassion?

 

[sarah_j]

The Church’s teaching will not change on this matter because God will not allow it.

The reason is because if it did the Church would be allowing adulterous relationships a stamp of approval and weaking Holy Matrimony even more than Same Sex Marriage.

God guide the Synod on the Family to protect the teaching on marriage and It’s unbreakable bond amen

Amen.

For a clear picture on what this issue means :
(from a recent interview with Cardinal Burke):

"In much of the discussion which has taken place, beginning with the infamous presentation of Cardinal Walter Kasper in the Extraordinary Consistory on February 20 and 21 of 2014, centered around **this idea that somehow doctrine and pastoral practice are in conflict with one another.

This is absurd. The pastoral practice exists to help us to live the truths of the faith, to live the doctrine of the faith in our daily lives. You can’t have a conflict [between these].** You can’t have the Church teaching, for instance, that marriage is indissoluble and then someone claiming at the same time for ‘pastoral’ reasons that a person who is living in an irregular union is able to receive the sacraments, which would mean that marriage isn’t indissoluble. These are just false distinctions — false contrasts — that we really need to clear up because it’s causing an immense confusion among the faithful and, of course, ultimately can lead people into serious error with great harm to their spiritual life and their eternal salvation.

LSN: What are the faithful to think and to do when they see Synod Fathers suggesting heterodox positions regarding homosexuality and divorce?

Burke: We follow our Lord Jesus Christ. He is our Master. And we are all held to be obedient to him and to his word, beginning with the Holy Father and with the Bishops.** If a bishop, or a priest, or anyone, should announce something or declare something that is contrary to the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as it’s communicated to us in the teaching of the Church, we follow Christ."**

read more - mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite

 

[Demetra2]

It isn’t an Advil, much less a magic cookie. Those who receieve Holy Communion in a state of sin are seriously harming themselves. So you cannot say “they need it more” because it simply isn’t true.

Agreed. And BTW, if someone is divorced but does not remarry without an annulment and not in a state of mortal sin they can receive communion.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I believe this is strictly a theological issue that should not pondered by the layman. What we think and argue is not important, and it just robs us of our mental energy.

 

[Brendan]

I believe this is strictly a theological issue that should not pondered by the layman. .

Canon 212-§2

Christ’s faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.

 

[Ender]

The only way to get attendance up in the Church is to preach the truth. People want the truth. They may leave but God will pick at their soul to come back. We should not fear people leaving the Church because we preached the truth.

Incredibly enough, it does seem to be no more complicated than this. One can only wonder how such a proposal (Marx, Kasper) can be taken seriously.

Ender

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I notice that many posts are sin-centric. Why do we go out of our way to look for sin in every situation? Why do we constantly quote rule after rule? Where is compassion?

Rules and compassion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in order to be fully compassionate, one needs to be in the boundaries, the ‘rules’ that God Himself gives. It is a false ‘compassion’ to ignore Truth.

 

[KEP1983]

The biggest threat to the Church in the 20th century was Marxism. The biggest threat to the Church today is another Marxism.

 

[Ender]

Rules and compassion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in order to be fully compassionate, one needs to be in the boundaries, the ‘rules’ that God Himself gives. It is a false ‘compassion’ to ignore Truth.

Or, as JPII said (emphasis in the original):Likewise, a failure to speak the truth because of a misconceived sense of compassion* should not be taken for love*. We do not have a right to minimize matters of our own accord, even with the best of intentions. (Letter of the Holy Father to Priests, 2002)
Ender

 

[SWolf]

Incredibly enough, it does seem to be no more complicated than this. One can only wonder how such a proposal (Marx, Kasper) can be taken seriously.

Ender

For the German Church, money is not so much about getting people in Church to tithe, but checking the box on a Government form. There are many Catholics in Germany who are “remarried” that may check that box once again if the German leadership gets their way.

With that in mind, what the Germans are doing, in a way, makes sense.