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

[ProVobis]

I’m really not sure why a remarried person would remain Catholic if they don’t have access to the Sacraments.

Maybe because he/she still has the graces bestowed on him/her through the Sacrament of Matrimony, which you keep on neglecting? Not to mention Baptism and Confirmation.

 

[Jon_S_1]

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?

Rethink position 2. Adultery is objectively grave matter. It is not always a mortal sin. In order for it to be a mortal sin one must have full knowledge and will. Two things that are potentially compromised in a remarriage situation.

 

[ProVobis]

Rethink position 2. Adultery is objectively grave matter. It is not always a mortal sin. In order for it to be a mortal sin one must have full knowledge and will. Two things that are potentially compromised in a remarriage situation.

Yes, but if you marry or remarry in a compromised situation, i.e. without full knowledge and consent, how valid is that marriage, even on a civil level?

It isn’t.

 

[Tigg]

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?

These are very good questions not meant for the laity, but for those in the hierarchy to judge and issue proclamations according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the infallible (and perennial) teaching of the Church founded by Christ himself.

Did you see the recent theological assessment here?:

nvjournal.net/files/essays-front-page/recent-proposals-a-theological-assessment.pdf

And, of course, the book written by five Princes of the Church, “Remaining in the Truth of Christ” whose judgment is that the Church has always fully proclaimed the truth and since this relates to Divine Law, it may not be changed at all. I am still reading this material (and praying.) It is so difficult when our shepherds do not speak with a united voice although that’s what the synod’s all about, right?

While God is all merciful and wills all to be saved, how does one (pastorally) negate the truth as revealed by Christ by interjecting that the *discipline *is not based upon the doctrine? (I’m asking sincerely.) I think there are possibilities with your insight as to extenuating circumstances, but just how does the human element judge hearts which only Christ can know?

Please post your own comments after reading the assessment regarding the orientation of ones life. If a person has turned his face away from God, knowing full well the consequences of being dead in sin, but is unwilling to “repent” through change, (repentance meaning a renewal of the mind and will as the Church teaches) how does one still receive absolution knowing that there is no difference in the actual circumstances of ones sinful lifestyle ?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, but if you marry or remarry in a compromised situation, i.e. without full knowledge and consent, how valid is that marriage, even on a civil level?

It isn’t.

A marriage that you did under the knowledge or even instruction that remarriage is moral is civilly valid and creates a knowledge issue as far as catholicism is concerned.

Further the idea of separation/abstainance in order to receive the sacraments creates a potential barrier to contrition because of a sense of coercision (implicit not explicit)

This is why I feel rather than a very overly liberal annulment process, individual work with a priest to understand marriage, determine culpability and a path of penance reconciliation is better than paying money for a piece of paper.

I think we can do better for people’s spiritual well being without compromising any dogmas or doctrine of the church.

 

[Tigg]

Rethink position 2. Adultery is objectively grave matter. It is not always a mortal sin. In order for it to be a mortal sin one must have full knowledge and will. Two things that are potentially compromised in a remarriage situation.

Are you suggesting that a Catholic married in the Catholic Church does not somehow know that the Church will never allow divorce and remarriage? Our catechesis must be worse than I thought!

 

[Jon_S_1]

These are very good questions not meant for the laity, but for those in the hierarchy to judge and issue proclamations according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the infallible (and perennial) teaching of the Church founded by Christ himself.

Did you see the recent theological assessment here?:

nvjournal.net/files/essays-front-page/recent-proposals-a-theological-assessment.pdf

And, of course, the book written by five Princes of the Church, “Remaining in the Truth of Christ” whose judgment is that the Church has always fully proclaimed the truth and since this relates to Divine Law, it may not be changed at all. I am still reading this material (and praying.) It is so difficult when our shepherds do not speak with a united voice although that’s what the synod’s all about, right?

While God is all merciful and wills all to be saved, how does one (pastorally) negate the truth as revealed by Christ by interjecting that the *discipline *is not based upon the doctrine? (I’m asking sincerely.) I think there are possibilities with your insight as to extenuating circumstances, but just how does the human element judge hearts which only Christ can know?

Please post your own comments after reading the assessment regarding the orientation of ones life. If a person has turned his face away from God, knowing full well the consequences of being dead in sin, but is unwilling to “repent” through change, (repentance meaning a renewal of the mind and will as the Church teaches) how does one still receive absolution knowing that there is no difference in the actual circumstances of ones sinful lifestyle ?

I think we are talking about people that never knowingly turned away from God and now are turning toward him, now understand, now are contrite, but now are in sutuations that cannot be undone.

I agree that we need to let the church speak. I will respect anything they say. It is a bit concerning that while the church is actively discussing the issue, some individuals and apostalates have come out saying it cannot be any way but the current way.

What happens when something different does come out? Such people will have to backtrack or deny the church’s authority.

So I hope all can state their opinions and discuss while being open to the idea that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and if they come up with something that is different than my own ideas, it is because the Holy Spirit works at protecting the church, not my opinions.

 

[Tigg]

I think we are talking about people that never knowingly turned away from God and now are turning toward him, now understand, now are contrite, but now are in sutuations that cannot be undone.

I am of the opinion that there is nothing that cannot be “un-done” when one places Christ first in their life. The question is…are they willing to admit fault and harm to others, seek forgiveness if they have, and submit themselves fully to Christ while doing whatever is sacrificially necessary in order to restore grace and full life to all concerned.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I am of the opinion that there is nothing that cannot be “un-done” when one places Christ first in their life. The question is…are they willing to admit fault and harm to others, seek forgiveness if they have, and submit themselves fully to Christ while doing whatever is sacrificially necessary in order to restore grace and full life to all concerned.

What I mean can’t be undone is a civil marriage contract or dividing up for all intensive purposes a family.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

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.

Yes, there are divisions, but no remarried people care about that because they are excluded from the Church. They are excommunicated because of one bad life choice that cannot be undone. I’m sorry but it seems like this… Oh… you can give us money and do brute work because Jesus! bu you can never receive the Sacraments again.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

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)

A remarried person cannot receive the Sacraments so why do they care about it?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, there are divisions, but no remarried people care about that because they are excluded from the Church. They are excommunicated because of one bad life choice that cannot be undone. I’m sorry but it seems like this… Oh… you can give us money and do brute work because Jesus! bu you can never receive the Sacraments again.

The remarried aren’t ex communicated…

 

[sttcatherinefan]

The remarried aren’t ex communicated…

Yes they are unofficially excommunicated. They cannot receive Communion… That is being excommunicated.

 

[ProVobis]

A remarried person cannot receive the Sacraments so why do they care about it?

But they can still participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I often don’t receive and I still benefit from the Mass. And if the community doesn’t like it or takes it personally, then I find another community.

 

[JimG]

A marriage that you did under the knowledge or even instruction that remarriage is moral is civilly valid and creates a knowledge issue as far as catholicism is concerned.

Further the idea of separation/abstainance in order to receive the sacraments creates a potential barrier to contrition because of a sense of coercision (implicit not explicit)

This is why I feel rather than a very overly liberal annulment process, individual work with a priest to understand marriage, determine culpability and a path of penance reconciliation is better than paying money for a piece of paper.

I think we can do better for people’s spiritual well being without compromising any dogmas or doctrine of the church.

But a decree of nullity is no more just a piece of paper than a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper. Both are intended to express a reality.

There are certainly a lot of people in second or third or subsequent marriages, and the Church needs to deal with them in a pastoral manner. I don’t see how the problem can be ‘solved,’ except by somehow “liberalizing” the annulment process, even if nothing more than making it faster, or perhaps in not regarding every marriage as presumptively valid.

Even if a sort of ‘penitential’ process is used—in place of a declaration of nullity, where does that leave us? It leaves us with a presumptively valid first marriage which is in effect being disregarded just the same as if it had been determined to be null.

Suppose a procedure is worked out whereby a person is determined to be non-culpable for the failure of a first marriage and somehow free to receive communion while living in a second, invalid marriage. That person would actually be free to abandon the second spouse at any time and return to the first spouse, simply on the basis that the first marriage remains valid. In fact, if the first marriage is determined to remain valid, the person could abandon the second marriage with reduced culpability at any time, even if not returning to the first spouse.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes they are unofficially excommunicated. They cannot receive Communion… That is being excommunicated.

Nope not at all, sadly it’s errors like this that perpetuate people feeling unwelcome. If your upset about the remarried and the church I suggest you stop calling them ex communicated. They aren’t.

 

[Jon_S_1]

But a decree of nullity is no more just a piece of paper than a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper. Both are intended to express a reality.

There are certainly a lot of people in second or third or subsequent marriages, and the Church needs to deal with them in a pastoral manner. I don’t see how the problem can be ‘solved,’ except by somehow “liberalizing” the annulment process, even if nothing more than making it faster, or perhaps in not regarding every marriage as presumptively valid.

Even if a sort of ‘penitential’ process is used—in place of a declaration of nullity, where does that leave us? It leaves us with a presumptively valid first marriage which is in effect being disregarded just the same as if it had been determined to be null.

Suppose a procedure is worked out whereby a person is determined to be non-culpable for the failure of a first marriage and somehow free to receive communion while living in a second, invalid marriage. That person would actually be free to abandon the second spouse at any time and return to the first spouse, simply on the basis that the first marriage remains valid. In fact, if the first marriage is determined to remain valid, the person could abandon the second marriage with reduced culpability at any time, even if not returning to the first spouse.

could it be handled like the church teaches on polygamous pre conversion marriages?. A duty remains to the previous spouse (s) while the sexual act and cohabitation is relegated to one spouse.

This is all just brainstorming and I love the ideas being tossed around while respecting doctrines. This clearly is s difficult area and I am happy it is men wiser than I making it.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

But they can still participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I often don’t receive and I still benefit from the Mass. And if the community doesn’t like it or takes it personally, then I find another community.

And I and most people I know don’t benefit from the Mass outside Communion. Believe me that is the only part of the Catholic Church I like.

Nope not at all, sadly it’s errors like this that perpetuate people feeling unwelcome. If your upset about the remarried and the church I suggest you stop calling them ex communicated. They aren’t.

They cannot receive the Sacraments which is the essence of being excommunicated. Do they receive an official decree from a bishop? No, but they are excommunicated by virtue of their actions. They cannot receive Communion. And I’m not the one who decided to ostracize people from the Church; that is the Catholic Church’s decision. Stop making Communion a prize for the perfect.

 

[OraLabora]

And I and most people I know don’t benefit from the Mass outside Communion. Believe me that is the only part of the Catholic Church I like.

They cannot receive the Sacraments which is the essence of being excommunicated. Do they receive an official decree from a bishop? No, but they are excommunicated by virtue of their actions. They cannot receive Communion. And I’m not the one who decided to ostracize people from the Church; that is the Catholic Church’s decision. Stop making Communion a prize for the perfect.

They also can’t go to confession. In my personal experience, that sacrament is vitally important to inner conversion (one of my oblate promises BTW). Not being able to confess or receive communion is a serious handicap to conversion and salvation. Knowing my own weaknesses I doubt I could carry on as a Christian without those two sacraments.

 

[ProVobis]

And I and most people I know don’t benefit from the Mass outside Communion.

So what benefit does one get from receiving communion in a state of mortal sin, which we’re talking about here? Goes against St. Paul, the Church, and everything else it seems. If you want a good feeling, a local senior center with free meals can provide that, assuming you’re old enough. I’m sure there are other places if you’re not.

But these are all self-serving arguments. The idea is to give to Christ and to God what they are due.