Cardinal Kasper: Sacraments for remarried divorcees only in "special cases"

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
eightydeuce82 said:
I i know the case would be up for anulment…Her first husband is dead so not to sound morbid but thats a good thing. Funny thing was the Church actually married her and her second husband??? thats alwasy had me perplexed…Not sure if she takes communion or not…but im guessing not.
Click to expand...
You have discussed this at length with not knowing those details! If she is attending mass she is in the hands of her Father and I would feel comfortable with that. X
 
eightydeuce82 said:
This is why I have such a hard time with all of this. Im a good catholic and try to live my life how the church wants me too but when I look at her situation and see someone that was so scared about how her community would see her even though she was being beaten she instead divorced and remarried in secret. In the 40s women were still second class citizens and were home makers. They didnt have the freedoms many women have today. Wearing the Scarlet letter was just as much of a death sentance as being beaten to death. So she lived her life in sin because of hypocrites. sure she made the choice but we all did stupid things as yound adults. If the addage goes that what ever is bound here on earth is bound in heaven and vice versa then the church has the authority to change its stance on marriage. Im not saying a free for all but a seriously conservitive look into a relationship outside of annulment to disolve a marriage and bring the inocent party back in harmony with the church not forcing them into becoming a Lay nun! and allowing them to live out our purpose which is to love find a mate and bring childeren into the world in christs name. How ironic that its exactly what she did and produced three childeren in christs name even though she was a mortal sinner.
Click to expand...
I have a great-aunt (who since passed away) who was in an abusive marriage, which I’m pretty sure was valid. While the priest did discourage her from leaving her husband (shaking my head), her family members drove up one weekend and took her and the kids away. She never remarried (though her husband might have), and she attended Mass for the rest of her life. I’m actually not certain she was permitted to receive Communion. But Lord, what a witness to faith! She died a faithful Catholic.
 
kate_jackson said:
You have discussed this at length with not knowing those details! If she is attending mass she is in the hands of her Father and I would feel comfortable with that. X
Click to expand...
I fell she is in the hands of the father but heres the cold hard truth she remarried after a divorce in direct contradiction to the catholic teaching on marriage. Since she commited grave sin and is still married in grave sin no matter if the guy is dead or not I have to accept is just what everyone on here has said either bluntly or covertly that gram is going to hell…period no exception!

Again this is why I have such a hard time with it and struggle to think that god in his infinite wisdom would take an innocent god loving woman and allow her to be cast out by her church and sentanced to hell for all eternity…that would hurt anyone in that situation. Communion is a HUGE deal and not recieving it is a HUGE deal because of what we think it does and what it is. You say that she is in the hands of the father in the church but she is not in reality because the church has said to her woman you are not worth enough to recieve the body and blood of christ which knowing how we feel about the eucharist is pretty devistating…
 
You are now contradicting yourself as you said above you dont know whether she is receiving communion or not. Maybe she hasnt told you all the details and if she married in the church the Father must know all her details. Enough said.
 
kate_jackson said:
You are now contradicting yourself as you said above you dont know whether she is receiving communion or not. Maybe she hasnt told you all the details and if she married in the church the Father must know all her details. Enough said.
Click to expand...
I dont live near her so im not contradicting anything. Im pretty posative she is not because she is a very devout catholic…like anything the realm posabilities is open. IF the church father knew all the details he was doing the wrong thing and thats a sin. No matter how you spin it if she doesnt take communion or she does shes in mortal sin…mortal sin = hell. there is no contradiction.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
I fell she is in the hands of the father but heres the cold hard truth she remarried after a divorce in direct contradiction to the catholic teaching on marriage. Since she commited grave sin and is still married in grave sin no matter if the guy is dead or not I have to accept is just what everyone on here has said either bluntly or covertly that gram is going to hell…period no exception!
Click to expand...
Yes, but doesn’t death dissolve the marriage or remarriage? Technically then, you wouldn’t be sent to Hell for being remarried because you didn’t die in that state. But I’m no theologian.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
This is to DAML an Kate

Fist off if you being batterd litterly to the point death and he is commiting adultry regularly and you are psychologically being tormented every day would you stay in that situation? Your comment would almost fall inline with battered wife syndrome…many stay and end up dead. The man never did repent. Why do I think she will go to hell? Well if you catholic you alreeady know that answer…she is living in a state of perpetual mortal sin…if she dies tomorrow then by catholic standards she will go to hell. I believe Christ suffered for us and won victory over sin yes. What ive noticed in many circles is that Catholic the very devout ones seem to want to mimic this…Some even cause harm to themselves just so they can live in guilt and carry the cross…what many of you are saying is that someone in this situation should just suck it up risk the chance of being beaten to death and your existance snuffed out for the sake of carrying your cross…thats just utter rediculousness…You all sound like Muslims and martyerdom not Catholic…
Click to expand...
I am not saying that - at all. (And by the way, it is spelled, ‘ridiculous’) My Great Aunt converted to Catholicism and married within the church. Her husband was abusive, and she divorced him. But she never re-married. I’m sure it was difficult for her, but the witness she has left - the witness she must have been to him, who ended up leaving his entire estate to her and who was buried next to her, was incredible.

I, myself, was married to an emotionally abusive man and am divorced. But I converted to Catholicism in part so that I could have the Church rule on whether or not my marriage was valid or not so that I could live the rest of my days knowing where I stand. The world, and even other churches told me it was OK to move on. I didn’t find any comfort or any affirmation of that position in the Bible. I was not going to, nor will I be able to re-marry without confirmation from the Church that my marriage was a nullity.

As many here have pointed out, when a woman leaves an abusive spouse, she can seek an annulment or chose to live a chaste life. The position of the Church is that nobody should be in an abusive relationship. I don’t understand why seeking an annulment is not an option in this case.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
This is why I have such a hard time with all of this. Im a good catholic and try to live my life how the church wants me too but when I look at her situation and see someone that was so scared about how her community would see her even though she was being beaten she instead divorced and remarried in secret. In the 40s women were still second class citizens and were home makers. They didnt have the freedoms many women have today. Wearing the Scarlet letter was just as much of a death sentance as being beaten to death. So she lived her life in sin because of hypocrites. sure she made the choice but we all did stupid things as yound adults. If the addage goes that what ever is bound here on earth is bound in heaven and vice versa then the church has the authority to change its stance on marriage. Im not saying a free for all but a seriously conservitive look into a relationship outside of annulment to disolve a marriage and bring the inocent party back in harmony with the church not forcing them into becoming a Lay nun! and allowing them to live out our purpose which is to love find a mate and bring childeren into the world in christs name. How ironic that its exactly what she did and produced three childeren in christs name even though she was a mortal sinner.
Click to expand...
And don’t you think that Christ will have mercy on her for what she has gone through? Have some faith.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
I i know the case would be up for anulment…Her first husband is dead so not to sound morbid but thats a good thing. Funny thing was the Church actually married her and her second husband??? thats alwasy had me perplexed…Not sure if she takes communion or not…but im guessing not.
Click to expand...
If her first husband is dead, then she is not bound to him any longer. She is not in a state of sin - she can go to confession and be absolved, no? How is it that the Church married her and her second husband? Did the first husband die before she re-married?
 
UPDATE

It appears that Catholic News Service has obtained a copy of His Eminence’s address, and provides some insight here:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400852.htm

According to the report, the Cardinal emphasised that the indissolubility of marriagemust be affirmed, but that he also stated that the “shipwrecked person” should be provided “a life raft” in the form of Communion in very limited cases.

To be honest, this paragraph suggests to me that the Cardinal is merely proposing what is already the case: Namely that a second marriage is impossible, and attempting one is adultery, excluding one from Communion.
At the same time, “there is no human situation absolutely without hope or solution,” he said Catholics profess their belief in the forgiveness of sins in the Creed, he explained. “That means that for one who converts, forgiveness is possible. If that’s true for a murderer, it is also true for an adulterer.”
Click to expand...
But this one worries me:
To avoid the greater evil of offering no help to the divorced and remarried, cutting them and most likely their children off from the sacraments, he said, the church could “tolerate that which is impossible to accept” – a second union.
Click to expand...
How? I ask. How can the Church “tolerate” a second marriage, which is adultery, without accepting it? Everyone is called to repent and to holiness. It’s the same with homosexuality: The Church doesn’t accept it, and she doesn’t admit those engaging in it to Communion. Why is this any different? In the case of homosexuality, the Church tolerates the attraction, yes, but not acting upon it. Same with divorce and remarriage: Acknowledge a failed, but valid marriage, but do not “act upon it” in stepping into what constitutes adultery. 🤷
 
Are people who have remarried allowed to go forward for a blessing rather than recieve communion?
 
I realise its not the same but that person is not excluded from the church…if this was me I would be happy with that
 
kate_jackson said:
I realise its not the same but that person is not excluded from the church…if this was me I would be happy with that
Click to expand...
Well, most aren’t. But wait a second. You would be content with living in manifest sin, rejecting the Eucharist for a blessing? Am I reading you correctly?
 
CutlerB said:
Well, most aren’t. But wait a second. You would be content with living in manifest sin, rejecting the Eucharist for a blessing? Am I reading you correctly?
Click to expand...
No not for me but if someone has been married for a while with children involved and tbey were not catholics before and a fresh start for the family…otberwise they have no ability to come back to church? If it was me I would be chaste in my second marriage but other people are different. …its an absolute mess divorce. 😦
 
kate_jackson said:
No not for me but if someone has been married for a while with children involved and tbey were not catholics before and a fresh start for the family…otberwise they have no ability to come back to church? If it was me I would be chaste in my second marriage but other people are different. …its an absolute mess divorce. 😦
Click to expand...
You can say that again.
 
kate_jackson said:
Are people who have remarried allowed to go forward for a blessing rather than recieve communion?
Click to expand...
Yes. It is my understanding, though, that they can’t be lectors or EMHC’s or anything of that nature. But I might be wrong on this.

I do know there is no prohibition of attending Mass or being involved in parish activities, including having their kids in schools, fund drives, etc.
 
Can I ask you all something?

Alice and Bob were married in the Catholic Church fully committed to each other. Eventually, they divorced after Bob cheated on Alice multiple times, and after many attempts at couple’s therapy, etc., Bob wouldn’t stop. The Catholic Church refuses to annul the marriage because there were no impediments prior to the marriage.

Alice meets Carl a little later. They get married civilly and have a wonderful, fruitful relationship. They have two children who they baptize and raise in the Catholic Church. They frequently encourage their son to consider the priesthood, they have both children volunteer to help the needy, and make sure both children treat everyone else with dignity and respect. Both Alice and Carl are extremely happy—they love each other and are fully committed to each other, but they can’t receive communion.

What should Alice and Carl do? Should she repent of her “adultery” and divorce Carl to live in celibacy?

What should be done in this circumstance?
 
RandomRhino said:
Can I ask you all something?

Alice and Bob were married in the Catholic Church fully committed to each other. Eventually, they divorced after Bob cheated on Alice multiple times, and after many attempts at couple’s therapy, etc., Bob wouldn’t stop. The Catholic Church refuses to annul the marriage because there were no impediments prior to the marriage.
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of the Church refusing to annul the marriage, it is a case that the Church cannot break a valid, sacramental marriage. Alice is still married to Bob.
Alice meets Carl a little later. They get married civilly and have a wonderful, fruitful relationship. They have two children who they baptize and raise in the Catholic Church. They frequently encourage their son to consider the priesthood, they have both children volunteer to help the needy, and make sure both children treat everyone else with dignity and respect. Both Alice and Carl are extremely happy—they love each other and are fully committed to each other, but they can’t receive communion.
Click to expand...
What should Alice and Carl do? Should she repent of her “adultery” and divorce Carl to live in celibacy?
Click to expand...
What should be done in this circumstance?
Click to expand...
She should live in celibacy. It is tough to hear that, but what are her options? If she is truly a believer, she knows that adultery is a grave sin. She is still married to Bob.

Peace

Tim
 
kate_jackson said:
No not for me but if someone has been married for a while with children involved and tbey were not catholics before and a fresh start for the family…otberwise they have no ability to come back to church? If it was me I would be chaste in my second marriage but other people are different. …its an absolute mess divorce. 😦
Click to expand...
It is a heinous mess that lies about the identity of people and asks you to believe the lie when you know it is a lie.

I have two divorces very close to me in my family, involving four main players, obviously. All but one were Catholic, so it wasn’t the unfortunate situation of conversion and difficulty (which greatly pains me because it can seem like a closed door 😦 )

In each marriage one partner stayed faithful to the marriage, one person in silent patience. That person’s faithfulness stands out to me as a great gift of love that gives me strength every day to love even those who hurt me, out of love for them.

The other faithful partner lost his entire family, the childhood of his children, the Church ignores him and even though he has asked repeatedly for help. His spouse lives “brother and sister” in a second marriage, and while that may seem to many a great sacrifice, it is an affront to the actuality of a marriage that exists with a human being that is living and has no one to come home to, no one to say hello to in the morning. This is despite numerous declarations from the Church in favor of validity.

There needs to be attention first to abandoned, faithful spouses specifically in the manner Paul uses of excommunication, if necessary. The only merciful thing is to bring people to their senses, anything less is an injustice.

There then needs to be attention to those coming into the Church with an incorrect understanding of marriage. I don’t know what this solution is, probably brother and sister works here, unless there is a spouse fighting for the valid marriage.

Lastly, there needs to be a ministry to the divorced and remarried to rehabilitate their understanding of marriage so that they desire contrition, confession and communion.

We ask perpetual abstinence of our gay brothers and sisters. Why is this so hard to do for the divorced and remarried crowd?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top