Cardinal Tagle: There is no ‘formula for all’ on Communion for the divorced and re-married

[_Abyssinia]

The Archbishop of Manila has said that there is no all encompassing answer to the question of Communion for the divorced and remarried.

Speaking to the Catholic Herald at the Flame 2 Youth Congress earlier this month, Cardinal Luis Tagle, said it was not a question of simply saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but that every case should be judged individually.

He said: “Every situation for those who are divorced and remarried is quite unique. To have a general rule might be counterproductive in the end. My position at the moment is to ask, ‘Can we take every case seriously and is there, in the tradition of the Church, paths towards addressing each case individually?’ This is one issue that I hope people will appreciate is not easy to say ‘no’ or to say ‘yes’ to. We cannot give one formula for all.”

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/03/17/cardinal-tagle-there-is-no-formula-for-all-on-communion-for-the-divorced-and-re-married/

 

[_Abyssinia]

There may be Catholics who would argue that they have an unique reason why they are using contraception, and nothing to do with medical reasons. With all due respect to Cardinal Tagle, couldn’t a similar sort of argument be made?

 

[OraLabora]

There may be Catholics who would argue that they have an unique reason why they are using contraception, and nothing to do with medical reasons. With all due respect to Cardinal Tagle, couldn’t a similar sort of argument be made?

The bottom line issue is whether the degree of culpability for the sin, is mortal or not, for example whether full consent of the will is involved. In the case of contraception, it may be that the person is having contraception imposed on him or her by the other spouse: a wife that takes the pill against her husband’s will, or a husband that uses a condom against his wife’s will, and the other spouse acquiesces in order to preserve the marriage . So already the notion of examining each case individually exits… in the confessional.

The same may or may not be the case for divorce and remarriage. It is possible to make the argument that in the case of a subsequent marriage, although the couple lives in a de facto state of adultery, the degree of culpability for either one or both parties may be reduced to venial, and venial sin does allow one to receive the Eucharist. Again, this is a subject for the confessional.

I suspect that what may come out of the next synod, are guidelines for confessors to help them make these kinds of assessments. After all such guidelines also exist for the sin of masturbation. Why wouldn’t they for other sins of grave matter?

 

[dans0622]

General rules are always required for this sort of topic. As the issue stands now, each couple is (supposed to be) individually addressed in light of settled doctrine and practice (cf., e.g., Familiaris consortio, n. 84). I don’t know of anyone who says there is to be no examination of individual cases.

Dan

 

[dmar198]

The bottom line issue is whether the degree of culpability for the sin, is mortal or not, for example whether full consent of the will is involved. In the case of contraception, it may be that the person is having contraception imposed on him or her by the other spouse: a wife that takes the pill against her husband’s will, or a husband that uses a condom against his wife’s will, and the other spouse acquiesces in order to preserve the marriage . So already the notion of examining each case individually exits… in the confessional.

The same may or may not be the case for divorce and remarriage. It is possible to make the argument that in the case of a subsequent marriage, although the couple lives in a de facto state of adultery, the degree of culpability for either one or both parties may be reduced to venial, and venial sin does allow one to receive the Eucharist. Again, this is a subject for the confessional.

I suspect that what may come out of the next synod, are guidelines for confessors to help them make these kinds of assessments. After all such guidelines also exist for the sin of masturbation. Why wouldn’t they for other sins of grave matter?

I think there is a difference between the two cases on the matter of culpability. For example, I don’t think the “lack of consent” item applies the same way. In the case of masturbation, it is my understanding that lack of consent applies only when it is impossible to remove the occasion of sin.

In the case of divorce + remarriage, I think that, if an unmarried couple finds themselves habitually falling into sexual sin, then I think the option remains to remove the occasion of sin by separating.

I do not think any unmarried couple can logically claim to be unable to remove the occasion of sexual sin. Therefore, I do not think they can claim incomplete consent for failing to live as brother and sister. I think that would be the only way to lessen the sin from mortal to venial. Therefore, I do not think their degree of culpability can lessen their sin from mortal to venial.

 

[ARSpade]

The bottom line issue is whether the degree of culpability for the sin, is mortal or not, for example whether full consent of the will is involved. In the case of contraception, it may be that the person is having contraception imposed on him or her by the other spouse: a wife that takes the pill against her husband’s will, or a husband that uses a condom against his wife’s will, and the other spouse acquiesces in order to preserve the marriage . So already the notion of examining each case individually exits… in the confessional.

The same may or may not be the case for divorce and remarriage. It is possible to make the argument that in the case of a subsequent marriage, although the couple lives in a de facto state of adultery, the degree of culpability for either one or both parties may be reduced to venial, and venial sin does allow one to receive the Eucharist. Again, this is a subject for the confessional.

Honestly, this sounds like the kind of rule making, navel gazing, “make sure you take into account every little thing” that the Pharisees get accused of all the time, and the very thing Jesus spoke against when dealing with them.

And they’re the guys that came to Jesus asking such things about divorce and got told that all they’re little rules and such were meaningless and the answer was just “no”.

Also, I don’t see how adultery can ever be reduced to a venial sin. But that falls into the whole “let’s focus on the rules” thing anyway.

 

[McCall1981]

This is very much what the pope said as well, I think?
They are both on the same page about this.

.

The Pope recently commented on this:

“On the related and hotly debated issue of admitting divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics to holy Communion, the Pope said to “simplify” pastoral practice in such way would “not solve anything.” Instead, the Church wants them to “integrate” themselves into the Church’s life.”

ncregister.com/daily-news/plug-new-hed-here/

 

[Neofight]

Its kinda like patching a pin hole in a sinking ship instead of first closing the a hatch already under water…

On any given day, at any given Mass, we are concerned about the few receiving the Blessed Sacrament living without the blessing of the Church, while saying nothing about those receiving who have not gone to confession in years, use contraception with no medical justification, etc., without batting an eye.

The marriage/divorce/annulment/adultery/fornication and Eucharist issue is a lot like the immigration issue. Those who are not presently seeking to immigrate might say “If my grandparents had to wait in line and play by the rules, 100 years ago, immigrants today should have to too”. And, those who it does impact are likely to claim, “There needs to be significant reform to allow easier immigration.”

An interesting poll might consist of two questions:

1. Are you validly married in the Church?
2. If you are not, do you think you should be permitted to receive the Eucharist?
3. If you are, do you think those who are not should be permitted to receive the Eucharist?

It would just be interesting to see how it shakes out, if a large enough sampling of both categories would answer.

 

[Pulvis]

Can of worms. My apologies to all, but when one starts looking for wiggle room, especially on such an issue as divorce and remarriage, one should expect this level of confusion. Especially when so many individuals come at the problem with so many agendas. My prayers for the upcoming Synod and all involved.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think there is a difference between the two cases on the matter of culpability. For example, I don’t think the “lack of consent” item applies the same way. In the case of masturbation, it is my understanding that lack of consent applies only when it is impossible to remove the occasion of sin.

In the case of divorce + remarriage, I think that, if an unmarried couple finds themselves habitually falling into sexual sin, then I think the option remains to remove the occasion of sin by separating.

I do not think any unmarried couple can logically claim to be unable to remove the occasion of sexual sin. Therefore, I do not think they can claim incomplete consent for failing to live as brother and sister. I think that would be the only way to lessen the sin from mortal to venial. Therefore, I do not think their degree of culpability can lessen their sin from mortal to venial.

Ok…So explain this one to me,

Lets say two protestants get married, a couple years later they divorce. They were taught that divorce was ok and remarrying was ok. So the husband remarries and has 10 kids with his new wife. They later come to find the Catholic Church is where the truth of Christ resides and they go through RCIA. Early on they are advised they need an annulment to come into the church. So they apply, but since they believed their first marriage was sacramental, before God, and they divorced because of advice of pastors, they did not get an annulment.

Are you saying it is better for the Father and Mother to separate…divorce and leave the 10 kids in a broken home?

How are they culpable of mortal sin when they were advised specifically that they could remarry.

What happens to these people? Typically they don’t become Catholic…what a shame that is.

Now there is a solution, and I believe it is not changing a single dogma or doctrine.

So, lets run this by with a little setup:

Doctrine: Sex outside of marriage is grave matter
Doctrine: If you divorce your wife and marry another it is adultery
Doctrine: You must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist.

For a sin to be mortal, one must have full knowledge and will which the couple in our example did not have. So their remarriage was not a mortal sin. It will be argued that they know now and need to abstain from sex…but in saying this, it impedes on the persons will and consent.

A solution lies in a DISCIPLINE of the Church related, and that is “how one returns to a state of grace” . This is not dogmatically or doctrinally defined. Indeed a study of the early church will show a varied history of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and its parameters. At one point you could only receive the SAcrament one time in your life, at others you had to confess publicly to the assembly. Neither of which are true today.

So could not the discipline of how one returns to a state of grace be changed? I believe it could, and a period of penance, and spiritual direction could suffice for the sin of remarriage that cannot be undone without extreme detriment to the family that has formed under false understandings of marriage.

Just an idea I would like to throw out for discussion.

 

[ARSpade]

Ok…So explain this one to me,

Lets say two protestants get married, a couple years later they divorce. They were taught that divorce was ok and remarrying was ok. So the husband remarries and has 10 kids with his new wife. They later come to find the Catholic Church is where the truth of Christ resides and they go through RCIA. Early on they are advised they need an annulment to come into the church. So they apply, but since they believed their first marriage was sacramental, before God, and they divorced because of advice of pastors, they did not get an annulment.

Are you saying it is better for the Father and Mother to separate…divorce and leave the 10 kids in a broken home?

There’s a solution there to that situation, but it doesn’t play with the spirit of Ecumenicalism that we so love today. Although it would, of course, play with all those mean old councils people don’t like to talk about anymore.

Simply declare that since many of the non-Catholic churches, due to their stance on divorce and gay “marriage” and aboriton, have gone so far from Christ’s teaching that the Pauline privilege now applies to them (I guess it would apply to any of their “baptisms” too). Or, specifically in their case, that since the marriage wasn’t Catholic it didn’t exist because those churches can’t do a valid marriage due to their terrible views on the idea.

They’ll get mad that we’re calling them unbelievers and such, but they’ll get over it and many of them are dying out anyway.

 

[Jon_S_1]

There’s a solution there to that situation, but it doesn’t play with the spirit of Ecumenicalism that we so love today. Although it would, of course, play with all those mean old councils people don’t like to talk about anymore.

Simply declare that since many of the non-Catholic churches, due to their stance on divorce and gay “marriage” and aboriton, have gone so far from Christ’s teaching that the Pauline privilege now applies to them (I guess it would apply to any of their “baptisms” too). Or, specifically in their case, that since the marriage wasn’t Catholic it didn’t exist because those churches can’t do a valid marriage due to their terrible views on the idea.

They’ll get mad that we’re calling them unbelievers and such, but they’ll get over it and many of them are dying out anyway.

An interesting thought but may open up tons of destructive avenues. Sort of not seeing the forest through the trees, or fishing with hand grenades…

Honestly it seems like remarriage is already sanctioned by the church with the plethora of annulments. Whenever I sit with my priests or deacons (godly orthodox men), they seem to assure me I’d have no problem with annulment. But my own conscience is telling me I am still married to my wife.

Maybe if the rest of the world handed out annulments like the US the question wouldn’t even be discussed.

I almost wonder if a time of penance would not be more spiritually beneficial than filling out some paperwork and paying 500 dollars

 

[JimG]

Ok…So explain this one to me,

Lets say two protestants get married, a couple years later they divorce. They were taught that divorce was ok and remarrying was ok. So the husband remarries and has 10 kids with his new wife. They later come to find the Catholic Church is where the truth of Christ resides and they go through RCIA. Early on they are advised they need an annulment to come into the church. So they apply, but since they believed their first marriage was sacramental, before God, and they divorced because of advice of pastors, they did not get an annulment.

Are you saying it is better for the Father and Mother to separate…divorce and leave the 10 kids in a broken home?

How are they culpable of mortal sin when they were advised specifically that they could remarry.

What happens to these people? Typically they don’t become Catholic…what a shame that is.

Now there is a solution, and I believe it is not changing a single dogma or doctrine.

So, lets run this by with a little setup:

Doctrine: Sex outside of marriage is grave matter
Doctrine: If you divorce your wife and marry another it is adultery
Doctrine: You must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist.

For a sin to be mortal, one must have full knowledge and will which the couple in our example did not have. So their remarriage was not a mortal sin. It will be argued that they know now and need to abstain from sex…but in saying this, it impedes on the persons will and consent.

A solution lies in a DISCIPLINE of the Church related, and that is “how one returns to a state of grace” . This is not dogmatically or doctrinally defined. Indeed a study of the early church will show a varied history of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and its parameters. At one point you could only receive the SAcrament one time in your life, at others you had to confess publicly to the assembly. Neither of which are true today.

So could not the discipline of how one returns to a state of grace be changed? I believe it could, and a period of penance, and spiritual direction could suffice for the sin of remarriage that cannot be undone without extreme detriment to the family that has formed under false understandings of marriage.

Just an idea I would like to throw out for discussion.

It seems to me that the problem is not whether or not the individuals in the second marriage are culpable for the divorce and remarriage in terms of mortal sin. Perhaps there is no culpability whatever. The problem is whether or not the first marriage was valid. If it was, then it still is. That is the problem. Do we make a provision for bigamy?

 

[Jon_S_1]

It seems to me that the problem is not whether or not the individuals in the second marriage are culpable for the divorce and remarriage in terms of mortal sin. Perhaps there is no culpability whatever. The problem is whether or not the first marriage was valid. If it was, then it still is. That is the problem. Do we make a provision for bigamy?

We could I suppose, I think that is an issue in Africa right now and it’s not condemned anywhere in our faith it is just common western practice.

Interesting thought.

 

[JimG]

There’s a solution there to that situation, but it doesn’t play with the spirit of Ecumenicalism that we so love today. Although it would, of course, play with all those mean old councils people don’t like to talk about anymore.

Simply declare that since many of the non-Catholic churches, due to their stance on divorce and gay “marriage” and aboriton, have gone so far from Christ’s teaching that the Pauline privilege now applies to them (I guess it would apply to any of their “baptisms” too). Or, specifically in their case, that since the marriage wasn’t Catholic it didn’t exist because those churches can’t do a valid marriage due to their terrible views on the idea.

They’ll get mad that we’re calling them unbelievers and such, but they’ll get over it and many of them are dying out anyway.

I think that might have some merit. The general thinking with respect to marriage in other than Catholic venues is that it is not permanent. That in itself would make the marriage invalid through a lack of proper intentioon. Of course, it would result in more annulments even than we have now.

 

[JimG]

We could I suppose, I think that is an issue in Africa right now and it’s not condemned anywhere in our faith it is just common western practice.

Interesting thought.

Are you thinking that the Curch might allow for a man or woman to have two equally valid marriages at the same time?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Are you thinking that the Curch might allow for a man or woman to have two equally valid marriages at the same time?

No not really, but maybe treat the remarried as they address bigamy and polygamy.

I don’t think this likely, but it’s interesting to think about and Christian and Jewish history is certainly complex on the matter.

Read this and think of the remarried in its context.

2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

 

[Jon_S_1]

A woman wrote into the forum last year in a similar situation as this (though it was 3 kids instead of 10).
She came “back to the faith” and then tried for 2 years to get an annulment of her first, one-year marriage that had happened 20 years earlier, but could not.
I’d say about 90 percent of the people here advised her that she had to either live with her husband platonically in separate bedrooms…or leave her husband and children and her very happy marriage and family; she had to split them apart.

Oh, and of course…she was supposed to seek out the guy from 20 years ago because he was her rightful husband that God had put her together with (it was a Catholic ceremony).

She was assured over and over that this was what God wanted.

After reading hundreds of posts…she decided she would not break up her happy family, thankfully. And she also decided she would continue having sex and making babies with her husband of ten years.
And during mass when it’s communion time, she doesn’t go up.

She thinks–and I agree–that this God would rather she keep her family together.

.

I agree here. I think it is easy to say stop having sex or break up your family when it’s not your family

 

[JimG]

A woman wrote into the forum last year in a similar situation as this (though it was 3 kids instead of 10).
She came “back to the faith” and then tried for 2 years to get an annulment of her first, one-year marriage that had happened 20 years earlier, but could not.
I’d say about 90 percent of the people here advised her that she had to either live with her husband platonically in separate bedrooms…or leave her husband and children and her very happy marriage and family; she had to split them apart.

Oh, and of course…she was supposed to seek out the guy from 20 years ago because he was her rightful husband that God had put her together with (it was a Catholic ceremony).

She was assured over and over that this was what God wanted.

After reading hundreds of posts…she decided she would not break up her happy family, thankfully. And she also decided she would continue having sex and making babies with her husband of ten years.
And during mass when it’s communion time, she doesn’t go up.

She thinks–and I agree–that this God would rather she keep her family together.

.

This is pretty much the way that my wife’s aunt settled a similar marriage situation many decades ago. Her first marriage ended rather quickly when the husband simply abandoned her. Her annulment request was denied. (This was in the period in which the tribunals seldom granted annulments and the grounds were strictly interpreted.)

I did not know her at the time, but knew her and her second husband when they were older. They never had children, however. Once I told her that she ought to consider taking the matter to a second tribunal on an appellate basis since the process had been considerably changed in the meantime. She declined, saying the matter was decided and she accepted the decision.

However, she remained with her second husband until his death, attended Mass every Sunday without receiving communion, and was quite active in her parish. At some point in his life her husband became impotent due to age, and at that point she began receiving communion again. No one including her pastor ever advised her to try to reunite with the first husband; I don’t think anyone knew his whereabouts anyway.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

A woman wrote into the forum last year in a similar situation as this (though it was 3 kids instead of 10).
She came “back to the faith” and then tried for 2 years to get an annulment of her first, one-year marriage that had happened 20 years earlier, but could not.
I’d say about 90 percent of the people here advised her that she had to either live with her husband platonically in separate bedrooms…or leave her husband and children and her very happy marriage and family; she had to split them apart.

Oh, and of course…she was supposed to seek out the guy from 20 years ago because he was her rightful husband that God had put her together with (it was a Catholic ceremony).

She was assured over and over that this was what God wanted.

After reading hundreds of posts…she decided she would not break up her happy family, thankfully. And she also decided she would continue having sex and making babies with her husband of ten years.
And during mass when it’s communion time, she doesn’t go up.

She thinks–and I agree–that this God would rather she keep her family together.

.

That is a sad story and the sort of situation that I think that Tagle (as well as Pope Francis) is trying to address. I’ve had many bad personal experiences with the Church so the only reason why I actually stay is because of Communion; if I couldn’t receive Communion, then I’d split the Church within a second. I’d actually have advised this women to become Episcopalian.