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

[pnewton]

“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.”

This addresses the one issue I have with the annulment problem, and by issue, I mean the part that due to our human limitations is by its nature inconsistent. Given that:

1. A tribunal does not make a marriage null, but only recognizes its nullity.
2. Tribunals are not infallible.
3. In any individual case, the tribunal could be objectively wrong, then
4. Anyone in a second marriage civilly may still be in their first valid marriage factually, with a decree of nullity, without a decree of nullity, or with a rejected request for annulment. This would mean, being they are in objectively their first valid marriage, they are not objectively committing adultery. Also,

Anyone who is in their second civil marriage with a decree of nullity for the first, might in fact be in a invalid second marriage, with the first marriage being valid. Obviously in this case there likely would be zero consent in the commission of adultery, unless the person knew he deceived the tribunal.

 

[dans0622]

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.

…

Hello,

From the strictly legal, canonical perspective of the Church, it is akin to mere cohabitation. Nevertheless, the legal system of the Church recognizes the legitimacy of the civil State and its authority over its citizens. The legal system of the Church is able to, on the one hand, say “Your marital contract doesn’t even exist in our system” but to also admit “Your marital contract before the State is, per se, a public reality.” Mere cohabitation is not, per se, a public reality.

*Familiaris consortio * n. 82 states:

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… 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.

What I am getting at is the “public recognition” the Pope mentioned.

Dan

 

[OraLabora]

Hello,

From the strictly legal, canonical perspective of the Church, it is akin to mere cohabitation. Nevertheless, the legal system of the Church recognizes the legitimacy of the civil State and its authority over its citizens. The legal system of the Church is able to, on the one hand, say “Your marital contract doesn’t even exist in our system” but to also admit “Your marital contract before the State is, per se, a public reality.” Mere cohabitation is not, per se, a public reality.

*Familiaris consortio * n. 82 states:

What I am getting at is the “public recognition” the Pope mentioned.

Dan

It is true that a civil marriage provides a level of social recognition beyond cohabiting. I think part of the Church’s recognition though is because of those states where the Church’s ministers do not have the power to witness a legal marriage, unlike those states like the US or Canada where the state delegates that power to the clergy. In Europe, usually only the state can marry legally. Therefore in those states, the Church requires that couples do the civil marriage first, then have the sacramental marriage (which has no civil legal effect) in the Church.

The Church does also recognize a civil marriage between two non-baptized people as a natural valid marriage, that becomes sacramental when the two parties become baptized. So I see where you’re coming from.

But for two Catholics to contract a civil marriage without a sacramental one, results in an invalid marriage.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out at the next Synod.

 

[JimG]

This addresses the one issue I have with the annulment problem, and by issue, I mean the part that due to our human limitations is by its nature inconsistent. Given that:

1. A tribunal does not make a marriage null, but only recognizes its nullity.
2. Tribunals are not infallible.
3. In any individual case, the tribunal could be objectively wrong, then
4. Anyone in a second marriage civilly may still be in their first valid marriage factually, with a decree of nullity, without a decree of nullity, or with a rejected request for annulment. This would mean, being they are in objectively their first valid marriage, they are not objectively committing adultery. Also,

Anyone who is in their second civil marriage with a decree of nullity for the first, might in fact be in a invalid second marriage, with the first marriage being valid. Obviously in this case there likely would be zero consent in the commission of adultery, unless the person knew he deceived the tribunal.

A tribunal could be objectively wrong, yes. But at least a tribunal has evidentiary procedures. The alternative—and perhaps this is the way we are headed—is to replace the tribunal with judgments made by pastors or confessors, who could also be objectively wrong, and who might in fact have some built-in non-objectivity.

Well, even Jesus’ disciples didn’t like his teaching on marriage. It seems that nobody does.

I recall when I was in high school, a priest who was a religion teacher made it very simple for us. Be careful about who you marry, he told the class, because marriage is for life. And even if he, or she, leaves you, you will still be married for life. You won’t be able to get married again, at least not in the Catholic Church.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

How’s that? Many of those churches, if not all, don’t even consider Matrimony a sacrament. And that’s really the underlying issue here.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

How’s that? Many of those churches, if not all, don’t even consider Matrimony a sacrament. And that’s really the underlying issue here.

I think that you misunderstand what I am getting at. Outside the Sacraments, I don’t think that there is any reason to remain Catholic. In my own experience, Catholic schools and parishes have been places of division, exclusion, and bullying. The bad experiences that I have had at Catholic parishes outweigh good ones by a wide margin. I’ve been to Protestant parishes which are much warmer and more welcoming. So I’m not sure why people who cannot receive Communion stick with the Catholic Church. Just become Episcopalian. The Episcopalian parish down the street from me is quite warm and welcoming. I went a service there and people introduced themselves and asked my name. That never happens in Catholic parishes.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think that you misunderstand what I am getting at. Outside the Sacraments, I don’t think that there is any reason to remain Catholic. In my own experience, Catholic schools and parishes have been places of division, exclusion, and bullying. The bad experiences that I have had at Catholic parishes outweigh good ones by a wide margin. I’ve been to Protestant parishes which are much warmer and more welcoming. So I’m not sure why people who cannot receive Communion stick with the Catholic Church. Just become Episcopalian. The Episcopalian parish down the street from me is quite warm and welcoming. I went a service there and people introduced themselves and asked my name. That never happens in Catholic parishes.

Perhaps it has to do with wanting to go to the church founded by Christ instead of one founded by a man…I would never go back to evangelicalism for that reason alone. It’s not about feeling good it’s about worshiping God the way he asks us.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve been to Protestant parishes which are much warmer and more welcoming.

I know. I’ve been there too.

But they don’t have valid (real) sacraments because for one thing they do not have Apostolic Succession to answer to.

One can also find communion at a Polish oplatki (unconsecrated bread) meal.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

I know. I’ve been there too.

But they don’t have valid (real) sacraments because for one thing they do not have Apostolic Succession to answer to.

One can also find communion at a Polish oplatki (unconsecrated bread) meal.

Yes… And there is the problem for remarried Catholics. Why would you want to stay with a Church where you receive none of the grace of the Sacraments and deal with all of the issues? Would you really find grace in being bullied or dealing with the divisions and fights that occur at the regular Catholic parish? The Church is denying people the Sacraments and expecting them to stay for what? The annual fight over who gets to chair the rummage sale or the flower arrangements for the Easter Vigil? Why would they want to stay? They are getting nothing out of it.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Perhaps it has to do with wanting to go to the church founded by Christ instead of one founded by a man…I would never go back to evangelicalism for that reason alone. It’s not about feeling good it’s about worshiping God the way he asks us.

It is the same form of worship. Mainline Protestantism isn’t that different from Catholicism.

 

[JimG]

It is the same form of worship. Mainline Protestantism isn’t that different from Catholicism.

It is different at least in the fact that it disregards Jesus’ teachings about marriage, and therein lies the problem. That’s not the only teaching that has been discarded, but that’s what is being discussed here.

 

[McCall1981]

This is from Pope Francis’ most recent interview, where he talks about communion for the remarried. It was translated from the Spanish in this thread in the Apologetics forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12831760&posted=1#post12831760

I think this is pretty encouraging:

Interviewer: “Pope Francis, obviously one priority theme of the last two years also has been the Synod of the Family, along with all that it has generated, let’s say. At the Synod, you gave full liberty for everyone to say what he thought. Among the cardinals, some pressed down the accelerator, the others pressed down the brake; some said that you wanted the accelerator pressed down. What do you expect from this second Synod? Do you believe that it has created too much expectation for those couples who suffer: the divorced who have remarried [outside the Church] – the homosexuals? Do you believe that they have some expectations which go too far beyond what then they are going to be able to get? The divorced who have remarried [outside the Church] - will they be able to receive Communion? How great will the acceptance be for the world of the homosexuals?”

Francus: "I think that there are unrealistic expectations, isn’t that so? It was not me who wanted the Synod on the Family. The Lord wanted it…

…Because the family is in crisis. Not perhaps the more traditional crisis of infidelity, or like they call it in Mexico, “the little house” and “the big house.” No, no, but it’s a more basic crisis. You see the young people don’t want to get married; or they live together. And they aren’t doing it to protest anything, but they express these things this way. After a long while, some get married, others get married in the Church.

"Oh, you know there is a family crisis inside the family, and from this point of view, I believe that what the Lord wants is that we confront this: marriage preparation coming to those who live together, coming to those who get married; and those who bring their family up well; coming to those who have failed their family and have made a new union. Preparation for the Sacrament of Matrimony; they are not prepared. And how many marriages that are social occasions! They are null! Because of the lack of faith.

…"Well, the family in crisis. How to integrate families in the life of the Church that are “replay families”, no? That is to say, those families of a second union that at times result, the phenomena … that it was a failure. How to reintegrate them, no? For they will come to the Church, then each one… [he trails off].

**"They simplify it and they say, “Ah, they’re going to give Communion to the divorced.” With this, one solves nothing. That which the Church wants is that you integrate yourself into the life of the Church.

But there are some that say, “No. I want to take Communion, and soon.” [Like] a ribbon award. A merit badge. No. Oh, you know, re-integrate yourself! **

"There are seven things which those who are in a second union cannot do, according to the actual legislation. I do not agree on them all, but one is that they are not to be godparents for Baptism. Why? And what testimony is it going to give to the godchild? “Look, dear one, I messed up in my life, now I am in this situation. I am Catholic. The principles are these. I did this and I accompany you.” A testimony of the truth. But a mafioso comes to you, a delinquent, one that has killed people, but as he was married in the Church, he can be a godparent. Oh, you know, these contradictions.

One thing that – and one has to integrate them in this and not to teach catechesis. Why not? Why not? If they believe, already they are in a situation that dissolves itself, called irregular – and should they recognize it and should they accept it, and should they know what the Church thinks of these things; it is not an impediment. When we speak about integrating, it is to insert all this, after the interior processes to come to them."

 

[Jon_S_1]

It is the same form of worship. Mainline Protestantism isn’t that different from Catholicism.

It’s completely different.

It is to deny the church of Christ and commit apostasy do that I could have a false sense of self.

 

[pnewton]

It is the same form of worship. Mainline Protestantism isn’t that different from Catholicism.

This is not the forum for the presentation of anti-Catholic argumentation. If you wish to argue against Catholicism that is done on either the apologetics or the non-Catholic forum.

 

[JimG]

In the article, the Cardinal is quoted as saying: “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.”

It is certainly true that the circumstances surrounding each case are unique to the persons involved. Each case must be considered on an individual basis. And yet, that has been exactly the basis of the marriage tribunal system—to take into account the unique circumstances of each individual case before arriving at a decision. Because notwithstanding the unique circumstances, the underlying question to be addressed remains the same: is the marriage a valid and bindng marriage, or is it not?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

This is not the forum for the presentation of anti-Catholic argumentation. If you wish to argue against Catholicism that is done on either the apologetics or the non-Catholic forum.

Excuse me… I’m sorry I’m a cradle Catholic but one who has had bad experiences with the Church both personal as well as with general attitudes toward women. The only thing that keeps me from bailing is that I believe in Catholic Eucharist. I’m just trying to understand what joy and grace remarried people are supposed to receive from the Church. Dealing with the fights over the budget or the bake sale or the school? Catholic parishes are dysfunctional. I’ve been involved in them for over thirty years and those with schools attached are the worst. Even Pope Francis admits that Evangelicals have more Christian communities. I’m really not sure why a remarried person would remain Catholic if they don’t have access to the Sacraments.

Catholics could attempt to build Christian communities like Evangelicals or even mainline Protestants but they have less incentive to given the inertia and institutional nature of the Catholic Church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Excuse me… I’m sorry I’m a cradle Catholic but one who has had bad experiences with the Church both personal as well as with general attitudes toward women. The only thing that keeps me from bailing is that I believe in Catholic Eucharist. I’m just trying to understand what joy and grace remarried people are supposed to receive from the Church. Dealing with the fights over the budget or the bake sale or the school? Catholic parishes are dysfunctional. I’ve been involved in them for over thirty years and those with schools attached are the worst. Even Pope Francis admits that Evangelicals have more Christian communities. I’m really not sure why a remarried person would remain Catholic if they don’t have access to the Sacraments.

Catholics could attempt to build Christian communities like Evangelicals or even mainline Protestants but they have less incentive to given the inertia and institutional nature of the Catholic Church.

I am going to be frank but please don’t take it as rudeness.

I think you are naive about evangelicalism.

Do they throw good parties and foster community? Yes, but they are not immune from fights and power grabs and fights over bake sales and colors of table cloths etc… I’ve been a part of it. It actually gets quite ugly and churches split and pastors “are called” to another ministry (aka fired).

On the flip side an increasing number of parishes are become more familial. Mine is one and is called a stewardship and hospitality parish. It is a vibrant alive community. We have small Christian community small groups, programs for moms, Sunday school, bible studies, men’s and women’s groups, in all over 70 ministries.

So look around a bit for a better experience. Like I said, even without the sacraments I could never dream of going back to the distinctions and errors of my previous church experiences.

 

[Tigg]

So, according to this…(working on the assumption that all first marriages are valid and a tribunal has declared that no annulment can be issued)

1.) Church **doctrine **should now be interpreted to say that Christ did not really mean the words He spoke and that marriage is, indeed, dissoluble…(depending upon individual circumstances)

OR

2.) Sacramental theology declares adultery is no longer a mortal sin and one may receive communion while having sexual relations with another even though still sacramentally married to the first spouse …

OR

3.) If adultery is still a mortal sin, and the first marriage indissoluable then one may still receive communion without being in a state of grace and **not **commit sacrilege…

Someone help me here - **which is it **since this Cardinal says there is no formula for all?

 

[Tigg]

It is the same form of worship. Mainline Protestantism isn’t that different from Catholicism.

Really??

**EXCEPT for the Real Presence **of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament which is our Life and our ALL!

(Perhaps you’d like to start a thread in the non-Catholic subforum)

 

[OraLabora]

So, according to this…(working on the assumption that all first marriages are valid and a tribunal has declared that no annulment can be issued)

1.) Church **doctrine **should now be interpreted to say that Christ did not really mean the words He spoke and that marriage is, indeed, dissoluble…(depending upon individual circumstances)

OR

2.) Sacramental theology declares adultery is no longer a mortal sin and one may receive communion while having sexual relations with another even though still sacramentally married to the first spouse …

OR

3.) If adultery is still a mortal sin, and the first marriage indissoluable then one may still receive communion without being in a state of grace and **not **commit sacrilege…

Someone help me here - **which is it **since this Cardinal says there is no formula for all?

I’m asking in a general way: do you think it is possible for a grave sin to have reduced culpability due to extenuating circumstances?

And if so, do you think it even remotely possible that someone divorced and in a long-term second but invalid marriage may subjectively have a different degree of culpability compared to someone actively cheating on the spouse they currently live with?