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

[Brendan]

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.

While I might agree that there is reduced culpability in the one abandonded, the culpability of a the one who attempts a second marriage with such a person remains unaffected. The unabandonded party in the second ‘marriage’ would still be engaging in willful adultery.

And regardless, it would still be a moral wrong that the Church would be obligated to teach against/

Like your previous analogy of masturbation, an examination of the circumstances might (and I state MIGHT) reduce it below the level of mortal sin.

But it would remain sin, at least venial. And the persons involve would still be required to recognize it as sinful and form a firm purpose of amendment to avoid it.

 

[Tigg]

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.

Yes!

 

[ProVobis]

While I might agree that there is reduced culpability in the one abandonded,

From a sentiment point of view, I suppose one can make that case. However, the party in all probability did enter the marriage “for better or for worse,” that is, if it was valid.

 

[Jon_S_1]

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.

No you are making a huge error already discussed in the thread.

To be culpable of mortal sin you need 3 requirements:

1. grave matter
2. full knowledge of it being grave matter
3. consent of the will to do it anyway.

You are relinquishing remarriage to 1 requirement…sex in a second marriage and you don’t address either of the other parameters.

All 3 are required to create a mortal sin.

By your logic, a married woman kidnapped and forced into sex slavery commits adultery. That’s not the case.

 

[ProVobis]

All 3 are required to create a mortal sin.

While that is true, the Church can ask you to refrain from communion because of things like potential scandal and such. This has been done with pro-abort politicians, for example.

 

[Jon_S_1]

While that is true, the Church can ask you to refrain from communion because of things like potential scandal and such. This has been done with pro-abort politicians, for example.

It has? Pelosi must not have received that memo!

Also, related to this discussion of the church had a new procedure in which the faithful understood someone could be remarried if they were deemed not morally culpable, then there would be no scandal.

 

[ProVobis]

Also, related to this discussion of the church had a new procedure in which the faithful understood someone could be remarried if they were deemed not morally culpable, then there would be no scandal.

But then this would be as subjective as being a pro-abort politician, wouldn’t it?

And YES, I know of at least one politician whose bishop has asked him to refrain from communion.

 

[Brendan]

No you are making a huge error already discussed in the thread.

To be culpable of mortal sin you need 3 requirements:

1. grave matter
2. full knowledge of it being grave matter
3. consent of the will to do it anyway.

Yes, I am familiar with those, I mentioned those three same conditions in an earlier post

You are relinquishing remarriage to 1 requirement…sex in a second marriage and you don’t address either of the other parameters.

All 3 are required to create a mortal sin.

The error that you are making is assuming that the state and the culpability are the same.

As Christ noted when one marries the legitimate spouse of another, the moral fault committed was adultery, and that was the word Christ chose to describe it, not I.
As I noted above, there are cases were the culpability of the act can be reduced, I admit that. But it remains adultery and it remains sinful, even at the venial level.

And it the marital act itself is the critical factor here. As the Church has already noted, it is quite possible for thier state to be regularalized by having them live as brother and sister. Each willful attempt at the marital act for one who has another valid, living spouse is an incident of adultery. The moral culpabilty of it might vary, but it remains an act of adultery and is morally wrong.

By your logic, a married woman kidnapped and forced into sex slavery commits adultery. That’s not the case.

Adultery involves consent. This is not the case here, unless that you are claiming that the cases of divorce and remarriage that we are discussing did not actually involve consenting acts.

 

[Brendan]

Also, related to this discussion of the church had a new procedure in which the faithful understood someone could be remarried if they were deemed not morally culpable, then there would be no scandal.

It would still remain a moral wrong, which the Church is obligated to teach against.

If it is a matter of consent, the attempt at remarriage would be invalid anyway if both did not give their consent.

If it is a matter of knowledge, the Church is obligated to instruct them in the error in their understanding

And it will always remain grave matter.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It would still remain a moral wrong, which the Church is obligated to teach against.

If it is a matter of consent, the attempt at remarriage would be invalid anyway if both did not give their consent.

If it is a matter of knowledge, the Church is obligated to instruct them in the error in their understanding

And it will always remain grave matter.

So the protestant convert who was instructed to get remarried was able to [properly] consent to what catholics believe marriage to be?

The more the discussion goes, I sort of wonder if it’s just an overhaul of the annulment process that might be needed.

I just hope the discussion shows that this may not be as settled as one might assume and we should be open to receiving direction from mother church.

 

[Brendan]

So the protestant convert who was instructed to get remarried was able to [properly] consent to what catholics believe marriage to be?

It is a standard part of RCIA to investigate the marital status of the recipients. So they understand what they are entering into when they become Catholic. And after conversion, every attempt at the marital act (one would hope) involves consent by both parties.

If such attempts at the marital acts are consented to, but with a person other than their valid spouse, each of those acts the Church describes as being an act of adultery.

The more the discussion goes, I sort of wonder if it’s just an overhaul of the annulment process that might be needed.

Overhaul in what way?

I just hope the discussion shows that this may not be as settled as one might assume and we should be open to receiving direction from mother church.

Everything that I have been stating IS what Mother Church teaches.

 

[Andre1000]

Jesus said:
29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 5:29-30

 

[Tigg]

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.

This mantra is rather weak when faced with the actual theological truths the bishops are grappling with. Cardinal Caffarra goes into this at length when speaking of the synod.

She (the Church) has the mission of announcing even the gospel – let me repeat: *the gospel *– of indissolubility, a true treasure that the Church guards in vessels of clay. This is the most urgent and inescapable priority.

In his document on the sacramental ontology of this subject, he goes into the meaning of the indissolubility of marriage (none of us have remotely touched upon that,) and explains the first principle which concerns the dimension of the reciprocal gift between man and woman in marriage. He states the responsibility of the synod is to recall us to a “conversion of thought” to look at marriage without reducing it to the couple as it is considered in the postmodern West.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

So what do you propose for a spouse abandoned early on in a marriage? A life of loneliness? Join a monastery (oh wait… you can’t if you have a valid marriage, it’s an impediment to holy orders)?

I guess one can just get an annulment if one can afford it. JimG says:

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.

And how would that be any different than the annulment situation in the US? The US has about 6% of the world’s Catholics, and 60% of the world’s annulments. That certainly doesn’t do much to convince poorly catechized Catholics that annulments are no more, no less than “Catholic divorce”. Moreover:

In the US, 6 percent of ordinary-process cases are renounced by those seeking an annulment, while an additional 6 percent are abated because the parties failed to follow through with the procedural acts necessary for a trial to take place. Of the remaining 88 percent of cases in which sentences are given, 96 percent of sentences are in favor of nullity. Sentences in favor of nullity are automatically appealed to a court of second instance in another diocese. One percent of these cases are renounced or abated, 69 percent are confirmed by decree, and 30 percent proceed to an additional trial. In this final category, 98 percent are eventually ruled null.

(source: catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx)

One could, on the other hand, with a confession/penance based system, impose on those seeking readmission to the sacraments a significant period of penance. It’s what the Orthodox do, and what the Holy Father mused about when thinking aloud on this issue. That period of penance might even include compulsory attendance to RCIA to patch any holes in catechesis to ensure a more solid understanding of the sacraments and the faith. I am sure there are creative means possible to ensure that readmission to sacraments is not trivialized as you suggest; I agree it is a danger if the Church doesn’t put safeguards in place, but it doesn’t have to be so.

I can’t see that as doing any more damage than an annulment system that already seems to be rather expedient… at making people question whether marriage really all that indissoluble. It seems to me it might be better to try having a possibility of readmission to sacraments with a significant penance attached, and fewer annulments, to reinforce the indissoluble nature of marriage. To have 10x more annulments than the rest of the world, with more 85% of petitions leading to a decree of nullity, certainly smells like scandal to me.

 

[LongingSoul]

It would still remain a moral wrong, which the Church is obligated to teach against.

If it is a matter of consent, the attempt at remarriage would be invalid anyway if both did not give their consent.

If it is a matter of knowledge, the Church is obligated to instruct them in the error in their understanding

And it will always remain grave matter.

The Church has said constantly that there is no question of a change in the general rule regarding marriage and its indissolubility. This is addressing individual situations pastorally. If you look at the way civil law on the one hand upholds the gravity of the crime of murder, yet on the other hand makes allowances for culpability when trying and sentencing the criminal. In some rare cases, women who’ve endured relentless physical abuse at the hands of their husband… have planned and executed his murder and been found guilty of murder (to some degree)… but not sentenced to prison. Culpability can be so severely reduced where some crimes occur, that the punishment can be forgone altogether.

When Pope Benedict (when a Cardinal) floated the question of the state of sacraments made without faith, he was really addressing culpability in relation to Church laws. I’m assuming that this is the aspect being explored by the synod process here similar to the way civil law has developed in its appreciation of the condition of the person who’s committed a crime.

 

[Tigg]

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

Of course this is the mission of the Church and her desire – but how does one possibly attain salvation while at the same time compromising soteriology?

One could, on the other hand, with a confession/penance based system, impose on those seeking readmission to the sacraments a significant period of penance. It’s what the Orthodox do, and what the Holy Father mused about when thinking aloud on this issue.

A significant period of penance might be good –but what would that specific penance apply to? However could absolution be given when the very orientation of ones lifestyle specifically opposes what one is doing penance for? You can see the obvious problem here. Will they then need to change the Sacrament of Reconciliation too?

As far as the Orthodox, this too has been addressed.

It is perfectly legitimate for the bishops to examine the “Orthodox practice” thoroughly to see if it suggests effective alternatives to Catholic pastoral practice that still support Catholic doctrine……The conclusion will be negative with respect to Communion, just as Pope John Paul II concluded in 1981 (see Familiaris Consortio #84) and just as was reaffirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994 (in a statement which actually addressed the faulty Patristic arguments).

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1258

 

[ProVobis]

So what do you propose for a spouse abandoned early on in a marriage? A life of loneliness? Join a monastery (oh wait… you can’t if you have a valid marriage, it’s an impediment to holy orders)?

Ora, marriage doesn’t guarantee a life free of loneliness. Or a life filled with total bliss. But if one finds satisfaction with another outside of a valid marriage why would he or she need the sacraments again?

 

[JimG]

The Orthodox position implicitly accepts that marriage can be dissolved by man. That is not and cannot be the Catholic position. The Orthodox, as I understand it, might accept a second, or a third, but not a fourth, marriage, with a particular period of penance imposed each time. Such a practice in effect must recognize that marriage can be, and is, dissolved by man. It can be put asunder. The Catholic Church cannot accept that position.

A “penitential” period for admission to the Eucharist would have to accept either a) that a prior valid marriage can be dissolved at will, provided that a period of penance is undertaken, or, b) that a prior valid marriage remains valid and cannot be dissolved—but it doesn’t matter! The Church would in effect be saying that yes, your prior marriage remains valid. You are still married to your ‘prior’ spouse. But, no matter. That marriage bond can be disregarded in favor of one that we recognize as not valid. How does this not make a mockery of Jesus’ words?

It’s true; the number of annulments granted in the U.S. is a scandal.

I see two possibilities: 1) Decrees of nullity are being improperly granted to what are actually valid marriages;
or 2, there really are an astounding number of null marriages taking place in the U.S.

I tend to favor no. 2.

If the U.S. has the majority of decrees of nullity, one has to ask, what is it about U.S. culture that makes it seemingly impossible for a man and woman to enter into a permanent marriage? That is the problem that needs to be solved.

 

[graciew]

The Orthodox position implicitly accepts that marriage can be dissolved by man. That is not and cannot be the Catholic position. The Orthodox, as I understand it, might accept a second, or a third, but not a fourth, marriage, with a particular period of penance imposed each time. Such a practice in effect must recognize that marriage can be, and is, dissolved by man. It can be put asunder. The Catholic Church cannot accept that position.

A “penitential” period for admission to the Eucharist would have to accept either a) that a prior valid marriage can be dissolved at will, provided that a period of penance is undertaken, or, b) that a prior valid marriage remains valid and cannot be dissolved—but it doesn’t matter! The Church would in effect be saying that yes, your prior marriage remains valid. You are still married to your ‘prior’ spouse. But, no matter. That marriage bond can be disregarded in favor of one that we recognize as not valid. How does this not make a mockery of Jesus’ words?

It’s true; the number of annulments granted in the U.S. is a scandal.

I see two possibilities: 1) Decrees of nullity are being improperly granted to what are actually valid marriages;
or 2, there really are an astounding number of null marriages taking place in the U.S.

I tend to favor no. 2.

If the U.S. has the majority of decrees of nullity, one has to ask, what is it about U.S. culture that makes it seemingly impossible for a man and woman to enter into a permanent marriage? That is the problem that needs to be solved.

What is there “permanent” today? What is it new today that does not need to be " updated" by tomorrow ? Permanent job , house ,school ,neighbourhood , cel phone ,friends , a washing machine, the "school bag " ,classmates ? What ?
What is taken to be patiently mended or repaired that is not considered discardable and temporary first ?
If you have ever read Alvin Toffler , I had to.for.Sociology ages ago.at.the University , I would say that it was inevitable that too much change too soon would render relationships.untouched. It was nearly science fiction for me.then, now the shock is over ,it has become a.way of life. Interesting mess !!

 

[pnewton]

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.

I said nothing about who you were, but referred to the debate going on, and the statements you were making, specifically identifying Catholic worship and Protestant worship as equivalents. I know nothing about anyone here and can only remark as to the statements made, not the person who made them. I will make no assumption one way or the other. The topic is *Catholic *communion for the divorce, not the equivalence of all faiths.