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

[_Abyssinia]

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.

These Catholic women who are divorced and remarried do not want the Church to change regarding Communion to the divorced and remarried, and even though they do not receive the Eucharist, they talk about the spiritual Communion they receive:

spectator.co.uk/features/9330022/faith-sin-and-divorce/

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/my-plea

 

[OraLabora]

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.

I feel the same. If it weren’t for the sacramental grace received from the Eucharist my life would be a much bigger mess than it is (and fortunately at this time it’s no longer too messy). I wouldn’t see the point of being in a sacramental Church without being able to partake of the sacraments.

One thing people also forget to mention here is that the divorced and remarried are currently barred from all sacraments. They also may not receive the sacrament of reconciliation unless then end their “objectively sinful” lifestyle by either separating or terminating sexual relations. They cannot be confirmed if baptized but not confirmed. And of course their union is non-sacramental. Therefore no sacramental grace at all.

I fail to see, personally, much “spiritual communion” in such a situation, when even the healing of the sacrament of reconciliation is denied.

ISTM that it should be possible to recognize that although a situation is objectively gravely sinful, subjectively culpability may be reduced in certain circumstances. That has always been the case for other sins. Therefore this is something I think can and should be dealt with in the confessional, and the confessional should be opened up to people in this situation in order to make that assessment.

 

[JimG]

Of course, culpability is a matter for a confessor to decide. I do not think that is the problem though. The problem is how to deal with a presumptively valid first marriage. It was not the Church that decided that marriage was a lifetime unbreakable bond, it was Jesus. The Church cannot just decide that “well, He was wrong about this matter.”

In order to solve many of the situations in favor of a second or third marriage, there is going to have to be something pretty close to a presumption of invalidity on the part of first marriages, which is quite different from the current view, wherein the Church presumes validity unless proven otherwise.

When a whole society no longer takes marriage seriously, perhaps a presumption of invalidity might be appropriate, but that would be a significant change.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

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

I’m not really surprised at how often this advice is given; it is the only moral solution that I can see. But I am a little bit surprised at how flippant many people appear to be when they give it. You know, easy peasy, just move into separate bedrooms and live apart from the only spouse that you’ve ever known. It’s something that I don’t think that many people are even capable of doing.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Of course, culpability is a matter for a confessor to decide. I do not think that is the problem though. The problem is how to deal with a presumptively valid first marriage. It was not the Church that decided that marriage was a lifetime unbreakable bond, it was Jesus. The Church cannot just decide that “well, He was wrong about this matter.”

In order to solve many of the situations in favor of a second or third marriage, there is going to have to be something pretty close to a presumption of invalidity on the part of first marriages, which is quite different from the current view, wherein the Church presumes validity unless proven otherwise.

When a whole society no longer takes marriage seriously, perhaps a presumption of invalidity might be appropriate, but that would be a significant change.

I think this may be the way to go, I grew up conservative evangelical protestant as did my ex wife. We had a high respect for marriage, so we thought.

But only after becoming Catholic did I realize what marriage really was and how little I knew about marriage.

If that’s the case for conservative practicing evangelicals, it’s probably true for most marriages outside the Catholic Church. Sadly even some from within as well.

 

[JimG]

These Catholic women who are divorced and remarried do not want the Church to change regarding Communion to the divorced and remarried, and even though they do not receive the Eucharist, they talk about the spiritual Communion they receive:

spectator.co.uk/features/9330022/faith-sin-and-divorce/

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/my-plea

“The day my soul became Catholic was the day I found out that as a divorced and remarried woman I could not receive Communion. Tears of sorrow and joy flowed. Sorrow because I had by then grasped the truth of transubstantiation, only to find I couldn’t consume, and joy because at last we found the ground of real authority—his Church, the one he founded, the one tasked to keep all he taught her Apostles.”firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/my-plea

A quite touching story by Luma Simms, who wishes for no change in Church practice regarding marriage.

It seems to me that the aspect of receiving communion is overemphasized. There is no obligation whatever to receive communion at every Mass. But we are obligated to attend Mass every Sunday and on days of obligation. Making ourselves present at the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary is not a small matter. It is an essential matter. We can still join our own sacrifices to that of Christ.

It was St. Paul who warned his readers that some of them were getting sick and dying from receiving the Eucharist unworthily. He didn’t tell them to refrain from the Mass, just from communion until they were once again fully reconciled.

In the parish of my youth, it was not common for everyone in attendance at Mass to receive communion. And it was common that those who did receive, had been to confession on Saturday.

The topic for the synod ought to be marriage, not communion.

 

[OraLabora]

Of course, culpability is a matter for a confessor to decide. I do not think that is the problem though. The problem is how to deal with a presumptively valid first marriage. It was not the Church that decided that marriage was a lifetime unbreakable bond, it was Jesus. The Church cannot just decide that “well, He was wrong about this matter.”

In order to solve many of the situations in favor of a second or third marriage, there is going to have to be something pretty close to a presumption of invalidity on the part of first marriages, which is quite different from the current view, wherein the Church presumes validity unless proven otherwise.

When a whole society no longer takes marriage seriously, perhaps a presumption of invalidity might be appropriate, but that would be a significant change.

The ongoing problem is not the validity of the first marriage, it is the continuation of a life that involves objective sin. For someone abandoned, there is no mortal sin attached to the civil divorce but there is to the conjugal relationship with a new partner. Even if the first marriage was declared nul, but the couple continued to live in a conjugal relationship without having the marriage convalidated, they are still in a state of objective grave sin.

A couple who have never before been married are in exactly the same situation, they are in a continued state of objective fornication.

The difference is that the never-married cohabiting couple, or the one with a decree of nullity, can do something about it. The one who cannot get a decree of nullity, cannot.

In all these cases as long as the couple are living together in a conjugal relationship, the couple is barred from all of the sacraments, not just communion, until either one of two things happens: they separate, or live together as brother and sister.

The solution, IMHO, is not always through the annulment of the first marriage. If it cannot be annulled because of a non-cooperative ex-spouse or other reason, the solution is to determine that the ongoing conjugal relationship, while objectively gravely sinful, is subjectively of venial culpability.

That is an issue of discipline, and not doctrine. Again, as these issues are complex including fault for the first marriage failure, it should be dealt with in confession, with the confessor being provided with clear guidelines. For instance a remarried woman who left an abusive husband 20 years ago, or was abandoned by him, would not be treated the same way as a man who just recently abandoned is wife to shack up with a younger woman.

What many are asking is for a chance for those caught in the first example, to rebuild their lives and have access to the sacraments. For those in the second example, you reap what you sow.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The ongoing problem is not the validity of the first marriage, it is the continuation of a life that involves objective sin. For someone abandoned, there is no mortal sin attached to the civil divorce but there is to the conjugal relationship with a new partner. Even if the first marriage was declared nul, but the couple continued to live in a conjugal relationship without having the marriage convalidated, they are still in a state of objective grave sin.

A couple who have never before been married are in exactly the same situation, they are in a continued state of objective fornication.

The difference is that the never-married cohabiting couple, or the one with a decree of nullity, can do something about it. The one who cannot get a decree of nullity, cannot.

In all these cases as long as the couple are living together in a conjugal relationship, the couple is barred from all of the sacraments, not just communion, until either one of two things happens: they separate, or live together as brother and sister.

The solution, IMHO, is not always through the annulment of the first marriage. If it cannot be annulled because of a non-cooperative ex-spouse or other reason, the solution is to determine that the ongoing conjugal relationship, while objectively gravely sinful, is subjectively of venial culpability.

That is an issue of discipline, and not doctrine. Again, as these issues are complex including fault for the first marriage failure, it should be dealt with in confession, with the confessor being provided with clear guidelines. For instance a remarried woman who left an abusive husband 20 years ago, or was abandoned by him, would not be treated the same way as a man who just recently abandoned is wife to shack up with a younger woman.

What many are asking is for a chance for those caught in the first example, to rebuild their lives and have access to the sacraments. For those in the second example, you reap what you sow.

It seems people are always quick to point out there are 3 requirements for mortal sin:
Grave matter
Willful choice
Knowledge of it

But with this issue it gets reduced to one…grave matter equals mortal sin. I think your on the right track here.

 

[graciew]

I feel the same. If it weren’t for the sacramental grace received from the Eucharist my life would be a much bigger mess than it is (and fortunately at this time it’s no longer too messy). I wouldn’t see the point of being in a sacramental Church without being able to partake of the sacraments.

One thing people also forget to mention here is that the divorced and remarried are currently barred from all sacraments. They also may not receive the sacrament of reconciliation unless then end their “objectively sinful” lifestyle by either separating or terminating sexual relations. They cannot be confirmed if baptized but not confirmed. And of course their union is non-sacramental. Therefore no sacramental grace at all.

I fail to see, personally, much “spiritual communion” in such a situation, when even the healing of the sacrament of reconciliation is denied.

ISTM that it should be possible to recognize that although a situation is objectively gravely sinful, subjectively culpability may be reduced in certain circumstances. That has always been the case for other sins. Therefore this is something I think can and should be dealt with in the confessional, and the confessional should be opened up to people in this situation in order to make that assessment.

Well,I do see the effort of couples who do not fail to attend a single Mass and participate lovingly and actively in the parish and obediently do not receive Communion.
Who knows if they are doing at the best of their capacity as any of us with our faults.who knows what his short previous marriage had been like.
I do appreciate their effort and they have been a source of encouragement for me when being in " good standing with the Church" I was sometimes lazy about Mass.
If I who am so so limited in so many ways can see this,how much more can God see.
Maybe Mass and community were a source of strength to try,maybe they gave them the strength to bring up their children in the church which they did.
And no. None of us advised them to change to any Church,we loved them dearly. The church is our family. As we are. Crooked,blind,deaf,and all.He passed away two months ago.

I do not know what will happen in the future,but right her and now,may God bless those who remain in this family with its lights and shadows, in spite of the fact they cannot receive the Sacraments. The door to the priest was always open for help and guidance. Bless the priest for his obedience and love too.
I just could not keep this to myself.

 

[JimG]

It seems people are always quick to point out there are 3 requirements for mortal sin:
Grave matter
Willful choice
Knowledge of it

But with this issue it gets reduced to one…grave matter equals mortal sin. I think your on the right track here.

I mentioned my wife’s aunt previously. She was not culpable for the divorce. She was of course culpable for her own remarriage. If my own opinion were asked I would say that her first marriage was invalid because of the husband’s lack of valid intention. But I wasn’t there and I am not the tribunal and they didn’t see it that way. She accepted their decision. She continued to live as a faithful Catholic and to attend Mass every Sunday and was active in her parish. She did not receive communion.

I just don’t see this as primarily a matter of culpability. It’s a question of whether a person can be in two valid marriages at once. Or if a person can be in an admittedly invalid marriage while disregarding the consequences of that.

I can’t judge the validity of my aunt’s first marriage, but I can pretty much guess her reaction to current suggestions. If her parish pastor had told her, “Well, Mary, your annulment was denied. But he did abandon you and you weren’t responsible for that. And your current husband is a good man. You just come to confession and I’ll absolve you and then you can keep receiving communion while remaining in an invalid marriage,” I know what her reply would have been: “Thanks, Father. Of course I’ll keep coming to Mass. I’ll keep being active in the parish. But I won’t be receiving communion, unless you have the personal power to declare my first marriage null and my current one valid.”

 

[JimG]

Another quote from Luma Simms:

“Some people may be shocked at the idea of submitting to a church that tells me because I’m divorced and remarried I can’t take Communion. But unless it can be shown otherwise, any tampering with Communion for the divorced and remarried will corrupt the doctrine of marriage, and—by diminishing the image of the Church as bride of Christ—debase the Church.”

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/my-plea

 

[dans0622]

…A couple who have never before been married are in exactly the same situation, they are in a continued state of objective fornication.
…
The solution, IMHO, is not always through the annulment of the first marriage. If it cannot be annulled because of a non-cooperative ex-spouse or other reason, the solution is to determine that the ongoing conjugal relationship, while objectively gravely sinful, is subjectively of venial culpability.

…

Hello,

I would say that they are not in “exactly the same situation” since the fact of a civil marriage adds another “layer” of objective/public reality, compared to those who are merely cohabiting.

As to the possibility of venial culpability, what do you think could typically lead to this? The matter is always grave. Knowledge will always be present (if we’re dealing with people who are aware that their situation is “irregular” and are aware of the Commandments). That leaves freedom. Do married couples (who have a good relationship worth maintaining) tend to engage in relations while lacking in freedom? I suppose it’s possible but it doesn’t seem normal to me.

Dan

 

[OraLabora]

Hello,

I would say that they are not in “exactly the same situation” since the fact of a civil marriage adds another “layer” of objective/public reality, compared to those who are merely cohabiting.

As to the possibility of venial culpability, what do you think could typically lead to this? The matter is always grave. Knowledge will always be present (if we’re dealing with people who are aware that their situation is “irregular” and are aware of the Commandments). That leaves freedom. Do married couples (who have a good relationship worth maintaining) tend to engage in relations while lacking in freedom? I suppose it’s possible but it doesn’t seem normal to me.

Dan

As far as the Church is concerned, two Catholics who are in a civil marriage are merely cohabiting. They are in a state of objective moral sin.

To answer your other question: if you are married, in a good relationship for many years, how easy is it to give up sex if both are healthy? How healthy would it be for the marriage to give it up indefinitely? I suggest it is not a realistic expectation; nor is separation if there are children from the union, and the additional strain of a sexless marriage may just lead to that. How realistic is it to oblige someone who was abandoned early in a marriage (or forced out due to serious abuse) to remain single for the rest of their lives because the broken marriage is deemed valid?

How easy is it for an addict to give up alcohol? Masturbation? Drugs?

Of course the option always exists to deny one’s self the sacraments. Note, not just communion, but confession as well, as the divorced and remarried are barred from the sacraments, not just communion.

How easy is it to be a Catholic without any sacramental grace?

What would be the impact of making annulments so easy to get that it would be considered “Catholic divorce”? Would it be preferable to make annulments hard to get, but instead show mercy in the confessional for the sin of a civil marriage after divorce?

These are all questions above my pay grade, but the Church needs to answer them.

I think Cardinal Tagle is making sense about there not being a “one size fits all” solution.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Rather than responding via exact quote, I am going to respond with various themes.

First, there is nothing to suggest that if there is some sort of pastoral solution that those who are remarried or even divorced and wish to abstain from Communion cannot continue to do so. The issue is that there are people who feel the need for the grace of the Sacraments in their spiritual life and the remarried people who don’t wish to receive the Sacraments are denying them that sustenance. This isn’t a one size fits all. As for the women mentioned, I’m not sure about the First Things woman but Louise Mensch is basically a drama queen. As a drama queen myself, that is obvious by just reading the woman’s Twitter feed and essay. It is very much a look at me! and praise me! sort of thing. It really is far from the healthiest sort of awareness.

Second, the Church tends to deal with extremes rather than grays. This is because if they give an inch, the Church suspects that people will demand a mile. The situation reminds me of the three strikes law. Yes, it is a miscarriage of justice when a serial rapist gets probation, but it is also a miscarriage of justice when a small time thief goes to jail for life for shoplifting a stick of gum. The Church is so concerned about a rich serial monogamist like a Kennedy or Newt Gingrich trading in for a younger model that it doesn’t understand that the other extreme, perhaps an abuse victim, also gets caught in the absolutes. The Church needs to look at each case individually. These things may need to be calibrated by priests, bishops, and the current and future popes to make sure the pendulum doesn’t swing too far to the left but there needs to be more kairos than there currently is. The Church cannot let the worst scenario deny mercy to all.

Lastly, the only grace that I receive from the Church is the Sacraments, namely Communion. I mentioned this beforehand but I had quite a bad experience in Catholic school. I was bullied by a group of popular girls in sixth grade to the point of a nervous breakdown and eating disorder. The school did nothing about it and a priest even told my mother that it was my fault because I was too shy. The popular girls were from very wealthy families so that was why. When I was in high school, I also found that punishment was handed out by wealth. The wealthy kids never got punished for anything. My parents were very involved in the parishes I went to as a child and were involved in similar bullying situations to me at school. As an adult, I’ve seen friends denied Catholic marriages because of their living arrangements or the fact that one of them lacks Confirmation. My father’s pastor refused to provide my father with help after his mother died. Of the priests I’ve met careerists or immature traditionalists outnumber pastoral types by a huge margin. So I am not sure what beauty or comfort I am supposed to receive outside the Eucharist.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Sorry for your bad experiences, but I just want to share that I have found tremendous grace in my parish in a lot of different places besides the sacraments. I hope that my experience is more common than you’ve seen.

 

[baliano]

In fact, as I’m sure you all know…for many, many centuries people were only obligated to get communion once or twice a year, I think it is.

.

That’s an odd way of looking at communion! Don’t you think people wanted to receive rather than being “obligated” to receive?

Way back when communion was not by row it was much less conspicuous for anyone not feeling worthy or simply not wanting to receive to remain in the pew. Today those not receiving are very obvious, in fact I suspect many are compelled to receive when they really should not.

 

[JimG]

That’s an odd way of looking at communion! Don’t you think people wanted to receive rather than being “obligated” to receive?

Way back when communion was not by row it was much less conspicuous for anyone not feeling worthy or simply not wanting to receive to remain in the pew. Today those not receiving are very obvious, in fact I suspect many are compelled to receive when they really should not.

And yet it remains true that one is obligated to attend Mass every Sunday–even if in the state of mortal sin. Attending Mass is our primary obligation. Receiving communion is not required. In fact, the front of the missalette has instructions for what is needed to receive communion.

You are right that having the ushers send communicants up row by row can make one feel conspicuous if not receiving. It is a practice that ought to be ended.

 

[baliano]

In fact, as I’m sure you all know…for many, many centuries people were only obligated to get communion once or twice a year, I think it is.

.

I see that word “obligated” used a lot in the Catholic religion.
People often call going to mass their “Sunday obligation” even if they *want *to go.

In using that word here, I was re-quoting what the poster I was responding to said:
*It seems to me that the aspect of receiving communion is overemphasized. There is **no obligation ***whatever to receive communion at every Mass. But we are obligated to attend Mass every Sunday and on days of obligation.

I imagine some or many people wanted to have communion–and maybe some did not.
But the point is that for hundreds of years they were not expected to and people rarely did it.
Not until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (I think it was?) was it decreed that Catholics had to receive communion at least once a year at Easter.
Or as the Encyclopedia Brittanica writes, the council “obliged Catholics” to do so.

.

As recently as the early sixties many did not receive if they even remotely thought they had become unworthy due to some sin. I get a little sensitive to the expression “obliged to receive” because I feel that has actually become a reality today due partly to poor catechesis and partly due to the communion by row exposure and I fear it is causing many to receive when they should not.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Sorry for your bad experiences, but I just want to share that I have found tremendous grace in my parish in a lot of different places besides the sacraments. I hope that my experience is more common than you’ve seen.

I’ve actually found more grace when I attend non-Catholic churches. I’m not sure I’d ever feel grace in a place where I couldn’t fully belong.

 

[pnewton]

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.

That is not always an option, especially if there are children involved. Add to that sometimes couples find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own, and we can see why Cardinal Tagle is so wary of the one size fits all solution.