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

[ProVobis]

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

Ora’s contention did not mention “merely.”

Nonetheless even “merely” spiritual communion is superior to the first method, meaning sacramentally receiving in sin.

 

[Brendan]

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.

It was not my term, but Christ’s

If that is how He chose to describe such relationships, then I cannot to else but to follow.

 

[LongingSoul]

It was not my term, but Christ’s

If that is how He chose to describe such relationships, then I cannot to else but to follow.

As Catholics it is inborn in us to hear Christ through the Church. We don’t pit our personal interpretation of the bible against the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

The bottom line is that souls are at stake, and the desire should be to lead as many of them as possible to salvation.

Okay, but at the same time keep them from damaging their souls by receiving in sin. There is no condemnation by the Church to Hell for divorcing and remarrying and that should be understood perfectly by everyone. A prohibition against communion should not lead one to think they are condemned. That would incur the sin of despair. They still have the responsibility of raising the kids in a Catholic environment, attending Mass, etc. And have to answer to God for that.

 

[OraLabora]

Okay, but at the same time keep them from damaging their souls by receiving in sin. There is no condemnation by the Church to Hell for divorcing and remarrying and that should be understood perfectly by everyone. A prohibition against communion should not lead one to think they are condemned. That would incur the sin of despair. They still have the responsibility of raising the kids in a Catholic environment, attending Mass, etc. And have to answer to God for that.

Except that some seem to consider that the sin of divorce, remarrying, and remaining in a conjugal relationship is mortal, and therefore separates one from God (i.e. condemns us to hell if we die unrepentant; and we all know we can be killed instantly and unexpectedly in an accident or whatever without the chance of saying an act of contrition).

The only way the sin couldn’t be condemning is if it weren’t of mortal culpability even if grave matter. And if it isn’t of mortal culpability, then it there should be no bar to reception of the Eucharist (and confession)!

So your point appears to be caught in a logical trap no?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Amidst all these expressed concerns, I am relieved to read the notes of the Archbishop of Dublin, which reminds us of the wisdom and long view of Holy Mother Church.

[Synod on the Family – what can we expect?

Speaking notes of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin

All Hallows College, Dublin, 4th March 2015](http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/documents/detail/articolo/synod-dublin-family-39541/)
,

 

[ProVobis]

So your point appears to be caught in a logical trap no?

What, the point of answering to God?

 

[OraLabora]

What, the point of answering to God?

The point that they’re not condemned, even though they’re in a state of mortal sin.

 

[ProVobis]

The point that they’re not condemned, even though they’re in a state of mortal sin.

I see what you’re driving at.

But there is the state of mortal sin in regards to sacrilege, and there is the state of mortal sin in regards to condemnation, which if I recall, is lifted after a good act of contrition. I don’t profess to know enough theology to comment further on condemnation.

That said, I don’t disagree with your arguments of culpability.

 

[Brendan]

As Catholics it is inborn in us to hear Christ through the Church. We don’t pit our personal interpretation of the bible against the Church.

I don’t there are quite a number of times that the Church has used that before. And also, I have not hear that the Church has rejected Christ’s teaching on the matter either.

When has the Church taught that attempts at remarriage while one’s valid spouse is alive is NOT adultery.

 

[Brendan]

The only way the sin couldn’t be condemning is if it weren’t of mortal culpability even if grave matter. And if it isn’t of mortal culpability, then it there should be no bar to reception of the Eucharist (and confession)!

So your point appears to be caught in a logical trap no?

Well we CAN determine a few things.

Mortal Sin depends on three factors

1. Grave Matter - it seems we all agree that this is grave matter
2. Willful consent. - if willful consent to attempts at the marital act was not given, that is rape, and I agree that at least one party would not be culpable.
3. Knowledge that it is sinful. - I agree that this might be lacking in quite a number of cases, but it falls on pastors of souls to instruct them on matter. When they have been so instructed, or otherwise become aware the Church has determined this act to be sinful, this condition is met

 

[OraLabora]

1. Willful consent. - if willful consent to attempts at the marital act was not given, that is rape, and I agree that at least one party would not be culpable.

With respect I think you are confusing consent to engage in a sexual act with consent of the will with respect to the ability to resist engaging in sin in spite of our better judgment. Moreover in a marital context, sexual consent is often implied and not explicit. But it is not related to consent of the will in overcoming sin, especially habitual sin.

The CCC says with respect to masturbation, for instance (my bold):

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

It is quite possible, and IMHO, quite likely, that in a long-standing second (non-valid) marriage, that the “force of acquired habit” of conjugal relations may in fact mean that the couple, mutually, are giving into their own, mutual, weakness. That is, their will isn’t fully consenting to engaging in what the Church considers an illicit sexual relationship, for the same reason that the Church recognizes that force of acquired habit can mitigate culpability for masturbation. Surely if it’s good for one sin, it’s good for the other, since the “habit” in this case is almost identical, the need for sexual gratification.

This is what I’m driving at with “full consent of the will”. A couple may have been in the invalid second marriage for so many years, that “force of an acquired” sexual habit maybe difficult to overcome by willpower alone for either or both parties. If the desire is to move their souls closer to God, and assuming the first marriage was valid and cannot be annulled, then withholding the sacraments from them may in fact be making the sacraments a “prize for attaining perfection” rather than as a medicine to help them attain Christian perfection.

Now, the following is my personal opinion, and I know I will get blasted for it as being heretical. But Christ as I mentioned elsewhere, was spat on, whipped, had a crown of thorns driven into his skull, was nailed to a cross, and was pierced by a lance, left to die of exposure. He did that for our sins, so that we can be reconciled with God; He did not do that to put roadblocks on peoples’ reconciliation. I do think He can handle an invalidly married couple, who want to come closer to Him, receiving Him. In other words, it’s a matter of conscience, and ongoing conversion through reconciliation and the graces of the Eucharist.

It is not up to us to put limitations on what God can, or cannot do or on who should or should not approach him. The Church does have the right to ensure that people do approach Him in faith, and with the proper mindset. But that proper mindset does not mean being held to a standard of perfection that does not apply to convicted murderers, or for that matter habitual masturbators. None of us are saints; and that proper mindset is something that I think needs to be determined in the confessional, not in sort of “one size fits all” manual. None of this requires refutation of the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage.

 

[ProVobis]

Surely if it’s good for one sin, it’s good for the other, since the “habit” in this case is almost identical, the need for sexual gratification.

Except that you are hurting at least one other person in such behavior. Just saying.

 

[OraLabora]

Except that you are hurting at least one other person in such behavior. Just saying.

It depends. If you are consuming pornography for a masturbation habit, you most certainly are hurting other people. Many people, especially consumers of porn, tend to forget that and think that the creators of porn, especially the models, are nameless images, and not real often broken people engaging in degrading acts, often to support addictions.

Or, if a masturbation habit is interfering with one’s conjugal relationship, one most certainly is hurting someone else and perhaps also driving them to sin through frustration.

In fact I think that’s the point about sin, it harms, either directly, or indirectly, the entire Body of Christ (in the sense that we are all part of the Body of Christ).

A good example with masturbation: how many times have we heard from professionals and just ordinary people that masturbation is OK, that “everybody does it”? Even though the Church allows mitigating circumstances for culpability, she never says it is “ok”. But as a society, we’ve become desensitized to it.

There is no doubt that an invalidly remarried couple engaging in sex hurts the Body of Christ. I should perhaps be more clear on that; and I think the Church is right to proclaim that. But I think like other sins culpability may be mitigated in many circumstances and thus some people in that situation (and by no means all people in that situation) should be permitted to receive the sacraments.

 

[ProVobis]

It depends. If you are consuming pornography for a masturbation habit, you most certainly are hurting other people.

Well, I was thinking more about the abandoned spouse as being directly hurt not only by the adulterous behavior but by the living arrangements of the new couple. And perhaps there are chidren involved whose whole developing moral values could be affected. This is my book is also grave matter.

 

[OraLabora]

Well, I was thinking more about the abandoned spouse as being directly hurt not only by the adulterous behavior but by the living arrangements of the new couple. And perhaps there are chidren involved whose whole developing moral values could be affected. This is my book is also grave matter.

What if the new couple involves the marriage of a previously abandoned spouse?

I’m certainly no suggesting we treat in the same manner someone who abandons their spouse to marry another, and someone who is abandoned and later remarries. This is what Cardinal Tagle is in essence saying: a one size fits all approach isn’t possible.

 

[JimG]

t seems to me quite predictable what the consequences of disregarding the validity of a first marriage will be. So let’s say we leave it to the person’s confessor whether or not a continuing sexual relationship within an invalid second marriage is mortal. The confessor, after due consideration, decides that culpability is limited and therefore the person may approach communion.

Marriage is a public matter. Eventually, people will become generally aware that there are those living in invalid second marriages who routinely receive the Eucharist. Those who are in similar situations but not receiving communion will also believe themselves entitled to do the same. They may ask a priest, or they may not, taking the position that ‘hey, if it’s okay for Jones it’s okay for me.’ And confessors might be inundated with such requests, having only one person’s story to go by in making a judgment.

The net result will be that a) marriage tribunals will experience a huge decline in applicants because they will have become unnecessary and moot, and b) the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage will have been permanently undermined, and the Church along with it. Perhaps we could just merge with the Anglicans.

The permanence of marriage will be as dead as a doornail. We might have to re-write certain scripture passages.

 

[ProVobis]

What if the new couple involves the marriage of a previously abandoned spouse?

I don’t know. Is the culpability lessened because the abandoned ex-spouse has now “moved on” and found someone better? I don’t believe so because rejection is always painful; worsened, of course, by the breaking of the marriage vows.

 

[ProVobis]

The net result will be that a) marriage tribunals will experience a huge decline in applicants because they will have become unnecessary and moot, and b) the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage will have been permanently undermined, and the Church along with it. Perhaps we could just merge with the Anglicans.

And to think some of them came over to Catholicism via the Ordinariate strictly because of the formadibility of Catholic doctrine on marriage.

 

[graciew]

I see it differently.
Making tribunals more efficient and faster may also mean a faster “no” .
Making them more efficient.may mean.available.for.people who have.no resources to travel distances or afford.costs.
And.more.participation from the priests may also mean a case by case integration to the.community.and parish and a closer relationship with God.while making a decision .More awareness ,more help.Something tribunals cannot achieve by themselves.
And children closer to the parish , Mass and Sacraments and the love of their.community where they belong as well.

Not so pessimistic.