Cardinal Scola: Pope Francis will stand with tradition on marriage

[YoungTradCath]

why can’t a married person (second marriage, first one no anulled) simply go to confession and then recieve the eucharist?

Because a requirement for the forgiveness of sin is a firm purpose of amendment. How can you have a firm purpose of amendment unless you try to radically change the relationship? You can’t. It’s impossible.

Why can’t I go beat people up and demand that father forgive me even though I intend to go do it again five minutes after confession? Because that… makes no sense!

 

[ProVobis]

If a couple married outside of the Church and didn’t go to Confession or get their marriage rectified, I doubt they would be coming to church or trying to receive Communion. They’ve left behind so many elements of Catholicism, I think they’re hardly even Catholic, except perhaps in name. But if they did try to receive Communion anyway, and the priest knew about their situation, it is my understanding that he should inform them that they need to go to Confession first and get their marriage situation rectified.

I suppose if they’re elderly or disabled, one could give them a pass. But if they’re young and vibrant, I don’t see the point. But I agree, they probably won’t be going to church. Unless they’re of such ethnic group where everyone isn’t more or less forced into going to communion. In the Spanish Masses I attend, half don’t go to communion so there isn’t that same “embarrassment” when sitting the communion out.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Not if the person wasn’t in a valid marriage to begin with.

When choosing to receive we are basically doing an examination of conscience. We’re asked to determine to the best of our ability based on Church teachings what state we are in when we approach the Sacraments. If a person knows their previous “marriage” was never valid and believe their current marriage to be the truly valid marriage then according to their own conscience they are not in a state of Mortal Sin. They’re just waiting for the Church to recognize what they know.

And this situation is somewhat unique in the Church. For example, I see couples who are living together receive every week with no one batting an eye and everyone knowing the couples status. A few of these couples are either pregnant sans marriage or have recently had first, second or third babies together. Obviously, it can be argued that they are receiving while in a rather public state of Mortal sin since they are continuing living together and having relations (can’t see another way for the baby to have gotten here!). Yet no outcry is raised. Let a known divorced and remarried person do the same and watch heads explode.

Same with homosexuals. Whatever said gay person is doing privately, as long as it isn’t public knowledge and the Pastor doesn’t catch wind or turns a blind eye they can receive. But divorced people who have remarried? Nope!

The Church rejects a very large portion of the logic contained here, not just in the case of marriage but in general.

Plenty of people have certain beliefs about certain things, but that doesn’t mean they’re right! Yes, your conscience may say so, but the Church is not beholden to your conscience. You may believe earnestly—but the situation can’t be proven, unless it can…—but the Church does not have to say it’s okay for you to receive Communion.

There are probably millions of Catholics who earnestly believe with all their heart that abortion is a merciful thing to do and is, in many cases, not just morally justified but morally necessary. They really, truly believe this. Well… so what? The Church does not say, “Follow your conscience.” It’s quite a bit more complicated than that. Conscience is real, but conscience can never ever be set up as some kind of subjective “personal magisterium.”

 

[bisco]

i’m confused about remarriage. Jesus said, ‘if you divorce your wife and remarry, you commit adultery’. or something to that effect. but if you don’t have sexual relations, are you really married?

 

[McCall1981]

For reference, here is a full translation of the relevant parts of Card Scola’s interview:

Cardinal Scola, in the Synod the Church was divided, and there emerged two groups, one consisting of a majority, the other a minority. Is this normal? Or should this worry us?

“The word “division” is out of place. What emerged from the Synod were diverse positions. There was a debate, at times intense, always aimed at sharing views. It was not a new thing. It is enough to look at the Councils.”

What is your position?

“Personally I suggested to think about the question at its roots, in the light of an anthropological reflection on sexual difference, and, on the theological plane, in deepening the understanding of the relationship between Matrimony and the Eucharist. And I made a proposal that goes in that direction, stated more than once also by the Pope, to remain faithful to doctrine, but to make the process of annulment of marriage more close at hand to the heart of the people and in a more rapid manner. I put forth the idea of involving the bishop more directly in the process of determining nullity.”

Does this mean that the faithful will not have to pay for this process?

“There is a widespread myth about this. The Conference of Italian Bishops for a while has made provision for the financing of the tribunals and has introduced free public advocates. Today in Italy whoever wishes to open a case to test the nullity of a marriage can do it even if he does not have the money. If in fact there are lawyers who engage in abusive payment practices, this will be strongly dealt with.”

But on the point of Communion to the divorced and remarried, what is your position?

“I discussed this intensely, in particular with Cardinals Marx, Danneels and Schönborn who were in my small group, but I was not able to see the rationale for the position that on the one hand the indissolubility of marriage is outside the realm of discussion but on the other hand that doctrine of indissolubiity is denied in how it is applied in fact, as if what is going on is a separation between doctrine, pastoral practice and discipline. This way of supporting the indissolubility of marriage reduces it to some sort of Platonic idea that exists in an ethereal sphere but has nothing to do with the concrete details of life itself. And it poses a serious problem in religious education: how do we say to young people who get married today, for whom the “until death do us part” is already very difficult, that marriage is indissoluble, if they know that all the same there will always be a way of getting out of it? It is a question that is not often raised, and I find this quite amazing.”

And so at the Synod did you vote with the Minority?

“If anything, with the Majority, even if I would not put it in these terms. On the propositions that did not receive the two thirds votes needed the vote would seem to have been across lines. Certainly the position of the Magisterium seemed to me, in the reports of the small groups, to be the one followed by most.”

If instead at the end of the Synod, the Pope should take a position that you do not share, (what would you do?)

“I believe that he would not take such a position. But from this debate a real attention is being paid to the divorced and remarried and to homosexuals, a conversation which did not exist until now. The benefits of the lively debate at the Synod are already evident. Even more because from the debate came a fundamental concept: the family as subject, and no longer as object, of the proclamation of the Gospel. The family is called to witness to the beauty of facing every day life with the gaze of faith: emotions, work, rest, pain, illness, procreation and child-rearing, what it takes to live a good life. In other words, to engender an experience of the Church going out of herself.”

 

[MJJean]

^^^ Another thought:

IIRC, the above document also says something about the heroism that is necessary for couples to live in continence.

A departure from this “mind of the Church” comes from Cardinal Kaspar in this interview:

How is it that all are called to holiness if heroism is not for the average Christian?

It’s not that simple. We know that sexual intimacy is an important part of marriage and pair bonding. Those married after a divorce or catholics married outside of the Church without dispensation being asked to either refrain from Communion or from marital relations are being put between a rock and a hard place. There is no reasonable time frame when it comes to annulments. Some complete within a year, others go on for 2-6 years depending on location. Most spouses will have serious issues with being told they cannot be intimate until some unknown date a year or more in the future. Especially in cases where one is catholic and the other is either fallen away, of another faith, or no faith at all.

If a couple married outside of the Church and didn’t go to Confession or get their marriage rectified, I doubt they would be coming to church or trying to receive Communion. They’ve left behind so many elements of Catholicism, I think they’re hardly even Catholic, except perhaps in name. But if they did try to receive Communion anyway, and the priest knew about their situation, it is my understanding that he should inform them that they need to go to Confession first and get their marriage situation rectified.

You say that as if this is all such an easy fix. Just file some papers, go to Confession, convalidate your marriage, receive Communion. Umm…no. Again, the annulment process is long and difficult. It literally takes years for most people. For those who fell away and are trying to come back and converts this is a huge issue. For those who were catholic and married outside of the Church they can be required to take pre-cana for up to 6 months or look for a sympathetic priest who will convalidate their marriage sooner. Woe unto the spouse trying to return who is married to someone who refuses to convalidate because then the catholic spouse has to wait on a Radical Sanation before they can receive.

There are probably millions of Catholics who earnestly believe with all their heart that abortion is a merciful thing to do and is, in many cases, not just morally justified but morally necessary. They really, truly believe this. Well… so what? The Church does not say, “Follow your conscience.” It’s quite a bit more complicated than that. Conscience is real, but conscience can never ever be set up as some kind of subjective “personal magisterium.”

I disagree. The "personal magisterium " happens every week the world over. There is no Communion Police. Every week those attending Mass are basically deciding if they are in a State of Grace or not before they go up to receive. If they don’t believe their actions are Mortal Sins, despite being aware at least peripherally of the Church’s teachings, they’re receiving. Those in favor of abortion, who have had abortions, practicing homosexuals, those living in perpetual fornication, etc. etc. are still receiving whether or not they have made a valid Confession.

During RCIA we did a tour of the church and spent some time chatting with our priest about Confession. He said that around 15 years ago they had 3 priests doing Confessions on Saturday and appointments available for Confessions during the rest of the week. Now, he is the only priest who does Confession and he only gets a few folks come in per week including those who make appointments. Yet the pews are packed on Sunday morning and everyone but the few converts currently in RCIA and me receive the Eucharist. Either I go to the holiest parish ever where no one commits Mortal Sins or there are a lot of people receiving unworthily.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I disagree. The "personal magisterium " happens every week the world over. There is no Communion Police. Every week those attending Mass are basically deciding if they are in a State of Grace or not before they go up to receive. If they don’t believe their actions are Mortal Sins, despite being aware at least peripherally of the Church’s teachings, they’re receiving. Those in favor of abortion, who have had abortions, practicing homosexuals, those living in perpetual fornication, etc. etc. are still receiving whether or not they have made a valid Confession.

During RCIA we did a tour of the church and spent some time chatting with our priest about Confession. He said that around 15 years ago they had 3 priests doing Confessions on Saturday and appointments available for Confessions during the rest of the week. Now, he is the only priest who does Confession and he only gets a few folks come in per week including those who make appointments. Yet the pews are packed on Sunday morning and everyone but the few converts currently in RCIA and me receive the Eucharist. Either I go to the holiest parish ever where no one commits Mortal Sins or there are a lot of people receiving unworthily.

But the Church rejects this (first paragraph). People do it anyway, of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay.

It’s possible to make a conscientious decision to receive Communion even though you’re about to go volunteer as an abortion escort after Mass, sure. It’s possible to make that conscientious decision even though you know what the Church says about abortion (how couldn’t you know?). It’s possible—common—to be so ignorant, however, of the gravity of what you are doing and/or to be so ignorant of what you actually believe (in terms of mentally refusing to accept the logical conclusions of your beliefs or to even think about them at all) that you are not culpable for the objectively evil/wrong things you do. Yeah, that’s possible and super common, to be honest.

It’s one thing to say, “Joe supports abortion because he is ignorant and is caught up in the progressive myth/worship of ‘rights’ and is so tied up in this that he doesn’t sin when he gives money to NARAL and when he receives Communion, because he’s so darn ignorant/misled/whatever.” It’s another thing completely to say, “It’s okay for him to give money to NARAL and receive Communion because his conscience says it’s okay.”

The Church says the former, but not the latter. Joe is bound to follow his conscience, yes, but he is also bound to submit his conscience to formation by the Church. We are born innocent, but we are not born with moral wisdom of course. So yeah, this personal magisterium thing happens, we both agree on that. It happens a lot.

I think we basically agree. I just want to take it a step further/make it a little more complete by saying that this is not the end of the story, though. To say, “We have to follow our consciences,” well yes, that’s true. But that is not the end of the story. Consciences can be really, really, really screwed up. The Church does not bend her teachings to personal consciences. The Church is incapable of doing that. The Church’s obligation is to try very persistently and gently to change hearts.

I hardly doubt you go to the holiest parish ever. I rather think that a lot of people are receiving Communion unworthily. Some people think it’s “uncharitable” or whatever to say that. (“OH MY GOD! He said people are receiving Communion unworthily!”) Ignorance does not make someone worthy, it just “shields” them from culpability. I think it is anthropologically sticking your head in the sand to act like it’s all fine and dandy and “oh you’re just so mean” blah blah. Finally, nobody even really believes that people are just so holy today—seriously, does anybody? lol—so there’s that. Yes we should not presume to judge the souls and particulars of individual people, I would not do that, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with making simple observations and thinking about what they mean…

 

[ProVobis]

We know that sexual intimacy is an important part of marriage and pair bonding. Those married after a divorce or catholics married outside of the Church without dispensation being asked to either refrain from Communion or from marital relations are being put between a rock and a hard place. There is no reasonable time frame when it comes to annulments. Some complete within a year, others go on for 2-6 years depending on location. Most spouses will have serious issues with being told they cannot be intimate until some unknown date a year or more in the future. Especially in cases where one is catholic and the other is either fallen away, of another faith, or no faith at all.

This is a difficult situation but is it the Church’s fault? When a Catholic gets divorced, he or she should IMO file for annulment immediately even before he or she starts dating again. If there is even a third party involved at that point, the questionnaires are going to include that person, further delaying the process. The process will go much more smoothly if you provide direct responses. If you’re vague with your responses, expect another set of questions, still further delaying the process. Think of it, though, as a healing process, not one where the Church is trying to make your life miserable.

Been there, btw.

 

[McCall1981]

Regarding the relationship between Church teaching and practice, this is a statement from Cardinal Muller at the International Theological Commission earlier this week:

Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith in the "Osservatore Romano"said that ny separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle ".

Vatican City (kath.net/KAP) The Prefect of the Vatican Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, reiterating that there should be no gap between teaching and pastoral care in the Catholic Church. “Every separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle,” Mueller said in a speech, which was published by the Vatican newspaper “L’Osservatore Romano” on Tuesday. This would “obscure” the dynamics of the Incarnation, which is part of any “healthy theology”, said Mueller. Christ had said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. Therefore, there can be no truth without life and no life without truth.”

The occasion was the opening of the General Assembly of the International Theological Commission of the Vatican on Monday.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Regarding the relationship between Church teaching and practice, this is a statement from Cardinal Muller at the International Theological Commission earlier this week:

Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith in the "Osservatore Romano"said that ny separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle ".

Vatican City (kath.net/KAP) The Prefect of the Vatican Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, reiterating that there should be no gap between teaching and pastoral care in the Catholic Church. “Every separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle,” Mueller said in a speech, which was published by the Vatican newspaper “L’Osservatore Romano” on Tuesday. This would “obscure” the dynamics of the Incarnation, which is part of any “healthy theology”, said Mueller. Christ had said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. Therefore, there can be no truth without life and no life without truth.”

The occasion was the opening of the General Assembly of the International Theological Commission of the Vatican on Monday.

Sehr gut, sehr gut.

 

[dmar198]

dmar198:

If a couple married outside of the Church and didn’t go to Confession or get their marriage rectified, I doubt they would be coming to church or trying to receive Communion. They’ve left behind so many elements of Catholicism, I think they’re hardly even Catholic, except perhaps in name. But if they did try to receive Communion anyway, and the priest knew about their situation, it is my understanding that he should inform them that they need to go to Confession first and get their marriage situation rectified.

You say that as if this is all such an easy fix. Just file some papers, go to Confession, convalidate your marriage, receive Communion. Umm…no.

I didn’t try to make it sound easy. I don’t think it is easy. My cousin left the Church because her annulment was denied and she thought she had a very persuasive case for why her marriage was invalid.

Again, the annulment process is long and difficult. It literally takes years for most people.

I think that’s a shame. I believe the Synod proposed making the annulment process a more localized procedure, in the hands of local diocesan authorities. I think that is a good idea, I just hope good training is put in place for the ones who’ll be making decisions.

 

[bisco]

take the narrow way, for the road is wide that leads to destruction.

 

[ProVobis]

I didn’t try to make it sound easy. I don’t think it is easy. My cousin left the Church because her annulment was denied and she thought she had a very persuasive case for why her marriage was invalid. I think that’s a shame.

It is a shame. To her credit she showed she was willing to work with the church. My own opinion is that given enough time, depending on her age, they could have worked it out. At least have the kids keep attending the schools, help with bake sales and that sort of thing. Now that she left, it almost seems impossible to come back, at least to the sacraments.

 

[Denise1957]

You say that as if this is all such an easy fix. Just file some papers, go to Confession, convalidate your marriage, receive Communion. Umm…no. Again, the annulment process is long and difficult. It literally takes years for most people. For those who fell away and are trying to come back and converts this is a huge issue. For those who were catholic and married outside of the Church they can be required to take pre-cana for up to 6 months or look for a sympathetic priest who will convalidate their marriage sooner. Woe unto the spouse trying to return who is married to someone who refuses to convalidate because then the catholic spouse has to wait on a Radical Sanation before they can receive.

Would it make it easier to bear the waiting for the Radical Sanation if the person waiting were to observe that those, at the parish, who should not receive communion (who are living in a state of mortal sin) are not in fact receiving? Because if this were the case, then the “it’s not fair” factor would then be removed, since there would be many others(supposedly) who would also not be receiving.

 

[Denise1957]

During RCIA we did a tour of the church and spent some time chatting with our priest about Confession. He said that around 15 years ago they had 3 priests doing Confessions on Saturday and appointments available for Confessions during the rest of the week. Now, he is the only priest who does Confession and he only gets a few folks come in per week including those who make appointments. Yet the pews are packed on Sunday morning and everyone but the few converts currently in RCIA and me receive the Eucharist. Either I go to the holiest parish ever where no one commits Mortal Sins or there are a lot of people receiving unworthily.

Did your priest happen to say why it is that parishioners don’t go to confession much anymore? There has to be a reason for it.

 

[Tigg]

It’s not that simple. We know that sexual intimacy is an important part of marriage and pair bonding. Those married after a divorce or catholics married outside of the Church without dispensation being asked to either refrain from Communion or from marital relations are being put between a rock and a hard place.

A second marriage is not a “marriage” according to the Church - that’s the entire point. I’m sorry you don’t like what the teaching is, but it is binding. Please read these words:

The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “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, for example, for 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’”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

I disagree. The "personal magisterium " happens every week the world over. There is no Communion Police. Every week those attending Mass are basically deciding if they are in a State of Grace or not before they go up to receive. If they don’t believe their actions are Mortal Sins, despite being aware at least peripherally of the Church’s teachings, they’re receiving. Those in favor of abortion, who have had abortions, practicing homosexuals, those living in perpetual fornication, etc. etc. are still receiving whether or not they have made a valid Confession.

During RCIA we did a tour of the church and spent some time chatting with our priest about Confession. He said that around 15 years ago they had 3 priests doing Confessions on Saturday and appointments available for Confessions during the rest of the week. Now, he is the only priest who does Confession and he only gets a few folks come in per week including those who make appointments. Yet the pews are packed on Sunday morning and everyone but the few converts currently in RCIA and me receive the Eucharist. Either I go to the holiest parish ever where no one commits Mortal Sins or there are a lot of people receiving unworthily.

Here is what the church says about your comments regarding the divorced “remarried:”

**The mistaken conviction **of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.

And who could possibly justify and risk their own soul on what others are doing, no matter how many are doing it? Who cares about their personal criteria for receiving? What is the point you are making? We know there are many unfaithful sinners dead to grace, but we are each to work out our own salvation “with fear and trembling.”

 

[MJJean]

This is a difficult situation but is it the Church’s fault? When a Catholic gets divorced, he or she should IMO file for annulment immediately even before he or she starts dating again…"

This is part of the problem. The Church keeps saying the same thing you have said in one way or another. Yet the majority of annulment seekers are not/were not catholic and married without anything resembling the catholic understanding of marriage. Especially the part where it’s binding for life and cannot be undone by civil divorce. You can’t freely consent to something if you have no idea what you are consenting to! And most of us don’t because we weren’t taught by our parents, our schools, or our churches.

There are a lot of people trying to convert or who want to marry catholics crying foul because we are being held to the same standard of belief and knowledge catholics have when we came from entirely different worlds. I believe the Church needs to acknowledge this fact and provide an avenue for much more speedy annulments.

Is it the Church’s fault? Yes and no. Of course it’s not the Church’s fault people married invalidly and then came into previously unknown understandings of faith and the nature of marriage. It is, however, my belief that the Church is at fault for asking us to come into compliance with Her teachings without providing us a reasonable way to do so.

I didn’t try to make it sound easy. I don’t think it is easy. My cousin left the Church because her annulment was denied and she thought she had a very persuasive case for why her marriage was invalid. I think that’s a shame. I believe the Synod proposed making the annulment process a more localized procedure, in the hands of local diocesan authorities. I think that is a good idea, I just hope good training is put in place for the ones who’ll be making decisions.

I feel for your cousin and hope she finds peace.

Lack of personnel and training is a big issue with Tribunals. They seem to have a lot of part time volunteers/permanent employees, a lot of retirements, and more cases than they can reasonably handle. Somethings got to give somewhere and I truly hope it isn’t even more catholics or convert hopefuls turning away from the Church.

Would it make it easier to bear the waiting for the Radical Sanation if the person waiting were to observe that those, at the parish, who should not receive communion (who are living in a state of mortal sin) are not in fact receiving? Because if this were the case, then the “it’s not fair” factor would then be removed, since there would be many others(supposedly) who would also not be receiving.

Yes and no. Please read my initial reply to ProVobis in this post. Yes, it would be easier to see people who aren’t supposed to be receiving refrain, but it’s still “not fair” for those who weren’t/aren’t catholic to be held to the same standards when it comes to marriage as those who were/are. Again, an awful lot of folks marry every day without actually consenting to what the Church teaches a marriage is and it’s difficult for us to wait for years while watching others receive access to all of the Sacraments when we know they shouldn’t be.

It almost makes marriage seem less desirable. If I hadn’t married my husband I’d have been received into the Church and allowed access to the Sacraments a year ago. But because we married and I was previously divorced from a civil marriage I am barred. There are a few couples in my parish that have more or less admitted they have no intention of marrying (while living together and having children) precisely because they don’t want to be banned from Eucharist or have to go through the annulment process.

Did your priest happen to say why it is that parishioners don’t go to confession much anymore? There has to be a reason for it.

The gist of the rest of that conversation is that people don’t believe that they are sinning even though the Church says they are. They are more or less “cafeteria catholics” who think that some of the Church’s teachings come from man and not the Holy Spirit and therefore aren’t binding.

 

[MJJean]

A second marriage is not a “marriage” according to the Church - that’s the entire point. I’m sorry you don’t like what the teaching is, but it is binding. It’s not that I don’t like what the Church teaches. I do. It’s that A)I do believe the Church needs to revise the annulment process to make it less burdensome for those who entered into invalid marriages in ignorance of what is a marriage and B)That there is no “pastoral solution” available for most married couples allowing them to enter the Church and receive the Sacraments in anything resembling a timely manner.

Not to mention that the reality is a second marriage is actually a marriage! We made a lifetime commitment to each other with full knowledge and consent. We share a home and all aspects of a life with each other, we share a name, a tax return, a bank account, insurance, etc. We raise children together. We fuss and fight and work it out because it’s the loving and right thing to do. We, every day, share our hearts, minds, spirits, and bodies. We’re acknowledged socially and legally as a married couple. So, tell me how that’s not a marriage?

And who could possibly justify and risk their own soul on what others are doing, no matter how many are doing it? Who cares about their personal criteria for receiving? What is the point you are making? We know there are many unfaithful sinners dead to grace, but we are each to work out our own salvation “with fear and trembling.”

I wasn’t saying it was justifiable to risk ones soul based on what others are doing. I was pointing out that no one bans people living in sin or who have committed other Mortal Sins from receiving and yet those who commit a particular sin are banned simply because that sin happens to be a civil marriage. As I said above, I see people who live together as a married couple and who have children together but remain unmarried by choice able to receive. Yet, those who made at the very least a legal and social commitment to each other cannot.

 

[McCall1981]

I wasn’t saying it was justifiable to risk ones soul based on what others are doing. I was pointing out that no one bans people living in sin or who have committed other Mortal Sins from receiving and yet those who commit a particular sin are banned simply because that sin happens to be a civil marriage. As I said above, I see people who live together as a married couple and who have children together but remain unmarried by choice able to receive. Yet, those who made at the very least a legal and social commitment to each other cannot.

The bold simply isn’t true.

All people that commit a mortal sin are “banned” from receiving communion, until they confess their sin and resolve not to commit that sin anymore.

A person who has a previous marriage is perfectly capable of confessing that sin, and resolving not to commit it anymore, either by removing themself from the relationship, or by resolving to live as brother and sister.

If they choose not to, and choose to continue living in that same state, that is their own choice.

In that case, the Church should be sensitive in its treatment of that person, but it can’t pretend the person has truly confessed the sin if the person intends to remain in that sin.

The same would apply to any other example where the person remains in the state of sin.

 

[MJJean]

The bold simply isn’t true.

All people that commit a mortal sin are “banned” from receiving communion, until they confess their sin and resolve not to commit that sin anymore.

A person who has a previous marriage is perfectly capable of confessing that sin, and resolving not to commit it anymore, either by removing themself from the relationship, or by resolving to live as brother and sister.

If they choose not to, and choose to continue living in that same state, that is their own choice.

In that case, the Church should be sensitive in its treatment of that person, but it can’t pretend the person has truly confessed the sin if the person intends to remain in that sin.

The same would apply to any other example where the person remains in the state of sin.

Perhaps I should have phrased it “No one enforces the ban on receiving?”

It would be one thing for the Church to say “We’ll have an annulment decision within 6 months and until then you can receive the Sacraments if you are living as brother and sister.” But the Church might as well be saying “We’ll have a decision for you within 1-6 years and until then you can receive the Sacraments if you are living as brother and sister.”
Do you honestly believe it is possible for a married couple to live as brother and sister for an indeterminate length of time (likely to be years) without seriously damaging their marital relationship?