- Status
E
Ender
Guest
There is no possibility that the party innocent of the divorce has sinned. Our sins come from our own actions, not from the actions of others (Mt 5:32 notwithstanding).* At the Reformation, continental Protestant Reformers interpreted the teaching of Jesus (cf. Mt 5:32; 19:9) differently, and argued that divorce was permissible on grounds of adultery or desertion. The Council of Trent, on the other hand, re-affirmed the teaching, first, that the marriage bond could not be dissolved, even by adultery and secondly, that neither partner, not even the innocent one, could contract a second marriage during the lifetime of the other. *(Life in Christ: Morals, Communion, and the Church, #64)
How is it possible for there to be an innocent party if both are presumed to have sinned? The church does not teach either that the adultery of one party permits divorce, or that divorce instituted by one party makes the other guilty of sin. Given that “the marriage tie cannot be broken by any sort of divorce” (Trent) what sin has been committed by the person who has not filed for divorce inasmuch as nothing about their actual union has changed?
What sin would the divorced party confess to? “I’m sorry my husband left me for some bimbo he met at an office party?” Having done nothing to contract the divorce there would be nothing to apologize for, therefore nothing to be absolved of. Treating the aggrieved party as if (e.g.) she did something wrong simply adds to her burdens.
Ender
G
Ginny89
Guest
G
Ginny89
Guest
Well, I’m sure I’m not the first one, but thank you for saying this nonetheless.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
The presumption is that neither party to a failed marriage is totally without fault, even if it is only for having contracted the marriage in the first place.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Perhaps Amoris Laetitia is clear in what it advances, i.e., a clarity not in the actual words of the document but in their potential. What is proposed in AL ultimately concerns the individual, and, as such, it must have a subjective component as to culpability.
The difficulty, I think, is in the clerical expectation that all things must be objectively stated. This is not the way of the Jesuits, not in light of their strong emphasis on individual discernment.
E
Ender
Guest
The fact is that “the innocent” partner (Trent’s phrase, not mine) is not guilty of adultery, and may as justly receive communion in the future as it was received in the past.
Ender
G
gilliam
Guest
A rundown of the varying and sometimes clashing way bishops are interpreting 'Amoris.'
cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/01/18/recent-guidelines-show-amoris-argument-far/
cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/01/18/recent-guidelines-show-amoris-argument-far/
K
Kliska
Guest
Question from an outsider; is there any chance that this thing is partially about this:
Pope Francis, "And in this also pastoral care of marriage is a factor. And also the judicial problem of the nullity of marriage, that must be revisited, because the ecclesiastical courts aren’t enough for this."
Don’t pile onto me please
, but is this idea that there are circumstances where people are absolutely convinced that they aren’t sinning by remarrying because they truly believe their first marriage is null (even if not judged that way by a tribunal) a way to expedite the process? Meaning, it would become more of an individual judgment with the help and guidance of a priest?
Pope Francis, "And in this also pastoral care of marriage is a factor. And also the judicial problem of the nullity of marriage, that must be revisited, because the ecclesiastical courts aren’t enough for this."
Don’t pile onto me please
, but is this idea that there are circumstances where people are absolutely convinced that they aren’t sinning by remarrying because they truly believe their first marriage is null (even if not judged that way by a tribunal) a way to expedite the process? Meaning, it would become more of an individual judgment with the help and guidance of a priest?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You may not realise that Pope Francis raises the possibility that, under the criteria stated, some active irregulars will be permitted Communion. And they may actually be free to marry. It may turn out the Church was the party innocently ignorant of the status of their first wedding.
B
billy15
Guest
“Homogeneity is overrated”. Really? In the context we’re speaking of, in faith and morals? I find that assertion absolutely absurd. In that case, why even bother with the Eastern Catholic Churches? Why should those particular Churches be homogeneous in regards to papal primacy? If homogeneity is so overrated, they’d be better off simply recognizing their respective patriarchs instead, for the sake of not being homogeneous.
Many seem to be claiming that this practice of the Church (denying Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried) is comparable to disciplines such as those in various sui iuris Churches allowing for a married priesthood while others hold to a celibate priesthood. Or that it is comparable to disciplines that vary from diocese to diocese regarding Friday abstinence (i.e., some dioceses command the faithful to abstain from meat specifically, while others allow for a different kind of penance to be substituted on Fridays). These disciplines are not analogous.
St. John Paul II said in FC 84: "However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in *Sacramentum Caritatis *29 writes: If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires… The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church…"
Cardinal Müller, head of the CDF, has expressly affirmed that AL has not changed anything, and that this practice of the Church is not a mere discipline akin to how different dioceses have different abstinence requirements for Fridays. This isn’t a discipline that has no weight at all; doctrine can underlie disciplinary norms. As Cardinal Müller said last May:
AL has not changed anything in regards to the divorced and civilly remarried and the Eucharist; what was stated in FC, SC, and the 1994 letter from the CDF are still binding. However, some are interpreting Chapter 8 of AL (such as the Maltese bishops) in a way that goes much farther than even AL could theoretically allow for in interpretations by the Argentine bishops. The guidelines from the bishops of Kazakhstan further agree:
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Quite well summarised I thought.
Can you confirm your understanding of the 3rd tough type?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
What practise exactly didn’t the Arg Draft make clear? Perhaps we can assist?
T
TCEL
Guest
I believe so, yes. This doesn’t alarm me as much, though there are a lot of logistical situations about it that would be hard to work out, it seems.Question from an outsider; is there any chance that this thing is partially about this:
Pope Francis, "And in this also pastoral care of marriage is a factor. And also the judicial problem of the nullity of marriage, that must be revisited, because the ecclesiastical courts aren’t enough for this."
Don’t pile onto me please
One, we have amazing capacities for self-deception and rationalization.
Two, how rigorous is the accompaniment? How does the priest determine if the person is lying? What about differing discernments? Does one search around until a priest can be found who says what they want to hear? Of course, if this is the case, it truly is on the person.
What if the other spouse thought it was valid? Though, this may not differ from current tribunal processes. Still seems pretty rotten. “Sorry honey, but I was lying when I said I was open to life. I’m free to remarry, and now I am open, and my priest agrees with me.”
Now, I understand what I listed above are abuses of the process, and it will be argued that one shouldn’t deny the innocents because of those who will abuse.
However, like you said, the individual discernment thing isn’t what everyone is talking about. It seems to me there are several different strains being argued.
G
Ginny89
Guest
Honestly, the only way I can think of that that may be the case is if the person himself did not give his full consent in his marriage. He knows he never intended to marry for life or to have children. The only way someone can be that ‘absolutely’ sure is if it is something that involves his own person. His own lack of commitment. Otherwise, he would also need to rely on objective evidence just like a tribunal in deciding whether his first spouse truly was disposed and gave true consent to marriage. But in both those cases, I just don’t see what would be difficult in giving testimony under oath about one’s own intentions or giving the same evidence one would rely on in judging their spouse to a tribunal? Why would a tribunal say no?Question from an outsider; is there any chance that this thing is partially about this:
Pope Francis, "And in this also pastoral care of marriage is a factor. And also the judicial problem of the nullity of marriage, that must be revisited, because the ecclesiastical courts aren’t enough for this."
Don’t pile onto me please
My other issue is why do we need the tribunal in the first place? If it is about the souls of the persons, this matter can be decided in the context of spiritual direction. But there is something else there about having a tribunal. It’s quite public and formal when you think about it. There must be a reason. What is this? This is what I’d like to understand.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Innocent of initiating the divorce, actually. But yes, of course a divorced person may justly receive communion if divorce is the sole issue. I haven’t seen where anyone here says otherwise.
But what we were discussing was possible culpability for a failed marriage. The dynamics of a marriage, and of its failure, are hugely complex and perhaps obscure even to the parties. I don’t envy marriage counsellors.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Not according to Jewish law and not according to a minor but valid Catholic interpretation of Mt 5:32 if you have been following what Billy unearthed about a week ago.
And, as I say, even Catholic theology allows this as a standard acceptable principle in explaining Original sin. We are innocent of Adam’s offence yet are infected by his sin and assume a sinful state all the same. The techical word is “contracting sin” as opposed to committing sin. Its still a valid use of the word sin…but it is not a moral offence, but it is a sinful state. Your less than precise understanding of sin is perhaps tripping you up again.
It seems readily apparent to me that Divorce is a sinful state that even the innocent party can be seen to contract and Reconciliation is the legal vehicle for exiting this state.
I have no idea why you think Trent has any relevance re my small observation here.
Sinful states do not require confessing, but they do require reconciling. For divorce the vehicle is Reconciliation…just as its Baptism for a state of Original Sin.
The Sacrament of Confession (which is better named Reconciliation for this very reason) has a number of purposes both legal and moral and not just forgiveness of actual personal sin surely?
.
I can understand why a somewhat monolithic concept of “sin” and “wrong” would fail your understanding on this point.
Divorce is clearly a sin whether one is actively or passively involved. The former is about an act of sin the latter about a state of sin. Neither are completely “innocent”, but the latter much more so. Your understanding of what the word “innocent” really means in this context may need revising.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
This is quite different from the objective way of the Dominicans and hence of Aquinas and hence of classic moral theologians and Canon Lawyers.
Without appeal to a common objective view of the world, allegedly accessible to reason beneath allegedly superficial messiness to the contrary, how would a Jesuit community typically go forward in times of discord, disagreement and contradiction?
- Status