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

[Tigg]

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.

So you see no spiritual benefit which God still wishes to give you through Mass attendance and no benefit from an active prayer life through various devotions such as Eucharistic Adoration, the rosary, etc. There is still such a thing as actual grace which is the strength He gives which enables us to turn our face back to Him and act in accordance with His will. (His will being eternal happiness for you.) To discount the power of the Mass as being insignificant, imo, is to tie His holy hands because he will never stop calling a soul to Himself, but ones heart has to be open to the action.

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.

Is there not a contradiction in your comment as you admit the exclusion is due to ones own actions, yet you place blame on the Church for an individual decision. There is absolutely no one exempt from accountability for their choices in life which create difficult and painful circumstances. Thankfully, a gracious God gives us the remedy for reconciliation if one chooses Him first. There is great power with the gift of free will. Would it be better if we were but robots unable to utter a yes or no to a sovereign God?

Stop making Communion a prize for the perfect

I think we need to look at and try to understand the holiness of God and the love he gave us by making Himself “vulnerable” despite His omnipotence. We also need to look interiorly and understand our own sin and the tremendous gulf between the two aspects of such Holiness and the profane. What love is this that anyone at all is able to receive the precious Body and Blood? The Church rightly so, will prevent us as far as she is able, from sealing our own condemnation by sacrilege and utter disdain for something so profoundly sacred.

 

[Tigg]

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). .

But still, JP II said the divorced/remarried must not despair of God’s grace.

However, let these men and women know that the Church loves them, that she is not far from them and suffers because of their situation. The divorced and remarried are and remain her members, because they have received Baptism and retain their Christian faith. Of course, a new union after divorce is a moral disorder, which is opposed to precise requirements deriving from the faith, but this must not preclude a commitment to prayer and to the active witness of charity.

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.

I agree those living a sacramental life cannot imagine such a thing but I think we are losing sight of something here. Each person in this circumstance **still **has a choice to make. Until the moment of death, there is nothing to prevent a soul from repenting except by their conscious choice to reject grace. We do great harm in affirming the idea that the remarried are somehow permanently outside the circle. However, the big choice and difficult decision is to choose for themselves the path the Church has lighted for them.

I have a friend who was married outside the Church. After an eight year period, the Lord called her so strongly back to Himself, she made the decision that if there was no other possible way, she would have to leave her husband because she simply could not stay away from the sacraments any longer. (At that time she had two young children.) She still cries to this day to think of the mercy of Christ who eventually provided the annulment for convalidation. I truly believe the ultimate choice is either Christ or **not. **

 

[Convert1]

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?

I was married in a protestant church at 19 years of age, and left an abusive spouse at 30. I had NO idea at the time I would remarry at 40, much less convert to Catholicism at 50. How am I culpable when I had no knowledge I was committing a moral sin when I remarried and even further, denying my husband now to live as brother and sister…isn’t that a sin as well?

 

[OraLabora]

But still, JP II said the divorced/remarried must not despair of God’s grace.

I agree those living a sacramental life cannot imagine such a thing but I think we are losing sight of something here. Each person in this circumstance **still **has a choice to make. Until the moment of death, there is nothing to prevent a soul from repenting except by their conscious choice to reject grace. We do great harm in affirming the idea that the remarried are somehow permanently outside the circle. However, the big choice and difficult decision is to choose for themselves the path the Church has lighted for them.

I have a friend who was married outside the Church. After an eight year period, the Lord called her so strongly back to Himself, she made the decision that if there was no other possible way, she would have to leave her husband because she simply could not stay away from the sacraments any longer. (At that time she had two young children.) She still cries to this day to think of the mercy of Christ who eventually provided the annulment for convalidation. I truly believe the ultimate choice is either Christ or **not. **

I think we all can agree that a marriage is indissoluble. But I take issue with such a black-and-white view of “choice” always being the realistic option in individual circumstances. Yes, I read that piece you linked to a bit farther back on the thread, and am inclined to find its authors… not so much hard of heart, but not being well positioned to feel and experience the pain of people in difficult circumstances, and thus unable to formulate a merciful approach to them.

How can you reconcile someone leaving an abusive relationship, or being abandoned, then getting remarried, with “choice”? Look at the post from Convert1.

Life is messy and rarely black-and-white. My own story from the time I abandoned Catholicism, married in a civil ceremony, reconciled with the Church, and had my marriage convalidated (something that took time as my wife was initially non-cooperative), is as good an example as any.

I also take issue with the fact that because some people do find the strength (presumably with a cooperative spouse) to live as “brother and sister”, that this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. We are all differently abled; some have uncooperative but otherwise loving spouses (which was my case). Some couples may be able to sustain continence with sacramental grace. Some may not be able to sustain it even with sacramental grace.

We are putting people, often very broken people, in a “no man’s land” where progression to true conversion is difficult if not impossible. The Church offers medicine for the soul, and often withholds it from those who need it the most. Those of us with access to sacramental grace shouldn’t sit in our ivory towers while people outside the palace hunger for God. It’s not up to us to keep them out if they truly seek communion with God.

In any event you’re right in that this is a decision that’s above our pay grade. However I do hope that those who do have to arrive at a consensus on this, take a hard look at the level of culpability of couples in this situation, with respect to the grave sin of “adultery” that someone in a successful second marriage is committing. As a Benedictine, I will be bound to obedience with whatever decision is made, and will pray that I never ever find myself in such a situation in the future.

I belong to a spiritual tradition for which doctrine is the servant of the Church, and not man the servant of doctrine. Doctrine does not save. Christ does. Christ was spat on, whipped, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a cross. He suffered all of that to bring us to reconcile us with God. Right now, and this is something that grates on me perhaps even more than lack of access to communion, the Church also prevents access to confession. The two most healing and nourishing sacraments are denied. IMHO, “spiritual communion” is an empty shell in comparison.

Is the path through easier annulments? I am of mixed feelings on this. I think I prefer a case-by-case analysis of a person’s degree of culpability as suggests Card. Tagle, rather than easier annulments. We run the very real risk with too easy annulments, of making a real mockery of the notion of indissoluble marriages, a sort of “Catholic divorce” in all but name. I think personally it might be much more healing to acknowledge sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes these mistakes cannot be undone, and let’s live as holy a life as is possible under the circumstances with God’s grace (recognizing that this may be different for different situations), and ultimately let God be our judge.

We can of course continue to support the status quo, and pray that when it is our turn to face judgement, God isn’t too hard on us for having failed to show mercy and compassion.

 

[kozlosap]

I was married in a protestant church at 19 years of age, and left an abusive spouse at 30. I had NO idea at the time I would remarry at 40, much less convert to Catholicism at 50. How am I culpable when I had no knowledge I was committing a moral sin when I remarried and even further, denying my husband now to live as brother and sister…isn’t that a sin as well?

I think that FINALLY there are very devout and loving Catholics that are, at last, questioning how a mass murderer is able to confess and receive the Eucharist , but a loving, law abiding person who, like Convert1, made a bad decision at aged 19, divorced and remarried must now jump through many hoops and pay $$$$$$$$$ if they hope to fully participate in receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord . I know that many here will disagree with me, but no matter the objections, life IS different than it was two thousand years ago. Men and Women should not have to stay in an unbearable marriage that might include both emotional and physical abuse just because they are scared to death that the Church will withold access to Communion. Just the fact that Papa Francis wants to discuss this very important issue gives hope that the Mercy of the Church is for real.

 

[JimG]

I was married in a protestant church at 19 years of age, and left an abusive spouse at 30. I had NO idea at the time I would remarry at 40, much less convert to Catholicism at 50. How am I culpable when I had no knowledge I was committing a moral sin when I remarried and even further, denying my husband now to live as brother and sister…isn’t that a sin as well?

I don’t think that you are culpable, any more than my wife’s aunt was culpable for her husband abandoning their marriage. In fact I doubt that you fully met the requirements for a valid exchange of consent at age 19. I do think the Church should consider shortening and expediting the process of examining such marriages. I just don’t think a first marriage can be ignored when considering the validity of a second marriage.

 

[ProVobis]

IMHO, “spiritual communion” is an empty shell in comparison.

Ora, that seems to be a rather harsh statement. Have you read the Catechism of Trent on this?

**Recipient of the Eucharist

Threefold Manner Of Communicating

That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, must be reminded that there is not only one way of communicating. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, as we read in the Council of Trent, distinguish three ways of receiving this Sacrament.

Some receive it sacramentally only. Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord’s body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says: He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually His flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of His flesh and blood. Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity,’ partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.

Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist those most abundant fruits which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages. **

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

 

[JimG]

I think we all can agree that a marriage is indissoluble. But I take issue with such a black-and-white view of “choice” always being the realistic option in individual circumstances. Yes, I read that piece you linked to a bit farther back on the thread, and am inclined to find its authors… not so much hard of heart, but not being well positioned to feel and experience the pain of people in difficult circumstances, and thus unable to formulate a merciful approach to them.

How can you reconcile someone leaving an abusive relationship, or being abandoned, then getting remarried, with “choice”? Look at the post from Convert1.

Life is messy and rarely black-and-white. My own story from the time I abandoned Catholicism, married in a civil ceremony, reconciled with the Church, and had my marriage convalidated (something that took time as my wife was initially non-cooperative), is as good an example as any.

I also take issue with the fact that because some people do find the strength (presumably with a cooperative spouse) to live as “brother and sister”, that this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. We are all differently abled; some have uncooperative but otherwise loving spouses (which was my case). Some couples may be able to sustain continence with sacramental grace. Some may not be able to sustain it even with sacramental grace.

We are putting people, often very broken people, in a “no man’s land” where progression to true conversion is difficult if not impossible. The Church offers medicine for the soul, and often withholds it from those who need it the most. Those of us with access to sacramental grace shouldn’t sit in our ivory towers while people outside the palace hunger for God. It’s not up to us to keep them out if they truly seek communion with God.

In any event you’re right in that this is a decision that’s above our pay grade. However I do hope that those who do have to arrive at a consensus on this, take a hard look at the level of culpability of couples in this situation, with respect to the grave sin of “adultery” that someone in a successful second marriage is committing. As a Benedictine, I will be bound to obedience with whatever decision is made, and will pray that I never ever find myself in such a situation in the future.

I belong to a spiritual tradition for which doctrine is the servant of the Church, and not man the servant of doctrine. Doctrine does not save. Christ does. Christ was spat on, whipped, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a cross. He suffered all of that to bring us to reconcile us with God. Right now, and this is something that grates on me perhaps even more than lack of access to communion, the Church also prevents access to confession. The two most healing and nourishing sacraments are denied. IMHO, “spiritual communion” is an empty shell in comparison.

Is the path through easier annulments? I am of mixed feelings on this. I think I prefer a case-by-case analysis of a person’s degree of culpability as suggests Card. Tagle, rather than easier annulments. We run the very real risk with too easy annulments, of making a real mockery of the notion of indissoluble marriages, a sort of “Catholic divorce” in all but name. I think personally it might be much more healing to acknowledge sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes these mistakes cannot be undone, and let’s live as holy a life as is possible under the circumstances with God’s grace (recognizing that this may be different for different situations), and ultimately let God be our judge.

We can of course continue to support the status quo, and pray that when it is our turn to face judgement, God isn’t too hard on us for having failed to show mercy and compassion.

Yes, I think that we do run the risk with easy annulments of making a mockery of the notion that marriage is indissoluble. But we run that risk either way.

If we ignore the 1st marriage and look only at culpability, we have already conceded that the 1st marriage can be dissolved—and without even bothering with a determination of validity. If we make a determination of nullity easier, we run the risk of treating it as merely a Catholic divorce.

But it is not so much the Church that has made a mockery of the indissolubility of marriage. Our whole culture has made a mockery of it for decades. If in fact hardly anyone in the culture recognizes a marriage as indissoluble when they marry, doesn’t that make most marriages invalid from the get-go? No matter which way the Church goes with this, it will have created a precedent in which those marrying will have in the back of their mind at least an implicit assumption that the marriage can be declared null or simply dissolved if it doesn’t work out.

It’s hard to believe for anyone not quite as ancient as me, but for quite a few decades prior to the 1960’s the opposite assumption—that marriage was permanent and divorce was hard or impossible—was the more common belief among both Catholics and Protestants.

And the graver risk is to countermand or ignore Jesus’ own words on marriage. Even his own disciples didn’t like that teaching, but it is what it is.

 

[ProVobis]

… life IS different than it was two thousand years ago.

In some respects, yes. But ancient history is full of adultery, sodomy, divorce, remarriages, abortions, etc. It may be that before all this no-fault, easy divorce stuff that society might have tightened things up a bit but I think a lot of that credit belongs to the prior moral leadership of the Church. The Church needs to regain that status IMO; it just can’t keep meeting the wimpy world half-way anymore.

 

[Brendan]

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. .

I spend quite a lot of time in Africa. I do mission work in a diocese in Tanzania. When I go there, I am fortunate to be able to stay in the bishop’s residence. His diocese has quite a number of converts from traditional African religions, so this is a topic foremost on his mind.

While what you say is true, that in the case of a polygamist who converts, the one he may retain martial relationships with is his first wife. Any subsequent wife he must provide for, but must cease any martial relations with.

A natural marriage is still a valid marriage recognized by the Church.

So if you are calling for any solution in the West to be treated as they are in the case of a polygamous marriage, then the only one a person may have martial relations with is their first valid spouse.

That is not much different from what is practiced in the Western cultures.

So how, exactly do you see this as a different solution?

 

[Brendan]

They cannot receive the Sacraments which is the essence of being excommunicated.

No, the essence of excommunication is punative.

It is something that the Church does to someone.

It is possible for an excommunicant to be in a State of Grace. But they remain barred from the Sacraments until the excommunication is removed.

The people that we are discussing (like anyone else) are fully welcome to receive Holy Communion under the same terms as any anyone else. If they have repented of and confessed any grave sins, received absolution, and met the requirements for the fasting set by their bishop.

The ‘stopper’ is often an unwillingness to repent of known grave sin. But that is not the fault of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Right now, and this is something that grates on me perhaps even more than lack of access to communion, the Church also prevents access to confession. The two most healing and nourishing sacraments are denied. IMHO, “spiritual communion” is an empty shell in comparison…

Ora, what you just describe there is something I have never heard of.

When has the Church denied confession to a person engaged in any grave sin that we are discussing here.

In every case I am aware of, if a person repented of adultery, or fornication, the Church has given ready access to the Sacrament of Confession.

In am actually aware of one case of Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament. The absolution of which is reserved to the Holy See.

The priest involved contacted the bishop via phone, the bishop directed him to a special phone number run by the Vatican, and the priest had delegation to absolve within half an hour. The only information that passed from priest to bishop and then to the Vatican was that party wanted the assurance from the priest that the person had shown repentance. The priest did not identify the person in question to either the bishop nor the Vatican. They had only asked if the person was sorry and that they held the conviction not to engage in that practice in the future.

So if you are aware of the withholding of the Sacrament of Confession for those who are repentant of their sin, have you contacted the Bishop. If not, why not?

 

[OraLabora]

Ora, what you just describe there is something I have never heard of.

When has the Church denied confession to a person engaged in any grave sin that we are discussing here.

In every case I am aware of, if a person repented of adultery, or fornication, the Church has given ready access to the Sacrament of Confession.

In am actually aware of one case of Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament. The absolution of which is reserved to the Holy See.

The priest involved contacted the bishop via phone, the bishop directed him to a special phone number run by the Vatican, and the priest had delegation to absolve within half an hour. The only information that passed from priest to bishop and then to the Vatican was that party wanted the assurance from the priest that the person had shown repentance. The priest did not identify the person in question to either the bishop nor the Vatican. They had only asked if the person was sorry and that they held the conviction not to engage in that practice in the future.

So if you are aware of the withholding of the Sacrament of Confession for those who are repentant of their sin, have you contacted the Bishop. If not, why not?

They can receive confession if they undertake to live as brother and sister. Obtaining absolution requires a firm purpose of amendment, which is most often absent in the divorced and remarried as they continue in a conjugal relationship.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm

This paragraph sticks out (my bold):

By this document the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion.

 

[LongingSoul]

Ora, that seems to be a rather harsh statement. Have you read the Catechism of Trent on this?

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

That explanation seems to support OraLabora’s observation about the inferiority of merely spiritual communion.

Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.

A person with access to the sacrament is nuts to bypass it for spiritual communion alone since they deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages’ in doing so.

 

[Brendan]

They can receive confession if they undertake to live as brother and sister. Obtaining absolution requires a firm purpose of amendment, which is most often absent in the divorced and remarried as they continue in a conjugal relationship.

But that is not a denial of the Mercy of Confession. It would then fall upon pastors of souls, and others who care about them, to encourage that they remain firm in their resolve. But they are welcome to the confessional with such a resolve (as is everyone

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm

This paragraph sticks out (my bold):

Correct, and the resolve to refrain from sexual relations is a Church recognized, valid resolution to the marital irregularity. Others include, of course, a decree of nullity.

Thus there is no denial.

The repentance of the penitent is a requirement for Validity of the Sacrament. Without that, not only is the Sacrament invalid ( the Mercy of Christ does NOT absolve the penitent of their sins, it involves a priest in the simulation of a Sacrament, a type of Sacrilege.
Thus the Church, like Christ, opens it’s arms to all those who seek forgiveness, and for those who do not, it seeks to lessen the damage they do to their souls.

All of that is the hallmark of true, Godly, Compassion.

 

[Brendan]

A person with access to the sacrament is nuts to bypass it for spiritual communion alone since they deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages’ in doing so.

And I remain astounded that there are many in the world who would choose adulterous sex over the reception of Holy Communion.

 

[LongingSoul]

And I remain astounded that there are many in the world who would choose adulterous sex over the reception of Holy Communion.

The Church is saying that that type of harsh description of some cases of remarriage and the growth of faith, does not reflect what is true of them. Her job is to address such conundrums with the most godly response she can give for the benefit of understanding the real depth of sacramental marriage and Gods will.

 

[McCall1981]

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351011?eng=y

The Synod Market Index. Kasper Down, Caffarra Up

Even Pope Francis is distancing himself from the former and taking sides with the latter. And staying on good terms with Cardinal Müller. And promoting the African Sarah. All unyielding defenders of the Catholic doctrine on marriage

by Sandro Magister

ROME, March 20, 2015 – “This does not resolve anything,” Pope Francis has said with regard to the idea of giving communion to the divorced and remarried. Much less if they “want” it, demand it. Because communion “is not a badge, a decoration. No.”

In his latest big interview Jorge Mario Bergoglio threw cold water on the expectations for substantial change in the doctrine and practice of Catholic marriage, which he himself had indirectly fostered:

“Overblown expectations,” he called them. With no more references to the innovative theses of Cardinal Walter Kasper, which he had repeatedly extolled in the past but now seems to be keeping at a distance.

On the other hand, for some time now Pope Francis has looked with growing attention and esteem at another cardinal theologian, who upholds ideas on the “Gospel of marriage” that are perfectly in line with tradition: the Italian Carlo Caffarra, archbishop of Bologna…

 

[OraLabora]

Well it suffices to say that the issue will be discussed. Cardinals, at a “pay grade” considerably higher than mine, have divided opinions on this. Rather than argue about it, we probably would do better to just pray that the Holy Spirit guides the bishops and cardinals in their search for a solution (I also think it would behoove certain cardinals on both sides of the debate to stop their public lobbying and posturing and simply reply that “these matters will be prayerfully considered at the Synod by all cardinals and the Holy Father”).

The bottom line is that souls are at stake, and the desire should be to lead as many of them as possible to salvation. There’s a delicate balance between slamming the door to salvation on those wishing to reconcile with the Church at a pace they can manage, and preventing the loss of souls through the trivialization of the sacrement of matrimony.

I’m glad the decision doesn’t rest on my shoulders (and I thank God I’m not in an irregular marriage situation).

 

[OraLabora]

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351011?eng=y

The Synod Market Index. Kasper Down, Caffarra Up

It is just this kind of political game playing and media nonsense that I think trivializes the importance of this debate. This is reducing a necessary and valid debate to the level of an opinion poll between prelates and a catchy headline.

It isn’t helpful, it reduces the sacraments to a simple matter of public opinion. They instead merit a full theological examination in light of God’s mercy. The Holy Father asked for this, let him get on with the job without this useless posturing.

The Church is not a betting shop. She is the steward of Christ’s sacraments, but also of His grace and mercy.