Card. Meisner cites Pope Francis: No Communion for divorced, remarried [Fr. Z]

[Blue_Horizon]

The thread heading is of course quite ambiguous.
Some remarried Catholics validly receive Communion all the time.

The theological point of course is that they were not “re-married” afterall.
The Church has judged that their 2nd marriage was in fact their 1st true marriage.
(Or more correctly, the 1st marriage was not a marriage).

So the point of the 2014 Synod (and Pope’s Francis’s comments on the Rio plane flight) is that we are not doing enough to recognise the invalidity of many 1st marriages.

There are significant numbers of Catholics in 2nd marriages who could be Communicating.
There are divorced Catholics who believe they are not free to marry when they could be.

Even Cardinal Ratzinger stated this was a great pastoral cause for concern and he proposed a number of additional theological ways that need to be investigated to alleviate the problem. This call by Cardinal Ratzinger (known as the Ratzinger Hypotheses) is exactly what Pope Francis is taking up.

I expect to see the following new principles being discussed at the Synod and hopfully adopted into Canon Law:
(a) Nullity of failed Catholic marriages possible on establishing that one of the parties was never a formal Catholic believer in the first place (even if baptised Catholic).
(b) Admittance of “epikiea” principles in some manner if tribunal decisions cannot be made in obvious cases (due to lack of witness cooperation, technical blocks etc). This would require some objective grounds other than the subjective private and personal decision of the individual involved.

Both the above new principles do not amount to a change of Church teaching re the indissolubility of a validly confected Catholic marriage.
Rather, it has always been within the Church’s juridic role to decide what temporal conditions are required to establish/recognise a valid marriage before God in the first place.
(For example, a Catholic and Anglican exchanging consent in an Anglican Church without the witness of a Catholic priest are not considered validly married).

 

[OriginalJS]

Leaving aside the theological and semantic issues, my question is why isn’t the rule enforced? I’ve attended MASS at the churches where divorced and remarried people I know routinely receive communion although their previous marriages have not been annulled. These include some shirt tail relatives. Nobody says a thing when It happens…

 

[Tigg]

Leaving aside the theological and semantic issues, my question is why isn’t the rule enforced? I’ve attended MASS at the churches where divorced and remarried people I know routinely receive communion although their previous marriages have not been annulled. These include some shirt tail relatives. Nobody says a thing when It happens…

It is a source of great scandal and one can’t help but worry how many others are being led into sin over it. Not only that, but a few who are very open about their particular situation are in ministry, being readers and EMHC. What has happened to the sense of the sacred - standing as Moses did, on holy ground and working out our salvation in fear and trembling?
Pray for the Church!

 

[Monkey1976]

monkey: I really wanted the cards to win the WS. What do u think went wrong? The cards couldn’t get a bunch of hits together. Picked the wrong time to slump.

Yes. a decree of nullity is required. Do u think that many divorced catholics don’t even realize this must be done before remarriage?

I think that we just hit a slump at the wrong time. As far as the thread topic, I think that most Catholics believe that the sin is in the divorce itself, not in the remarriage. In the US at least, a civil divorce is a requirement to even open proceedings to seek a decree of nullity.

 

[ProVobis]

I think that we just hit a slump at the wrong time. As far as the thread topic, I think that most Catholics believe that the sin is in the divorce itself, not in the remarriage. In the US at least, a civil divorce is a requirement to even open proceedings to seek a decree of nullity.

True, as the Church annulment has no legal ramifications, such as child custody, property distribution, etc. But this has to be distinguished from a civil annulment, which, though rare these days, still happen. The easiest to process, of course, is where consummation of the marriage never took place.

 

[manualman]

Hopefully, a clearer explanation that the “problem” isn’t the divorce, it’s the "re"marriage without seeking a decree of nullity.

What the problem really is among the general populace is a total lack of understanding of what marriage really is, what the church teaches about it, why we take it so seriously and why there is such a bureaucratic process involved in examining broken marriages that may have been so fundamentally flawed from the beginning to have never been a sacramental bond (or even natural) bond at all.

The average catholic today has allowed the lazy secular impression of Catholicism’s view of marriage (rigid, inflexible, intolerant and judgmental) become his own. Another sad case of others defining us instead of us boldly and clearly defining ourselves.

I suspect that what Francis wants to do is find ways to break out of the bad impression the public has, which is that the church forbids divorce and remarriage unless one grovels before the bishop, says the right words and pays big bucks. Then you can have a “catholic divorce” aka annulment. This is a nonsense characterization, of course, but one widely held.

 

[Dorothy]

What the problem really is among the general populace is a total lack of understanding of what marriage really is, what the church teaches about it, why we take it so seriously and why there is such a bureaucratic process involved in examining broken marriages that may have been so fundamentally flawed from the beginning to have never been a sacramental bond (or even natural) bond at all.

The average catholic today has allowed the lazy secular impression of Catholicism’s view of marriage (rigid, inflexible, intolerant and judgmental) become his own. Another sad case of others defining us instead of us boldly and clearly defining ourselves.

I suspect that what Francis wants to do is find ways to break out of the bad impression the public has, which is that the church forbids divorce and remarriage unless one grovels before the bishop, says the right words and pays big bucks. Then you can have a “catholic divorce” aka annulment. This is a nonsense characterization, of course, but one widely held.

So true…very well said. Lord help us all learn in a deeper way what the Sacrament of Marriage really means.