Bishops: Integrate remarried Catholics into Church life

[pnewton]

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.

If you read paragraph 85, this is exactly what is called for. The idea is not just that someone sorts this out in their head, but with a pastor helping them through this journey of sorting it out. I guess I have faith that a truly repentant person and priest will be able to find common ground. Yes there are real doctrinal issues, but there may also be many other realities, such a children, a spouse that does not understand, and even a dyed-in-the- wool slam dunk understanding that a previous marriage was not valid.

 

[DlandFan06]

If you read paragraph 85, this is exactly what is called for. The idea is not just that someone sorts this out in their head, but with a pastor helping them through this journey of sorting it out. I guess I have faith that a truly repentant person and priest will be able to find common ground. Yes there are real doctrinal issues, but there may also be many other realities, such a children, a spouse that does not understand, and even a dyed-in-the- wool slam dunk understanding that a previous marriage was not valid.

If they’re still going up for communion while they’re figuring this out then… You see the problem here. They shouldn’t be going up at all until all their problems are sorted out.

 

[LongingSoul]

If they’re still going up for communion while they’re figuring this out then… You see the problem here. They shouldn’t be going up at all until all their problems are sorted out.

But that has never been proposed. This question has always been centered around those particular couples already fully engaged in church life apart from this area of exclusion and how they can engage in sacramental reconciliation. It’s actually more about reconciliation than communion (that would follow). It’s not too ‘progressive’ to be examining how reconciliation might reflect current coditions because that has been evolving since confession was first proposed in the 4th century. This site gives a good concise history of the development of the sacrament until now.

teamrcia.com/2013/06/a-simple-history-of-reconciliation-for-rcia-catechists/

 

[ProVobis]

It’s actually more about reconciliation than communion (that would follow).

It would seem that way, seeing the Pope stressing the importance of confession.

 

[pnewton]

They shouldn’t be going up at all until all their problems are sorted out.

Yes, I do see the problem, and even in the most liberal interpretation of communion for someone in an irregular situation, pastoral counseling and time are needed. But I also see a problem in the statement above, as having all one’s problems sorted out is not a pre-requisite for communion in an other situation. If it were, no one would receive communion.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, I do see the problem, and even in the most liberal interpretation of communion for someone in an irregular situation, pastoral counseling and time are needed. But I also see a problem in the statement above, as having all one’s problems sorted out is not a pre-requisite for communion in an other situation. If it were, no one would receive communion.

I think DlandFan06 means, probably , just in the case of DR. Not everything, of course. Trying to find a solution…
There aren’t too many solutions right now. Only one or no communion.

The difficulty is that Jesus was against divorce as He was against many other sins. But the church decided to make marriage a sacrament and a covenant - and thus the problem was created. People didn’t get divorced, but now they do.

No. 85 says it all, but I have friends that are upset, and, personally, I’m having difficulty too. Not in allowing remarrieds to receive - but in the fact that the church could make such a drastic change.

So it was a sin. But it isn’t a sin. This is not just a Vat II change- it’s fundamental.

Fran

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, I do see the problem, and even in the most liberal interpretation of communion for someone in an irregular situation, pastoral counseling and time are needed. But I also see a problem in the statement above, as having all one’s problems sorted out is not a pre-requisite for communion in an other situation. If it were, no one would receive communion.

As I tried to show you before, there are other situations which require steps to “sort it out,” if that’s the right terminology to use. A porn dealer or abortion doctor or pro-abortion politician, for example, do not usually change their behavior on a one-minute notice.

 

[LongingSoul]

As I tried to show you before, there are other situations which require steps to “sort it out,” if that’s the right terminology to use. A porn dealer or abortion doctor or pro-abortion politician, for example, do not usually change their behavior on a one-minute notice.

One has to repent and resolve not to sin again in order to be worthy of Communion, but there are precedence where the situation is not resolvable though the repentance is there. As I’ve just noted in another thread, a woman who has had a tubal ligation for contraception is not required to reverse the surgery or to abstain from the resultant contraceptive sex in order to receive. The case of an established family fully participating in Church life and having grown in faith and awareness of Church teaching however,… is required either to abandon that family or to permanently refrain from sex in order to receive at the moment.

 

[ProVobis]

The case of an established family fully participating in Church life and having grown in faith and awareness of Church teaching however,… is required either to abandon that family or to permanently refrain from sex in order to receive at the moment.

Maybe but I’d like to be able to do it without glorifying the act of defiance (remarriage outside the Church). Frankly, I don’t know how that’s possible.

A woman OTOH who has her tubes tied probably isn’t going to make that publicly known. If she flaunts the fact, then I wouldn’t be so understanding as to her approach to communion.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Maybe but I’d like to be able to do it without glorifying the act of defiance (remarriage outside the Church). Frankly, I don’t know how that’s possible.

A woman OTOH who has her tubes tied probably isn’t going to make that publicly known. If she flaunts the fact, then I wouldn’t be so understanding as to her approach to communion.

Hi ProVobis

I think LongingSoul means that the remarriage occurred BEFORE the understanding of the catholic church teaching on remarriage. Through church participation they’ve now come to believe that they made a mistake. Now what? Which is what I’ve been saying. They either have to never receive again AND feel they’re living in mortal sin (which is church teaching) OR leave each other Or have a platonic relationship.

It’s a mess.

Fran
P.S. I think I should reiterate how much I’m against divorce.

 

[ProVobis]

Hi ProVobis

I think LongingSoul means that the remarriage occurred BEFORE the understanding of the catholic church teaching on remarriage. Through church participation they’ve now come to believe that they made a mistake. Now what? Which is what I’ve been saying. They either have to never receive again AND feel they’re living in mortal sin (which is church teaching) OR leave each other Or have a platonic relationship.

It’s a mess.

Fran
P.S. I think I should reiterate how much I’m against divorce.

Maybe the understanding might have been clearer had the excommunication penalty remained in effect against divorce. That way only a (legal) separation would have been allowed, and, of course, even civil law doesn’t permit remarriage without a divorce. Just saying.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Maybe the understanding might have been clearer had the excommunication penalty remained in effect against divorce. That way only a (legal) separation would have been allowed, and, of course, even civil law doesn’t permit remarriage without a divorce. Just saying.

Let’s just drop it. Your statement brings up new questions and it’s no use getting into it since I know that you understand the situation.

I mean, I agree with you actually. If you tell someone they’re ex-communicated, boy, yes, they’ll understand what you mean! If you tell them they could participate in church but not receive communion, many don’t really know what that means so they feel all is okay as long as they participate.

But if you make them feel not welcomed in church then you lock them out to the word of God and a possible future understanding of their situation…

See what I mean - it’s complicated.

Also, at this point, I’d like to add that I’m not a legalist and leave each situation to the persons and God. He’ll judge with God’s justice.

Fran

 

[ProVobis]

But if you make them feel not welcomed in church then you lock them out to the word of God and a possible future understanding of their situation…

There are ways to attract people to church. The Catholic Church offers many ways and the doors are usually open. Why must we be so stuck on giving communion as the only way to welcome anyone?

 

[PaulinVA]

There are ways to attract people to church. The Catholic Church offers many ways and the doors are usually open. Why must we be so stuck on giving communion as the only way to welcome anyone?

I agree. Some people have gotten themselves into situations where reconciliation is only possible through changing the lives of several people.

 

[frangiuliano115]

There are ways to attract people to church. The Catholic Church offers many ways and the doors are usually open. Why must we be so stuck on giving communion as the only way to welcome anyone?

No comment.