Canadian bishops: no change in policy on Communion for divorced/remarried

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s Ok (and much appreciated!) For my part, I will keep responding to anything anyone says that I think needs responding for the sake of readers.

Good luck with that, who was it that said empty vessels …

 

[ProdigalSun]

Pope Saint John Paul II addressed the underlying matter very well when he wrote, after the excommunication of Marcel Lefebvre and the others
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops.* It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church***.

Are you suggesting we have to agree with everything the POPE says?

 

[ProdigalSun]

Why do you believe all sins of objective grave matter (recognisable by “the eyes”) by that reason alone must be actual “mortal sins” (which cannot be recognised by the eyes)?

Hence the problem is not Canon 916 but Canon 915.
The judging of what is “manifest grave sin” seems similar to the difficulty of judging what putative marriages actually are so.

Thus the issue is quite involved and difficult, lots of room for confusion by those who are not trained judges and who do not see the case evidence seen by Tribunals or Accompanying Priests.

But we already knew that from when Jesus said to the disciple who asked of the destiny of St John and who was basically told, mind your own business only.

Scandal is everyone’s business.

Marriage cannot be undone. We can try to figure out if their was ever a marriage and if there was not then the Church can claim it was never a marriage. If however there was a marriage then that person unfortuantely cannot remarry. If the person does remarry and has sex with that new partner. That is called adultery. Are yuo claiming that the person might not understand this even though it is explained to him/her.

If you got divorcved and remarrried someone do you think it would be ok to go u for communion???

 

[Rau]

Scandal is everyone’s business.

Marriage cannot be undone. We can try to figure out if their was ever a marriage and if there was not then the Church can claim it was never a marriage. If however there was a marriage then that person unfortuantely cannot remarry. If the person does remarry and has sex with that new partner. That is called adultery. Are yuo claiming that the person might not understand this even though it is explained to him/her.

If you got divorcved and remarrried someone do you think it would be ok to go u for communion???

Much has been discussed. Eg. The tribunal could not access evidence that would justify annulment, but the party to the putative marriage is certain of the relevant facts, and so is certain there was no marriage.

Note that scandal is avoided so long as communion is not public.

 

[pnewton]

Much has been discussed. Eg. The tribunal could not access evidence that would justify annulment, but the party to the putative marriage is certain of the relevant facts, and so is certain there was no marriage.

Note that scandal is avoided so long as communion is not public.

I believe the scandal issue is somewhat dated, both by societal mobility and by an annulment system that does not publicize the results of annulments in the news paper. I can see the possibility for this still being an issue, but my goodness it must be rare.

I know no one in my parish, where I am very active and know many people, whose annulment status I was made aware of.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Scandal is everyone’s business.

Marriage cannot be undone. We can try to figure out if their was ever a marriage and if there was not then the Church can claim it was never a marriage. If however there was a marriage then that person unfortuantely cannot remarry. If the person does remarry and has sex with that new partner. That is called adultery. Are yuo claiming that the person might not understand this even though it is explained to him/her.

If you got divorcved and remarrried someone do you think it would be ok to go u for communion???

If my accompanying priest is eventually ok with that, and I am not conscious of grave personal sin in the matter why not?

Clearly material adultery in some circumstances is not grave enough to always remove grace or prohibit Communion…as is the case also with the 5th Commandment.

This is exactly the possibility Pope Francis opened up.
Why be resentful because God in His Church is generous?

God takes away, God gives, blessed be God forever. Cf. Job 1:21

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe the scandal issue is somewhat dated, both by societal mobility and by an annulment system that does not publicize the results of annulments in the news paper. I can see the possibility for this still being an issue, but my goodness it must be rare.

I know no one in my parish, where I am very active and know many people, whose annulment status I was made aware of.

Exactly so.
For many couples the annulment process is kept as a private affair.
If I see a known couple which the gossip mill has as allegedly living in sin suddenly start receiving communion I don’t assume sacrilege but rather they have had things sorted in some fashion and the PP knows what it’s about.
It’s none of my business, and certainly not to think the worst when I actually do not possess the facts.

In fact the scandal grievers amongst us should perhaps also spend their time complaining that Annulments aren’t publicly announced in Church so we aren’t scandalized when these souls start receiving .

Clearly extra AL cases will cause no more scandal than the above legitimate cases already do. Nowadays the argument re scandal is silly in European Churches from what I can see.

 

[ProdigalSun]

If my accompanying priest is eventually ok with that, and I am not conscious of grave personal sin in the matter why not?

**Clearly material adultery in some circumstances is not grave enough to always remove grace or prohibit Communion…as is the case also with the 5th Commandment.
**
This is exactly the possibility Pope Francis opened up.
Why be resentful because God in His Church is generous?

God takes away, God gives, blessed be God forever. Cf. Job 1:21

So Adultery is not always a sin? you really believe that? Listen I’m not resentful, if you want to go up for Communion with a Mortal sin that is your choice I would not stop or judge you at that point. Definitely between you and God! BUt to try to tell me that Adultery is not always a sin is ridiculous. THere is no way you can tell me that you do not understand your situation!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
If my accompanying priest is eventually ok with that, and I am not conscious of grave personal sin in the matter why not?

So Adultery is not always a sin?

All breaking of the Commandments may be called sinful even if there is no or little moral fault. Thus all killings can be said to be materially sinful for the 5th is broken. Yet we also know that not all killings incur moral fault. I see no reason why breaking the 6th cannot be treated likewise - do you?

you really believe that?:

Yes, as does Pope Francis and many Cardinals.
If that is the case why may I not validly hold this position even if you do not?

Listen I’m not resentful, if you want to go up for Communion with a Mortal sin

You may not be aware your moral theology is a little ambiguous here.
I believe you really mean to refer to a material breaking of the 5th (ie sex with when one of you is married to another) which is always a deed “of grave matter”, a grave sin.

First, noone other than God knows if such a deed is also mortally sinful (incurring grave moral fault) because no one can see what a person understands themselves to be doing or what degree of consent was involved.

Second, if I have always believed my first marriage was deeply flawed from the start but I have not yet been able to provide robust evidence to a tribunal that my immigrant partner
only married me for a green card…there is serious doubt as to whether I was ever married before God. Putative legal only marriage is of course technical adultery - but true adultery before God…there is genuine doubt. Was that technical adultery what Jesus condemned and is it grave enough to destroy sanctifying grace and bann from Communion…many theologians, Cardinals and Pope Francis and Pope Benedict do not seem to think so and neither do I. You obviously disagree with us. That’s fine, I in good conscience will go to Communion in this situation if appoved by my PP … you in good conscience should not.

 

[Rau]

…Second, if I have always believed my first marriage was deeply flawed from the start but I have not yet been able to provide robust evidence to a tribunal that my immigrant partner only married me for a green card…there is serious doubt as to whether I was ever married before God. Putative legal only marriage is of course technical adultery - but true adultery before God…there is genuine doubt. Was that technical adultery what Jesus condemned and is it grave enough to destroy sanctifying grace and bann from Communion…

For a person in the situation you have described (with yourself as the exemplar), can the PP (or relevant authority) also determine that you are eligible for convalidation?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

For a person in the situation you have described (with yourself as the exemplar), can the PP (or relevant authority) also determine that you are eligible for convalidation?

These may help:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14349449&postcount=85
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14523066&postcount=48

 

[Rau]

These may help:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14349449&postcount=85
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14523066&postcount=48

So that’s a no. That’s what I thought.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

All breaking of the Commandments may be called sinful even if there is no or little moral fault. Thus all killings can be said to be materially sinful for the 5th is broken. Yet we also know that not all killings incur moral fault. I see no reason why breaking the 6th cannot be treated likewise - do you?

I do see a reason. Breaking the 6th and 9th is always grave unless some overriding factor takes away free will - and ‘overriding factor’ means something as serious as brute force or threat to one’s life as for example in rape. It doesn’t mean a worry that my partner might leave this relationship because he/she isn’t getting the sex they want. This is standard moral theology. I can give you authoritative references if you like.

BTW we aren’t talking about invincible ignorance here. A Catholic who asks his priest if he can receive Communion even though with a partner not his spouse knows what the Church teaches on the subject - otherwise he wouldn’t ask.

Yes, as does Pope Francis and many Cardinals.
If that is the case why may I not validly hold this position even if you do not?

Because Pope Francis and some (not many) cardinals are not the Magisterium and above all they are not Christ.

This problem won’t go away just because people keep repeating it isn’t a problem. The foundations of Catholic moral theology are under attack and there is no way of getting around that fact. It would be more honest if those who don’t like the Church’s perennial teaching on the subject simply said: “I don’t like the Church’s teaching” - and stopped calling themselves Catholics. Gotta be myself dude, y’know?

 

[RomanoAmerio]

I do see a reason. Breaking the 6th and 9th is always grave unless some overriding factor takes away free will - and ‘overriding factor’ means something as serious as brute force or threat to one’s life as for example in rape. It doesn’t mean a worry that my partner might leave this relationship because he/she isn’t getting the sex they want. This is standard moral theology. I can give you authoritative references if you like.

Dear Justin Swanton,

You are absolutely right in your assertion.

For example, the pre-Conciliar Magisterium affirmed that it was not obligatory for a woman to resist a husband’s use of contraceptives (which, at that time, probably meant condoms) if this involved threads of violence or harm on his part, and no grave sin resulted from such an act.

However, they did not affirm that it was dandy for a wife to collude with her husband in using contraception because “his feelings would be hurt” or “he’d threaten to leave me”.

 

[Rau]

…This problem won’t go away just because people keep repeating it isn’t a problem. The foundations of Catholic moral theology are under attack and there is no way of getting around that fact. It would be more honest if those who don’t like the Church’s perennial teaching on the subject simply said: “I don’t like the Church’s teaching” - and stopped calling themselves Catholics. Gotta be myself dude, y’know?

That’s a bit melodramatic. What is required is a straightforward addressing of the apparent contradictions between AL and what stood before.

 

[RomanoAmerio]

That’s a bit melodramatic. What is required is a straightforward addressing of the apparent contradictions between AL and what stood before.

Dear Rau,

This is also correct.

Regardless of some problematic wording in the document itself, it is entirely possible to resolve this issue without opting for the “Maltese Solution”, but for some reason, Pope Francis seems unwilling to do so at the moment.

Whether he will eventually set his mind to the task, or leave it to one of his successors, is an interesting question, though I lean towards the latter position.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

That’s a bit melodramatic. What is required is a straightforward addressing of the apparent contradictions between AL and what stood before.

Which was done earlier in this thread. The Argentinian bishops clarified AL in very unambiguous language - which the Pope approved as the only correct interpretation, remember? - and there is an irreconcilable contradiction between what they allow with the Pope’s approval and what the Church’s perennial teaching forbids.

Just choose your side everyone. The issue can’t be talked into the ground.

 

[Rau]

Which was done earlier in this thread. The Argentinian bishops clarified AL in very unambiguous language - which the Pope approved as the only correct interpretation, remember? - and there is an irreconcilable contradiction between what they allow with the Pope’s approval and what the Church’s perennial teaching forbids…

Clearly, the apparent contradictions have not been addressed when all that has been done is to express the intent of AL more clearly, and therefore establish more clearly that there are apparent contradictions with what stood before.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Clearly, the apparent contradictions have not been addressed when all that has been done is to express the intent of AL more clearly, and therefore establish more clearly that there are apparent contradictions with what stood before.

Sure, the contradictions will be addressed eventually, when a Pope or Council condemn in unmistakable terms any notion that one can give Communion to sexually active remarried divorcees. Until then the only thing we can do is show that there are no apparent contradictions. The contradictions are real, and no amount of verbal juggling can bring them together.

BTW I find rather amusing the sophistries on this forum and elsewhere that attempt to tie the constant teaching of the Church with giving Communion to a sexually active remarried divorcee. They remind me of this skit from Jamie Uys.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I do see a reason. Breaking the 6th and 9th is always grave unless some overriding factor takes away free will

Breaking the Commandments is always grave matter … regardless of imputability.
The real issue is when it is grave moral fault. The word has two meanings in this context which often confuses discussion.

BTW we aren’t talking about invincible ignorance here. A Catholic who asks his priest if he can receive Communion even though with a partner not his spouse knows what the Church teaches on the subject - otherwise he wouldn’t ask.

He could also likely ask as per Canon 915 not be wanting to walk up to Communion in good conscience himself only to find his PP currently disagrees.
Ignorance is always in play for at least one party (possibly the Church) if robust evidence acceptable to a Tribunal cannot yet be provided though it is there.

Because Pope Francis and some (not many) cardinals are not the Magisterium and above all they are not Christ.

Nobody is Christ in disputed situations. But in so far as matters are doubtful with the majority not opposing Pope Francis I see no wrong in agreeing with the only man there rightly called the Vicar of Christ. If you are opposed by all means we allow you not to take advantage of new freedoms…and justice suggests you reciprocate the same to those who go with Francis does it not?

This problem won’t go away just because people keep repeating it isn’t a problem.

Who said there is no conflict on this development? It has always been so and always will be.

The foundations of Catholic moral theology are under attack and there is no way of getting around that fact.

If a Pope and the majority of Cardinals are currently ok with this development then your view would by definition not seem “catholic” (ie universally held). In which case some of us must be confusing a renovation of a very old floor with that of the foundations. All is in fact well, though clearly a time of anxiety for those invincably ignorant of this more likely “fact”.