Bishops: Integrate remarried Catholics into Church life

[Brendan]

May I?

The external forum is regarding the FORM of the marriage. Just as in baptism, or any other sacrament, the form must be correct. The actions, the words the priests says, etc. Things that are visible. Was everything DONE correctly –

The internal forum has more to do with what was on people’s minds when they got married.
Did they intend to remain faithful? Did they want chidlren?

The internal forum is taken into consideration in the external forum.

If Brendan is around, he could check the above for correcting - I believe it’s correct.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Maybe the phrase came about because we talk about “the state of marriage”
…and contrast that with the “state of adultery”.

You’re correct about this.

For any sin to be forgiven, you must be sorry and be convinced that you will avoid this sin in the future.

It’s possible to be in a “state of murder” although it is not referred to that way because of the reason you state above. If you plan to murder again, you ARE, so to speak, in a state of murder.

But we don’t say that because it’s not parallel to any other state going on at the same time.

If you commit adultry once, are sorry and determined never to do it again, you are forgiven and not in that state.

If you are divorced and civilly remarried, you are in a continuous state of adultry because of the remarriage (or relationship with another even if no marriage exists).

As Pnewton says, it’s unique because the person INTENDS to keep committing the sin, which is adultry. So how could they be forgiven? Only if they decide to have a platonic relationship.

Fran

 

[pnewton]

As Pnewton says, it’s unique because the person INTENDS to keep committing the sin, which is adultry. So how could they be forgiven? Only if they decide to have a platonic relationship.

Fran

It is also unique because this state adultery may not actually exist in a second marriage. If the first marriage was not valid, then it was never valid. It may not be actual, imputed sin, because the person may either; know the first marriage was invalid or, be from a faith that does not believe remarriage to be sin.

 

[Brendan]

It is also unique because this state adultery may not actually exist in a second marriage. If the first marriage was not valid, then it was never valid. It may not be actual, imputed sin, because the person may either; know the first marriage was invalid or, be from a faith that does not believe remarriage to be sin.

Actually, yes there could be. Even if the first marriage was found to be null, the INTENT of the parties could impute guilt.

If the parties entered into a marriage with the understanding that their previous marriage had not been annulled, then they had the intent of adultery.

An analogy would be, if I saw a person in a window, and decided to shoot them, the very act of making that decision incurred the sin of murder, even if that ‘person’ turned out to be a mannequin.

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is also unique because this state adultery may not actually exist in a second marriage. If the first marriage was not valid, then it was never valid. It may not be actual, imputed sin, because the person may either; know the first marriage was invalid or, be from a faith that does not believe remarriage to be sin.

I don’t know about all protestant denominations, but some do allow remarriage after divorce.
Although no christian religion I know of condones divorce. Sounds wrong…

They don’t believe in divorce, but if it’s absolutely necessary, they also don’t think a person should remain alone for the rest of their life.

Fran

 

[pnewton]

Actually, yes there could be.

I do not doubt that. In fact, I think that it is usually the rule.

I don’t know about all protestant denominations, but some do allow remarriage after divorce.
Although no christian religion I know of condones divorce. Sounds wrong…

They don’t believe in divorce,

Some believe divorce is acceptable when the partner cheats, based on the same verses Catholic use to defend the insolubility of marriage.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I do not doubt that. In fact, I think that it is usually the rule.

Some believe divorce is acceptable when the partner cheats, based on the same verses Catholic use to defend the insolubility of marriage.

You’re referring to Mathew 5:32.

It always creates a bit of a problem. Someone, I think on this thread, explained it very well saying that if there’s adultery involved it takes away the guilt of divorce for the innocent party. I remember reading something about this but cannot remember right now. Don’t know if you’d be interested in following up. Thought I’d mention it.

Fran
Tomorrow…

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, but the state of sin is a result of an act. I have never heard any being in the state of theft, for example, or the state of abortion, or even a state of premarital sex. Yet I have heard state of adultery.

pn, but one CAN be part of gang which does robberies, be an abortion doctor, a professional pornographer, etc. States aren’t that difficult to form.

 

[ProVobis]

What’s the use of going to church and participating in church activities if they can’t receive communion because they’re committing adultry??

By participating, are you including non-Catholic parents of children which are attending school there or other such activities (among other things, of course)?

What you’ve stated seems to be a non-sequitor. No one needs to receive communion to participate in (most if not all) church activities.

 

[DlandFan06]

The language we use is interesting. For example, you said, " They just can’t receive communion while still committing adultery." Normally, when we used the word “while” we think of two things occurring at the same time, as in chewing bubble gum while walking. This does not convey the idea that one chewed gum a few times this month and will likely chew gum next week, while walking. Yet I know you do not mean that the person is actually involved in an adulterous act at the moment in time he is receiving communion.

This seems absurd and silly, yet underneath it is why this particular sin is so unique, as there is no other sin in Catholic theology that we treat as a “state” instead of an act, though one can be in a state of mortal sin as a result of an act.

What I should have said was they can’t have holy communion while in a state of mortal sin which is sacrilege. Allowing communion for the divorced and remarried is encouraging sacrilege in the person receiving.

 

[graciew]

Yes, but the state of sin is a result of an act. I have never heard any being in the state of theft,

The corrupt.
Worse than a state of theft.
Francis calls them " whitewashed tombs". Neat on the outside but rotten inside.
They don t have friends. They have accomplices.

 

[frangiuliano115]

By participating, are you including non-Catholic parents of children which are attending school there or other such activities (among other things, of course)?

What you’ve stated seems to be a non-sequitor. No one needs to receive communion to participate in (most if not all) church activities.

I’m sorry ProVobis,

The above is not at all what I’m even talking about. If I repeat myself again, as to what I mean, I’m afraid those who have been here from the beginning will come to my home and permanently delete this thread from my computer!

My comment has nothing to do with receiving communion in conjunction with participating in church activities.

Fran

 

[pnewton]

You’re referring to Mathew 5:32.

It always creates a bit of a problem. Someone, I think on this thread, explained it very well saying that if there’s adultery involved it takes away the guilt of divorce for the innocent party. I remember reading something about this but cannot remember right now. Don’t know if you’d be interested in following up. Thought I’d mention it.

Fran
Tomorrow…

Yes, that is the verse and the belief. The idea that sexual immorality on the part of one partner destroys the marriage bond and can justify divorce, then later, remarriage. I am not defending it, just saying it is a commonly held belief in Christendom.

 

[pnewton]

What I should have said was they can’t have holy communion while in a state of mortal sin which is sacrilege. Allowing communion for the divorced and remarried is encouraging sacrilege in the person receiving.

I think the point of departure is that not all may be in an actual state of mortal sin that are divorced and remarried. First, mortal sin requires full knowledge and full consent. I think it obvious that full knowledge is lacking in many that were not raised Catholic, or not properly catechized. Now it may be that the sacrilege is sort of an objective sacrilege, though I find this idea odd, as it is not the objective that separates us from God. But even in these cases, it may be that the first marriage was invalid, which is why we have a process in canon law to integrate them back into communion.

Nonetheless, if a first marriage is invalid, it is invalid before, during, and after the communion process.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the point of departure is that not all may be in an actual state of mortal sin that are divorced and remarried. First, mortal sin requires full knowledge and full consent. I think it obvious that full knowledge is lacking in many that were not raised Catholic, or not properly catechized. Now it may be that the sacrilege is sort of an objective sacrilege, though I find this idea odd, as it is not the objective that separates us from God.

That may very well be, but does ALLOWING communion for even those unconscious in the state of objective sin the precedent you want to set? You know a lot of people willl take that allowance and rationalize sin to the point that there is no sin at all. And when that happens what is the point of Christianity at all?

 

[pnewton]

That may very well be, but does ALLOWING communion for even those unconscious in the state of objective sin the precedent you want to set? You know a lot of people willl take that allowance and rationalize sin to the point that there is no sin at all. And when that happens what is the point of Christianity at all?

These are good questions, along with several others that pop to mind, like why must reception of Communion be pushed up before a proper analysis of the previous marriage, or why should it be delayed if the facts are clear. We could go on. I think the key to paragraph 85 of the synods document is that the pastor is part of the process. A person does not shepherd himself, but is guided by one who knows where the dangers lie.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the key to paragraph 85 of the synods document is that the pastor is part of the process. A person does not shepherd himself, but is guided by one who knows where the dangers lie.

That comes with some heavy responsibility but you’re probably correct.

 

[dans0622]

Maybe the phrase came about because we talk about “the state of marriage”
…and contrast that with the “state of adultery”.

Hello,

Yes, what is marriage other than a permanent commitment to live in a conjugal relationship with someone until death? It is not a private commitment but a public one that is made, and recognized, in/by ecclesiastical and civil law.

Dan

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, that is the verse and the belief. The idea that sexual immorality on the part of one partner destroys the marriage bond and can justify divorce, then later, remarriage. I am not defending it, just saying it is a commonly held belief in Christendom.

It is actually what all the verses in Matthew, Mark and Luke say as well as what CCC #1650 in its literal words would in essence seem to say. I am not defending it either, but it is what the verses say. It is troubling.

 

[DlandFan06]

I think the point of departure is that not all may be in an actual state of mortal sin that are divorced and remarried. First, mortal sin requires full knowledge and full consent. I think it obvious that full knowledge is lacking in many that were not raised Catholic, or not properly catechized. Now it may be that the sacrilege is sort of an objective sacrilege, though I find this idea odd, as it is not the objective that separates us from God. But even in these cases, it may be that the first marriage was invalid, which is why we have a process in canon law to integrate them back into communion.

Nonetheless, if a first marriage is invalid, it is invalid before, during, and after the communion process.

Still though all this should be sorted out before having communion. We can’t just let everyone have communion until their things are sorted out.