He has created a way of making the anulment process accessible. He has not changed any rules on the receipt of Holy Communion. He confirms that Holy Communion can only be received by those in a State of Grace.He has also acknowledged that mistakes can be made by the tribunal. It isn’t infallible.
I think there are people who want to change the teachings of the Church. I even empathise with them…NOT sympathise.No one questions whether or not tribunals can make mistakes; that has never been an issue - at least not one being debated here. There are two basic questions being discussed: whether a decree of nullity can be issued solely via an internal forum (whatever that means), and whether it is possible under any circumstances for a married couple who have not had a previous marriage annulled to receive communion. Both of these questions have been asked and answered by the church. The debate continues only because there are some who don’t like the answers.
A better question would be at what point something already decided unequivocally several times in the past can actually be considered…decided.
Ender
This is not a change of doctrine. This is a change of Canon law. It is the same as punishing rape by death at first, than substituting it for imprisonment with intensive reformation. Rape remains rape. The same with drunkenness.People who persisted in drunkenness were excommunicated and excluded from Catholic funeral and burial in a Catholic cemetery at one time. Then came the advances in understanding of the human condition and addiction was recognised as a contributing factor that can reduce or prevent true consent to sin. The language of the day and the Church changed to reflect this.
Aquinas - "Such a man is a drunkard properly speaking,’’
Now, rather than being excommunicated, addicts can be included in reception of the sacraments subject to the internal forum.
This change was possible because a condition previously unknown fully by society made the allowance possible.
The general rule of course remains that drunkenness is a mortal sin and precludes one from the Eucharist until he is absolved in confession.
Can I be frank ?I think there are people who want to change the teachings of the Church. I even empathise with them…NOT sympathise.
I find it incredibly tough to be a Catholic and I go to confession with shame at times past having committed sins involving others. However the path isn’t easy and that’s the way it should be.
But we agree that the clergy +Burke is referencing would be providing a false statement.Ok you threw me by referencing Card. Burke. I was trying to find it in the original post. The statement was *“They give to such faithful the message that their divorce and the continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality. In other words, such clergy are liars.” *
No, it’s not true. The clergy who have been in favour of further study, ultimately trust the couples experience that the second marriage is valid marriage. How it can be explained and how it can be dealt with by the Church are what’s at issue. None are disputing that marriage is indissoluble. What is being held up for examination is a phenomenon that seems to be calling for illumination. That is these situations of remarriage and conversion that have all the aspects of validity… but are technically untreatable without non-existing the couples love and family life.
The Bishops opinion is narrow and hostile unfortunately.
The issue lies with the “determined to change” part. Contrition is a condition for the forgiveness of a sin, but contrition includes the intent not to repeat it. For a divorced and remarried couple, the sin that needs forgiveness is adultery, but it cannot be forgiven unless they renounce the intention to continue sexual relations. The problem with suggestions about how to return to the communion line people who will not take that step is that it cannot be done without ignoring this doctrine.What impedes a couple in a second marriage to go to Confession as any of us ,sorry and determined to change ?
I also found this from St. JPII:Good post. This information is from 2005.*This Instruction confirms the need to submit the question of the validity or nullity of a marriage of the faithful to a truly judicial trial.
Sometimes, this traditional praxis of the Church is the subject of criticism or reservations, as though an excessive formalism were entailed. Simpler ways to a solution are suggested that would even solve the problem solely in the internal forum, through the so-called “nullity of conscience”, in which the Church would do no more than to register the conviction of the spouses themselves as to whether or not their marriage was valid.
Sometimes, it is also hoped that the Church would give up any sort of trial and leave this kind of juridical problem in the hands of courts of civil law.
On the contrary, the Church reaffirms her competence to deal with these causes, for in them is at stake the existence of the marriage of at least one of her faithful, especially if we remember that marriage is one of the seven sacraments instituted by Christ himself and entrusted to the Church. To forgo involvement in this problem would be equivalent, in practice, to obscuring the sacramental holiness of marriage.
*Press Conference for the presentation of the instruction Dignitatis Connubii
Regarding the internal forum - if by that is meant one party to the marriage deciding its validity - they were pretty explicit:
*Marriage, therefore, in conformity with a conviction rooted in the civilizations of all the ages, is a public union. Hence, those who contract it cannot declare its nullity themselves.
*
*This commitment to seeking the truth must satisfy two fundamental conditions: it must permit the defence and discussion of the arguments both for and against nullity, as well as the gathering of evidence that proves the one or the other. It must also assign the task of judgment to an impartial third party. *
Ender
From the bottom of my heart ,Ender , it is the same for all of us.The issue lies with the “determined to change” part. Contrition is a condition for the forgiveness of a sin, but contrition includes the intent not to repeat it. For a divorced and remarried couple, the sin that needs forgiveness is adultery, but it cannot be forgiven unless they renounce the intention to continue sexual relations. The problem with suggestions about how to return to the communion line people who will not take that step is that it cannot be done without ignoring this doctrine.
Ender
In order to receive absolution in the Sacrament of Confession, the person must be willing to do everything possible to stop repeating the sin. They much be truly sorry for the sin.Can I be frank ?
I do not understand something.
What impedes a couple in a second marriage to go to Confession as any of us ,sorry and determined to change ?
Is it what other persons will think if they then go to Communion ?
I do not know and do not understand this point.
If internal forum is where we decide first ,that seems to be what we do before confession.
Do you have any idea of the problem with this ?
Phil’s post is accurate. I would recommend Catholics (I include myself) to become familiar with the Cathechism because all religions have structure and form. I take my direction from GodCan I be frank ?
I do not understand something.
What impedes a couple in a second marriage to go to Confession as any of us ,sorry and determined to change ?
Is it what other persons will think if they then go to Communion ?
I do not know and do not understand this point.
If internal forum is where we decide first ,that seems to be what we do before confession.
Do you have any idea of the problem with this ?
Thank you ,Phil.In order to receive absolution in the Sacrament of Confession, the person must be willing to do everything possible to stop repeating the sin. They much be truly sorry for the sin.
In a second marriage (without annulment) the sin that the person is repeating is having sexual relations.
If you have no intention on stopping to have sex with the 2nd spouse, then you cannot receive absolution. If you don’t receive absolution, you cannot receive communion.
So it really isn’t about communion at all. It’s really about receiving absolution.
If you allow the divorced and remarried (without annulment) to receive communion, you are basically saying that confession is optional or what Jesus said about divorce was wrong. Either way, it is not good.
The only way a divorced & remarried couple (without annulment) can receive communion is if they commit to refraining from sexual activity.
Personally, I would argue that if they truly try to refrain, but sometimes give into temptation (similarly to someone who is addicted to masturbation); perhaps they can receive after going back to confession (like after mastrubation).
However, another issue here is that the people who insist on receiving communion often disagree with the Church and do not believe they are sinning, which is objectively a mortal sin in itself.
As I have mentioned before… I think the Merciful thing to do is to change the communion fast back to 3 hours (or more). I believe the main reason this is an issue today (when it wasn’t in the past) is because when people do not receive, everyone automatically assumes that they are not Catholic or that they have committed a mortal sin. There are many people today who are receiving when they should not be (divorced or not). Changing the communion fast will allow people to remain in the pews without feeling like everyone is judging them.
God Bless.
I did not " get" the part of " I take my direction from God" ,sorry…could you explain it to me a bit ,Prodigal,please?Phil’s post is accurate. I would recommend Catholics (I include myself) to become familiar with the Cathechism because all religions have structure and form. I take my direction from God
Matthew 5 17-18
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
The biblical quote which is that the Lord God almighty came to fulfill the law. The bible clearly states that no one can receive Communion without clarity of conscience. Otherwise the recipient eats and drinks their own damnation. It’s simple and it’s being complicated by people who can’t accept it. It’s the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ himself. It’s not something to be taken lightlyI did not " get" the part of " I take my direction from God" ,sorry…could you explain it to me a bit ,Prodigal,please?
Thank you ! I understand now.The biblical quote which is that the Lord God almighty came to fulfill the law. The bible clearly states that no one can receive Communion without clarity of conscience. Otherwise the recipient eats and drinks their own damnation. It’s simple and it’s being complicated by people who can’t accept it. It’s the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ himself. It’s not something to be taken lightly
I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say here?From the bottom of my heart ,Ender , it is the same for all of us.
It may not be perfect ,we are not. And we may fall and stand up. We are together to help each other out.
And if we fall and our thoughts are not good ,we also have Confession and a lot of mercy there to be better.
I do not see any impediment here that makes me any different from say you ,Ender.
The problem seems to be in our eyes then.
Wow ! You ve done a lot of thinking. I ll take more time to read.I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say here?
I have personally struggled with masturbation. I’m much better at it now, but since my wife and I haven’t had sex in 20 months, I sometimes I give into temptation and masturbate.
When I do, I feel horrible and I go to confession, ask for forgiveness, with the intention of never masturbating again.
If I went to confession with the expectation to masturbate again next week, then I’m not contrite. That would make my confession invalid (and sacrelicious) because I wasn’t story for the sin.
When it comes to adultery, there is a HUGE difference between:
Example 2 is not a valid confession.
- saying “I’m sorry, and I will never commit adultery again” and then failing because you are weak and gave into temptation
vs.- saying “I’m sorry” with every intention of committing adultery on Sunday night after mass.
**
The real issue here is catechesis, Sacramental Prep, “lack of annulments” and “lack of convalidation / radical sanation”**
– What percentage of Catholics who are divorced and remarried have actually tried to get an annulment?
– What percentage of Catholics who are in an irregular marriage (where the marriage is the first for both) don’t ask for a convalidation? Or if a non-Catholic spouse refuses the convalidation, what percentage of Catholics ask for a Radical Sanation?
– Valid question to ask, if two people grew up non-Catholic and convert to the Catholic Church after they marry (but their marriage is irregular) – is it possible to have something like a Pauline Privilege or Petrine Privilege for them which would allow them to regularize their marriage? Perhaps there is something there that could be explored, because this is the hardest question.
– When do we catechizing our kids about what the Church teaches regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony? Are we teaching them before they get Confirmed, or is Pre-Cana the first time we start teaching?
– If a Catholic starts dating a non-Catholic, do we teaching them about dispensations? What percentage of young Catholics even know about dispensations? (I didn’t when I got married outside the Church)
– Plus, what percentage of Catholics don’t get married in the Catholic Church just to avoid Pre-Cana? I know my brother did. He and his methodist wife didn’t get married in the Catholic Church because they didn’t want to take Pre-Cana! So they got married twice… once by the Justice of the Peace, and then a year later in the Methodist Church. And you know what… my brother NEVER even called a Catholic Priest once. The fact that he was married in the courthouse, a priest may have given them a quick pre-Cana. But they didn’t even bother because they didn’t want to take course.
Our Sacramental Prep for Matrimony is really terrible when you think about it.
– Pre Cana should start BEFORE a Catholic even starts dating.
– We often make converts go though a year of Sacramental Prep before getting baptized and/or Confirmed
– Cradle Catholics often go through 1 - 2 years of Sacramental Prep before receiving first Confession and First Communion; 6 - 9 years of Sacramental Prep before getting Confirmed. Priests often spend 5-7 years in Seminary before getting ordained.
But today, we don’t start Pre-Cana until AFTER the couple has already proposed and it lasts either a weekend or a few hours for a couple of weeks.
If you want to fix things… this is where we need to look. Don’t change the Communion rules. Fix the root of the problem instead.
God Bless!
Phil
What impedes them is that unless they agree to cohabitate as brother and sister, they are barred from all sacraments, and that includes Reconciliation (confession). Since many, if not most couples in this situation find that bar to high to cross for the foreseeable future especially if the other spouse isn’t Catholic, then they are entirely barred from the sacramental life of the Church.Can I be frank ?
I do not understand something.
What impedes a couple in a second marriage to go to Confession as any of us ,sorry and determined to change ?
Is it what other persons will think if they then go to Communion ?
I do not know and do not understand this point.
If internal forum is where we decide first ,that seems to be what we do before confession.
Do you have any idea of the problem with this ?
Ok. Thanks.What impedes them is that unless they agree to cohabitate as brother and sister, they are barred from all sacraments, and that includes Reconciliation (confession). Since many, if not most couples in this situation find that bar to high to cross for the foreseeable future especially if the other spouse isn’t Catholic, then they are entirely barred from the sacramental life of the Church.
In other words the very people who need sacramental medicine in the first place, are denied that medicine.
Ok. Thanks.What impedes them is that unless they agree to cohabitate as brother and sister, they are barred from all sacraments, and that includes Reconciliation (confession). Since many, if not most couples in this situation find that bar to high to cross for the foreseeable future especially if the other spouse isn’t Catholic, then they are entirely barred from the sacramental life of the Church.
In other words the very people who need sacramental medicine in the first place, are denied that medicine.