Cardinal Schonborn on 'Amoris Laetitia'

[KSU]

I did not allege such a thing.

I’m lost. What then are you alleging?

 

[Vico]

I’m lost. What then are you alleging?

Post #141.

Q. What specifically has been brought about by AL that we didn’t have before?

A. Specifically that before the internal forum solution was presented in Familaris Consortio and confirmed in later documents too, has been expanded to include: that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive the help of the sacraments until they become aware of their sin in spiritual accompaniment.

 

[KSU]

Post #154.
A. Specifically that before the internal forum solution was presented in Familaris Consortio and confirmed in later documents too, has been expanded to include: that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive the help of the sacraments until they become aware of their sin in spiritual accompaniment.

You seem to be arguing in a circle.

With all due respect, all you have said clearly is what you are not alleging. Please say precisely {as required by Cardinal Ratizinger in 3(c) of CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS} so that even I can understand what it is you want us to believe.

 

[Vico]

You seem to be arguing in a circle.

With all due respect, all you have said clearly is what you are not alleging. Please say precisely {as required by Cardinal Ratizinger in 3(c) of CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS} so that even I can understand what it is you want us to believe.

You responded to my post #141 with the Ratzinger quote, so it is not me going in a circle. Specifically you wrote:

The internal forum has never been accepted as a solution for this issue:

CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING
ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL [1]

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

3(c) “Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.”​

I have always believed that the above magisterial statement is precisely what gave Pope Francis and many liberals hope that the Synod on the Family finally would find a way to adopt spiritual accompaniment in the internal forum as a solution–a way Cardinal Ratzinger (and later B VXI with all his orthodox theologians) could not find without breaking with Christ’s direct teaching. Francis during the Synod obviously got tons of “help” from Marx et al. and the well-reported shamefully biased actions of those in charge of the Synod.

Nevertheless, as the two-year Synod dragged on and controversy increased (to the great delight of the media) it became clear that the majority of the bishops would not bend and adopt spiritual accompaniment in the internal forum as a solution–they stayed with Ratzinger.

I followed the Synod religiously and believe that the surprising anger Francis expressed during the Synod is reflected in the purposefully less than clear manner in which he wrote AL. This good Father suffers with his people in irregular marriages, and I believe he will keep the issue alive as long as he can despite the terrible confusion and fear in the global Catholic world.

Now I did not object to this statement that “The internal forum has never been accepted as a solution for this issue” because I posted not on the past but the current expansion.

But, because “the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law” it is possible to see that the specific example given is compliant with doctrine, so is a matter of ecclesiastical law, namely as given in: AL 301, 302.

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14107818&postcount=138

 

[KSU]

You responded to my post #141 with the Ratzinger quote, so it is not me going in a circle. Specifically you wrote:

QUOTE The internal forum has never been accepted as a solution for this issue:

CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING
ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL [1]

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

3(c) “Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.”​

I have always believed that the above magisterial statement is precisely what gave Pope Francis and many liberals hope that the Synod on the Family finally would find a way to adopt spiritual accompaniment in the internal forum as a solution–a way Cardinal Ratzinger (and later B VXI with all his orthodox theologians) could not find without breaking with Christ’s direct teaching. Francis during the Synod obviously got tons of “help” from Marx et al. and the well-reported shamefully biased actions of those in charge of the Synod.

Nevertheless, as the two-year Synod dragged on and controversy increased (to the great delight of the media) it became clear that the majority of the bishops would not bend and adopt spiritual accompaniment in the internal forum as a solution–they stayed with Ratzinger.

I followed the Synod religiously and believe that the surprising anger Francis expressed during the Synod is reflected in the purposefully less than clear manner in which he wrote AL. This good Father suffers with his people in irregular marriages, and I believe he will keep the issue alive as long as he can despite the terrible confusion and fear in the global Catholic world.
END QUOTE

Now I did not object to this statement that “The internal forum has never been accepted as a solution for this issue” because I posted not on the past but the current expansion.So now it is accepted? Can you please say yes or no?

But, because “the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law” it is possible to see that the specific example given is compliant with doctrine, so is a matter of ecclesiastical law, namely as given in: AL 301, 302.

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14107818&postcount=138

**Cardinal Ratzinger did not say that. “Others” made that claim. Please read it again, viz:

" 3(c) Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions."**

 

[Vico]

Now I did not object to this statement that “The internal forum has never been accepted as a solution for this issue” because I posted not on the past but the current expansion. So now it is accepted? Can you please say yes or no? …

Cardinal Ratzinger did not say that. “Others” made that claim. Please read it again, viz:

Cardinal Ratzinger said, for himself in that quoted section (from September 14, 1994):
“This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.”

The internal forum solution was given for divorced and remarried (F.C. 84) but a pastoral solution could now be applied to F.C. 82 (Catholics in Civil Marriages) which was not allowed in F.C. ("While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments.) The very specific circumstances are described by H.H. Pope Francis and were posted earlier in the thread.

 

[KSU]

Cardinal Ratzinger said, for himself in that quoted section (from September 14, 1994):
“This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.”

The internal forum solution was given for divorced and remarried (F.C. 84) but a pastoral solution could now be applied to F.C. 82 (Catholics in Civil Marriages) which was not allowed in F.C. ("While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments.) The very specific circumstances are described by H.H. Pope Francis and were posted earlier in the thread.

I don’t get what it is you want me to believe; you won’t say what it is; and you won’t say yes or no when I ask a specific question.

Who knows; if you do just say what it is you want me to believe (rather than interpreting some document to make some unidentified point I don’t follow) perhaps I would even agree with you.

 

[Vico]

I don’t get what it is you want me to believe; you won’t say what it is; and you won’t say yes or no when I ask a specific question.

Who knows; if you do just say what it is you want me to believe (rather than interpreting some document to make some unidentified point I don’t follow) perhaps I would even agree with you.

I thought it was clear. No, it is not accepted now for divorced and remarried (F.C. 84).
The other case was where the change is.

 

[KSU]

I thought it was clear. No, it is not accepted now for divorced and remarried (F.C. 84).
The other case was where the change is.

Have you been trying to say that AL, in 301 and 302, provided an internal forum solution for reception of Communion by Catholics in civil marriage?

First, neither 301 nor 302 says that; it’s just your interpretation. Second, that makes no sense because those people can be advised by any priest whether or not they even need to obtain a quick juridical process annulment before getting married in Church. So what’s the big deal?

Why would Pope Francis need two Synod sessions, public confrontations, liberal Synod manager bias, disagreements about protestantizing doctrine, and a public washing of its dirty linens just to carve out some special internal forum solution by means of a section in a highly controversial, unclear, apostolic exhortation? That would be searching for a difficult civil marriage problem to solve when it doesn’t exist in the first place.

Is that what you want me to believe? If not, why do you refuse to articulate it?

 

[Vico]

Have you been trying to say that AL, in 301 and 302, provided an internal forum solution for reception of Communion by Catholics in civil marriage?

First, neither 301 nor 302 says that; it’s just your interpretation. Second, that makes no sense because those people can be advised by any priest whether or not they even need to obtain a quick juridical process annulment before getting married in Church. So what’s the big deal?

Why would Pope Francis need two Synod sessions, public confrontations, liberal Synod manager bias, disagreements about protestantizing doctrine, and a public washing of its dirty linens just to carve out some special internal forum solution by means of a section in a highly controversial, unclear, apostolic exhortation? That would be searching for a difficult civil marriage problem to solve when it doesn’t exist in the first place.

Is that what you want me to believe? If not, why do you refuse to articulate it?

Q. Have you been trying to say that AL, in 301 and 302, provided an internal forum solution for reception of Communion by Catholics in civil marriage? … Is that what you want me to believe? If not, why do you refuse to articulate it?

A. I have articulated the idea in this thread and about mitigating factors in AL:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14070742&postcount=85
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14076760&postcount=102
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14107818&postcount=138

1. …“The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence*** it is can no longer simply be said*** that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.” …
   *Famialiris Consortio * shows that the Church has established a norm before of not admitting to communion, those in civil marriages.

c) Catholics in Civil Marriages

1. There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.

The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities,*** the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments***.

 

[KSU]

Q. Have you been trying to say that AL, in 301 and 302, provided an internal forum solution for reception of Communion by Catholics in civil marriage? … Is that what you want me to believe? If not, why do you refuse to articulate it?

A. I have articulated the idea in this thread and about mitigating factors in AL:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14070742&postcount=85
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14076760&postcount=102
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14107818&postcount=138

1. …“The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence*** it is can no longer simply be said*** that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.” …
   *Famialiris Consortio * shows that the Church has established a norm before of not admitting to communion, those in civil marriages.

c) Catholics in Civil Marriages

1. There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.

The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities,*** the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments***.

There you go again, refusing to say what it is you want me to believe was changed by AL regarding the ban on reception of Communion by some people in irregular marriages. You are merely re-quoting language to prove the truth of an interpretation, the subject of which you refuse to say.

All you need clearly say is what changed, but you refuse to do that, so I’m afraid further discussion is pointless.

 

[Vico]

There you go again, refusing to say what it is you want me to believe was changed by AL regarding the ban on reception of Communion by some people in irregular marriages. You are merely re-quoting language to prove the truth of an interpretation, the subject of which you refuse to say.

All you need clearly say is what changed, but you refuse to do that, so I’m afraid further discussion is pointless.

I did say it, and youalready read it and commented on it. Familairis Consortio established a norm of not admitting to communion, those in civil marriages, whereas there is now, based upon A.L. a possibility of it, as explained by Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P.:

With that, the regime of Familiaris Consortio has effectively changed. Not in the sense that sinners aware of their grave sin go to receive communion: this is not possible and will never be so. But in the sense that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive “the help of the sacraments” until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment. They will then stop receiving them until they have changed their way of life to conform fully with the demands of the Gospel, according to Familiaris Consortio.

 

[KSU]

I did say it, and youalready read it and commented on it. Familairis Consortio established a norm of not admitting to communion, those in civil marriages, whereas there is now, based upon A.L. a possibility of it, as explained by Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P.:

With that, the regime of Familiaris Consortio has effectively changed. Not in the sense that sinners aware of their grave sin go to receive communion: this is not possible and will never be so. But in the sense that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive “the help of the sacraments” until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment. They will then stop receiving them until they have changed their way of life to conform fully with the demands of the Gospel, according to Familiaris Consortio.

Thank you. I had assumed we were past Fr. Michelet’s interpretation because, first, it did not clearly and precisely spell out the rational for a change* and, second, it seems not to have addressed the question of whether the juridical forum was a matter of only ecclesiastical law as opposed to divine law*, as Ratzinger Indicated in 3(c) of CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS would be required. Third, Fr. Michelet’s interpretation certainly has not been accepted by the Magisterium, a condition obviously implied by 3(c). Even a pope is without authority to speak as a pope without clearly saying that he intends to teach on a matter of faith or morals, to the whole Church, by virtue of the supreme Petrine authority.

The core of what Father says is this:

“… the regime of Familiaris Consortio has effectively changed …in the sense that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive ‘the help of the sacraments’ until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment.”

Insofar as that can be understood to apply to those invincibly ignorant Catholics who were never married before and are now in a civil marriage, where is the change? Insofar as that can be understood to apply to other types of irregular marriages, it’s not true.

So, in any case, to again at least try to narrow it down for me, are you saying that AL, in 301 and 302, provided an internal forum-type solution for reception of Communion only with respect to Catholics in civil marriage who don’t know they are living in objective sin? Or are you saying that the “change” applies to other irregular marriages as well? I don’t know what you mean when you answer "I have articulated the idea in this thread and about mitigating factors in AL:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…2&postcount=85
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=102
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=138​

• Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions."

 

[Vico]

Thank you. I had assumed we were past Fr. Michelet’s interpretation because, first, it did not clearly and precisely spell out the rational for a change* and, second, it seems not to have addressed the question of whether the juridical forum was a matter of only ecclesiastical law as opposed to divine law*, as Ratzinger Indicated in 3(c) of CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS would be required. Third, Fr. Michelet’s interpretation certainly has not been accepted by the Magisterium, a condition obviously implied by 3(c). Even a pope is without authority to speak as a pope without clearly saying that he intends to teach on a matter of faith or morals, to the whole Church, by virtue of the supreme Petrine authority.

The core of what Father says is this:

“… the regime of Familiaris Consortio has effectively changed …in the sense that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive ‘the help of the sacraments’ until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment.”

Insofar as that can be understood to apply to those invincibly ignorant Catholics who were never married before and are now in a civil marriage, where is the change? Insofar as that can be understood to apply to other types of irregular marriages, it’s not true.

So, in any case, to again at least try to narrow it down for me, are you saying that AL, in 301 and 302, provided an internal forum-type solution for reception of Communion only with respect to Catholics in civil marriage who don’t know they are living in objective sin? Or are you saying that the “change” applies to other irregular marriages as well? I don’t know what you mean when you answer "I have articulated the idea in this thread and about mitigating factors in AL:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…2&postcount=85
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=102
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=138​

• Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions."

F.C. 84 is commented on throughout the A.L. sections quoted, in explaining the application of mitigating factors. I am excluding divorced and remarried because it was already allowed by the norms of F.C. 84. It was F.C. 82 about which I wrote: “Familairis Consortio established a norm of not admitting to communion …”.

 

[KSU]

F.C. 84 is commented on throughout the A.L. sections quoted, in explaining the application of mitigating factors. ** Certainly not for allowing Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics after accompaniment in cases where an annulment normaly is required. Pope Francis is no coward, and if that were the case he would have said so-- clearly and boldly, as he would have been obligated to do. I hope your not implying he tried to sneak it in through a “some bishops will allow it for some people and some bishops won’t” cloud of relativism, subjectivism and confusion? **

I am excluding divorced and remarried because it [Communion?]was already allowed by the norms of F.C. 84.**No, it was clearly not allowed, viz: “Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry.” **

It was F.C. 82 about which I wrote: “Familairis Consortio established a norm of not admitting to communion …”. ** We agree, civilly married ( living as husband and wife) can’t, so that narrows it down to the question of what AL changed regarding F.C. 84. Agreed? **

 

[Vico]

KSU:
No, not F.C. 84 but 82.
Yes, it was and is allowed by the norms, which I quote:

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

 

[KSU]

No, not F.C. 84 but 82.
Yes, it was and is allowed by the norms, which I quote:

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

Sorry, my friend, there is nothing new in that, and there is no basis for continuing this.

 

[Vico]

Sorry, my friend, there is nothing new in that, and there is no basis for continuing this.

Sure there is F.C. 84 remains as it was, and A.L. is a change related to F.C. 82, in extremely limited situations, as described by Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P…

 

[KSU]

Sure there is F.C. 84 remains as it was, and A.L. is a change related to F.C. 82, in extremely limited situations, as described by Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P…

OK, thanks. I’ve gone over it again. You are saying that Father is saying this:

Pope Francis has refused to say what specifically he changed by means of the infamous footnote in AL, but, because the Pope says something is now different, by process of elimination the change has to be in regard to F.C. 82’s civilly married Catholics who don’t know they are sinning gravely when they receive Communion.

Father is saying, according to you, that the Pope must have meant in Al that for the length of time it takes said Catholics to become convinced that their confessor is correct about their living in grave sin, said Catholics now have the permission of the Church to continue to receive Communion while they decide whether or not to believe their confessor’s advice to get married in the Church.

I don’t know why, Vico, but I’m reminded of the old definition of an optimist. A little farm boy at Christmas time, who had been demanding that his parents give him a pony, was given a large box of horse manure. After the kid kept repeatedly digging excitedly to the bottom of the box, his father asked him why he kept digging. The boy replied, with all this horse manure, there has got to be pony in here somewhere.

 

[Vico]

OK, thanks. I’ve gone over it again. You are saying that Father is saying this:

Pope Francis has refused to say what specifically he changed by means of the infamous footnote in AL, but, because the Pope says something is now different, by process of elimination the change has to be in regard to F.C. 82’s civilly married Catholics who don’t know they are sinning gravely when they receive Communion.

Father is saying, according to you, that the Pope must have meant in Al that for the length of time it takes said Catholics to become convinced that their confessor is correct about their living in grave sin, said Catholics now have the permission of the Church to continue to receive Communion while they decide whether or not to believe their confessor’s advice to get married in the Church.

I don’t know why, Vico, but I’m reminded of the old definition of an optimist. A little farm boy at Christmas time, who had been demanding that his parents give him a pony, was given a large box of horse manure. After the kid kept repeatedly digging excitedly to the bottom of the box, his father asked him why he kept digging. The boy replied, with all this horse manure, there has got to be pony in here somewhere.

No. A.L. 300 shows that there is no general rule.
If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases.

No, this applies to those that do not know they are in grave material sin. It is only the case of a person that is not culpable of mortal sin.

What Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P. wrote is:

Footnote 351 follows number 305 of “Amoris Laetitia,” which recalls that in an objective situation of sin it is possible not to be subjectively culpable.

This is well-established doctrine, because in order to commit a mortal sin grave matter is not enough; full knowledge and deliberate consent are also required (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1415).

and

With that, the regime of Familiaris Consortio has effectively changed. Not in the sense that sinners aware of their grave sin go to receive communion: this is not possible and will never be so. But in the sense that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive “the help of the sacraments” until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment. They will then stop receiving them until they have changed their way of life to conform fully with the demands of the Gospel, according to Familiaris Consortio.

However, the focus of most commentaries, including Fr. Thomas Michelet, focus on divorced and civilly remarried Catholic, but what I am referring to is a Catholic in a civil union that is invincibly ignorant. The number of these may be extremely small. We do have the comments of H.H. Pope Francis from June 2016, CNA:

He said that in Argentina’s northeast countryside, couples have a child and live together. They have a civil wedding when the child goes to school, and when they become grandparents they “get married religiously.”

“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome,” the Pope said. “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity, but there are local superstitions, etc.”

“Marriage is the most difficult area of pastoral work,” he said.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/most-marriages-today-are-invalid-pope-francis-suggests-51752/