Communion alone is ‘not the solution’ for divorced and re-married Catholics, says Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter ProVobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Justin_Swanton said:
No. Look at it again. Remarried divorcees ***should ***be given Communion, but much more than that, they should be reintegrated completely into parish life because their current illicit unions are not sinful. In other words, public sin is no sin at all - provided the couples realise it is a mistake (!) and wish they could fix it…***without ***ending their current unions. This is what is being affirmed. I’ve reread the interview several times and that is what it means. Do you get the implications?
Click to expand...
Why not follow Pope Francis’ suggestion and read Evangelium Gaudium instead of jumping to your conclusions. That is what he asks us to do. He is constantly writing, giving great homilies, all are teaching tools. Taking a short clip and then developing it yourself can leave a person very far off the mark
 
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of a divorced, civilly remarried catholic being an EMHC since part of that role is to participate in receiving communion in the sanctuary space of the altar as a public witness to the congregation. As an EMHC myself we were instructed to live according to our faith and church guidelines - participating in the confessional as needed, particularly before one’s assignment to assist at a particular mass. We are obliged to be worthy of the role we fill.

Change is slow in the coming, but what the interview seems to indicate is where Pope Francis’ thought process is. I trust that process is guided by the Holy Spirit so I find all of this quite intriguing. Makes me a little nervous, but just a little, because I do trust in the Spirit and the infallibility of the Pope on matters of faith and morals.
 
Alright, here’s a different article from Life Site News, which to me, places the discussion in context. They present the quote in one paragraph without inserting interpretations:
They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers? “No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?” The testimony of a man and a woman saying “my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on.” Anything more Christian than that? And what if one of the political crooks among us, corrupt people, are chosen to be somebody´s godfather. If they are properly wedded by the Church, would we accept them? What kind of testimony will they give to their godson? A testimony of corruption? Things need to change, our standards need to change.
Click to expand...
It’s clear those comments which were being presented in other articles as pertaining to Communion were actually about being godparents. Big difference!
 
GAHere said:
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of a divorced, civilly remarried catholic being an EMHC since part of that role is to participate in receiving communion in the sanctuary space of the altar as a public witness to the congregation. As an EMHC myself we were instructed to live according to our faith and church guidelines - participating in the confessional as needed, particularly before one’s assignment to assist at a particular mass. We are obliged to be worthy of the role we fill.

Change is slow in the coming, but what the interview seems to indicate is where Pope Francis’ thought process is. I trust that process is guided by the Holy Spirit so I find all of this quite intriguing. Makes me a little nervous, but just a little, because I do trust in the Spirit and the infallibility of the Pope on matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
This touches on a question I was going to ask. After reading his comments, I looked up the restrictions on godparents (and EMHC’s, etc). I couldn’t find anything on it in the Catechism, but found this on godparents at Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Certain persons are prohibited from acting as sponsors. They are: members of religious orders, married persons in respect to each other, or parents to their children, and in general those who are objectionable on such grounds as infidelity, heresy, excommunication, or who are members of condemned secret societies, or public sinners (Sabetti, no. 663).”

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#xv

My question is, are these restrictions “only” canon law (rather than tied to doctrine)? I would guess so, because godparents aren’t necessary for baptism, and EMHC’s aren’t necessary for communion. But does anyone know?
 
GAHere said:
Alright, here’s a different article from Life Site News, which to me, places the discussion in context. They present the quote in one paragraph without inserting interpretations:

It’s clear those comments which were being presented in other articles as pertaining to Communion were actually about being godparents. Big difference!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I don’t think your interpretation makes much sense. For one thing, you shouldn’t have left out the preceeding two sentence. They read: “Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration.” The use of the word “alone” here strongly suggests that the Holy Father is taking about reception of Communion and other ways of participating in parish life, not other ways of participating in parish life instead of reception of Communion.

For another thing, the Pope mentions “giving Communion” among the things that remarried divorcees are unfortunately excluded from. It’s hard to see how remaried divorcees could be allowed to give Communion without first being allowed to receive it themselves.
 
Transformer said:
Unfortunately, I don’t think your interpretation makes much sense. For one thing, you shouldn’t have left out the proceeding two sentence. They read: “Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration.” The use of the word “alone” here strongly suggests that the Holy Father is taking about reception of Communion and other ways of participating in parish life, not other ways of participating in parish life instead of reception of Communion.
Click to expand...
I take the 'Communion alone is no solution." statement as a response to all those clamoring to allow communion for divorced/civilly remarried persons. I hear him asking them to not be so narrow focused, as if allowing for communion is THE solution to the problem. I see it as him asking them to look beyond the communion issue, because that’s something hard wired into Church teaching directly from Paul to the Corinthians, but to consider other ways to help those persons not feel so separated from the Church. I don’t see it as a communion AND statement. "The solution is integration."
For another thing, the Pope mentions “giving Communion” among the things that remarried divorcees are unfortunately excluded from. It’s hard to see how remaried divorcees could be allowed to give Communion without first being allowed to receive it themselves.
Click to expand...
Well it is unfortunate that they are excluded from it, but they’re excluded by their own actions. The Pope is right on the mark to find ways to integrate them into church life so that the grace of God can be bestowed upon them, because it is through grace that they will be moved to find the courage to change what needs to be changed so that they can return to full communion with the church.
 
Has anyone considered the grievous scandal that faced the ancient Jewish Christians when the Council of Jerusalem did away with circumcision and the Law of Moses for the new gentiles? After all, Moses had commanded circumcision as God’s direct will, and it was their only law for over 1500 years! Now these gentiles are exempt from keeping the Mosaic Law, albeit with minor exceptions? I can imagine the outburst that took place and the many who left their faith.

It was a completely unpredictable solution with a turn that nobody could have surmised. Yet it was lawfully decided, and it was the Spirit’s guidance.
Acts 15:1. Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” [Can you hear it? - it’s the law!!!]
The decision:
19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who areturning to God. [This is key!]
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
When we try to put God into our own speculative box, we are bound to be radically disturbed. I see no alternative for those who are upset, and are upsetting others, except to pray, pray and pray again - and await the final decision, which we KNOW will be Spirit-led, and may even be a surprise that none of us can possibly anticipate.
 
GAHere said:
I take the 'Communion alone is no solution." statement as a response to all those clamoring to allow communion for divorced/civilly remarried persons. I hear him asking them to not be so narrow focused, as if allowing for communion is THE solution to the problem. I see it as him asking them to look beyond the communion issue, because that’s something hard wired into Church teaching directly from Paul to the Corinthians, but to consider other ways to help those persons not feel so separated from the Church. I don’t see it as a communion AND statement. "The solution is integration."

Well it is unfortunate that they are excluded from it, but they’re excluded by their own actions. The Pope is right on the mark to find ways to integrate them into church life so that the grace of God can be bestowed upon them, because it is through grace that they will be moved to find the courage to change what needs to be changed so that they can return to full communion with the church.
Click to expand...
Great post. I think this is exactly the question here. Which way did he mean it?

I honestly can’t tell and keep going back and forth on it, but it’s good to know that someone else sees that there is a possible positive interpretation.
 
Nonetheless the fact remains that what the pope said in this interview with regard to communion for the divorced and remarried still lends itself to interpretative doubts. One can read in it, in fact, both a rejection of the “solution” of giving them communion and an assent to this same solution, as part of a more comprehensive “integration” of these individuals.
Click to expand...
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350935?eng=y

There are also translated comments of Cardinal De Paolis views on paragraph 52 of the Synod document regarding Conmunion.
 
otjm said:
These are all pieces on the table.
Click to expand...
Not to throw cold water on your rather extended analysis but these have been on the table since the excommunication against divorced Catholics was lifted in 1970, if not before. What makes you think this matter will be over and done with one year from now? Even if the '“final” verdict is annulment processing reform, reform is always easy to say but hard to implement to everyone’s ideological satisfaction. But if the final decision is to extend communion to the divorced/remarried, then there will be arguments that communion should be extended to everyone else, no matter what the state of his soul is. I don’t think the discussions will end soon at all.
 
GAHere said:
I take the 'Communion alone is no solution." statement as a response to all those clamoring to allow communion for divorced/civilly remarried persons. I hear him asking them to not be so narrow focused, as if allowing for communion is THE solution to the problem. I see it as him asking them to look beyond the communion issue, because that’s something hard wired into Church teaching directly from Paul to the Corinthians, but to consider other ways to help those persons not feel so separated from the Church. I don’t see it as a communion AND statement. "The solution is integration."
Click to expand...
👍 That’s my take on it too.
 
ProVobis said:
As I see it, I think he does have a point. The remarrieds are not excommunicated. That excommunication was lifted in 1970, for better or worse. Unfortunately the divorce rate among Catholics has increased substantially since then. Also the number of Catholic marriages has decreased during the same time. The issue of an ideal family then is still left open, and going forward this IMO needs to be addressed. Being focused only on communion allowance (for anyone for that matter) provides no real long-term solution to a problem which can’t be quite p(name removed by moderator)ointed in the secular world.
Click to expand...
The rise in divorce probably has more to do with “no fault” divorce laws than an excommunication lift of 1970. With no fault divorce laws, someone could end up being divorced even if they didn’t want it and wanted to be married. It’s too easy to make sweeping generalizations on this matter but the rise in divorces probably had more to do with legal changes in making divorce easy than anything else.
 
bisco1 said:
yes, i agree. he is asking if there is a way that they can be reintegrated into the church. that has been the discussion from before the first synod. would Jesus have forgiven them.
Click to expand...
How can one who is in a constant state of mortal sin, (and unable or unwilling to end the occasion of sin) ever be reintegrated into Holy Communion without true repentance? No matter what the cause of the constant state of mortal sin, one must be truly sorry before Confession and Communion. Jesus will forgive those who are truly repentant. To receive Our Lord in the state of serious sin is a sacrilege. Who would wish that on anyone. God Bless, Memaw
 
Sirach2 said:
Has anyone considered the grievous scandal that faced the ancient Jewish Christians when the Council of Jerusalem did away with circumcision and the Law of Moses for the new gentiles? After all, Moses had commanded circumcision as God’s direct will, and it was their only law for over 1500 years! Now these gentiles are exempt from keeping the Mosaic Law, albeit with minor exceptions? I can imagine the outburst that took place and the many who left their faith.

It was a completely unpredictable solution with a turn that nobody could have surmised. Yet it was lawfully decided, and it was the Spirit’s guidance.
Acts 15:1. Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” [Can you hear it? - it’s the law!!!]
The decision:
19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who areturning to God. [This is key!]
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
When we try to put God into our own speculative box, we are bound to be radically disturbed. I see no alternative for those who are upset, and are upsetting others, except to pray, pray and pray again - and await the final decision, which we KNOW will be Spirit-led, and may even be a surprise that none of us can possibly anticipate.
Click to expand...
That is a totally different situation. . It is a sacrilege to receive Christ in a state of mortal sin. That has been taught sense the beginning of the Church. Why everyone is ignoring this fact? Until the “marriage” is blessed by the Church (Don’t care if it is 20 years, or how long it takes the Catholic Church to investigate their previous marriages and declare them null.) it is not a marriage.

I mean, why aren’t we arguing about giving Communion to people just living together? We know this isn’t up for debate, so what is the difference between the two?
 
robwar said:
The rise in divorce probably has more to do with “no fault” divorce laws than an excommunication lift of 1970. With no fault divorce laws, someone could end up being divorced even if they didn’t want it and wanted to be married. It’s too easy to make sweeping generalizations on this matter but the rise in divorces probably had more to do with legal changes in making divorce easy than anything else.
Click to expand...
It seems like divorce laws have been making it easier and easier since way before 1970. But knowing that one need not worry about being shut off from the church in case a marriage doesn’t work out isn’t great motivation to try to work things out IMO. I think any marriage counselor will tell you that.
 
CHCL said:
That is a totally different situation. . It is a sacrilege to receive Christ in a state of mortal sin. That has been taught sense the beginning of the Church. Why everyone is ignoring this fact? Until the “marriage” is blessed by the Church (Don’t care if it is 20 years, or how long it takes the Catholic Church to investigate their previous marriages and declare them null.) it is not a marriage.

I mean, why aren’t we arguing about giving Communion to people just living together? We know this isn’t up for debate, so what is the difference between the two?
Click to expand...
There is no difference, since there is no such thing as remarriage.
 
ProVobis said:
It seems like divorce laws have been making it easier and easier since way before 1970. But knowing that one need not worry about being shut off from the church in case a marriage doesn’t work out isn’t great motivation to try to work things out IMO. I think any marriage counselor will tell you that.
Click to expand...
The people that this issue is addressing are those who have been deficient in faith at the time of celebrating the Sacrament, not those who have genuine faith and are deeply committed to lifelong indissoluble union. Where faith is absent that reasoning is also absent.

Remember that there is no question that there would be a change in the general rule. That has been stipulated over and over. This question comes retrospectively out of the fruits of the Spirit evident at a time that makes the whole picture more clear to the parties and to the Church discerning the work of the Holy Spirit. To get where Pope Francis is coming from, we have to step out of the spot we are familiar with standing in and look at the issue from a retrospective standpoint.
 
ProVobis said:
It seems like divorce laws have been making it easier and easier since way before 1970. But knowing that one need not worry about being shut off from the church in case a marriage doesn’t work out isn’t great motivation to try to work things out IMO. I think any marriage counselor will tell you that.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. With no fault divorce laws, someone could end up divorced that never wanted it. It has nothing to do with trying to save the marriage and your assumption implies that if someone is divorced, they didn’t try or they wanted it. It is more complicated than that. My husband is a marriage and family therapist. One can try to look at trends and sadly divorce is a horrible trend and has terrible consequences. Whatever the Church decides here isn’t really going to affect the rate of divorce or make more successful marriages. Along with the rise of no fault divorce laws is also the rise of artificial birth control and immorality which likewise affect the stability of marriages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top