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

[Sirach2]

Sometimes a discipline that served the doctrine well in past generations, can actually distort the doctrine to a new generation in a new era. Limbo was one of those teachings. Fast and abstinence rules are another.

Jesus and the Church made allowances for the Gentiles coming into the faith recognising that a law that had meaningful roots in the history of one peoples could actually damage the faith of those without the same history.

Remember, this is not an issue looking to change the general rule, but one looking at situations where the faith history of modern day ‘Gentiles’ is relevant in the same way.

Here’s another absolute commandment, given to us by God - Thou shalt not kill. Accordingly, suicide was a mortal sin in every previous generation until modern psychology shed light upon the mental outlook of the person who committed this act. Therefore, the Church no longer refuses to allow a Catholic burial for these persons, since it is clearly unknown what their presence of mind was when the person took his life.

Similarly, it is unknown whether some couples had the right presence of mind to receive the sacrament of marriage with proper faith. Pope Benedict alluded to this.

Too many look at the pure letter of the law and adamantly stand in judgment of their hearts, something God has forbidden.

 

[KSU]

In all my dealings in Free Market circles, I have never once heard someone espouse “trickle down economics”. What upset me most about that paragraph was the strawman attack.

From my research, I am convinced that the Pope did not say “trickle down economics” in his original Spanish. Some translator in the office of Father Lombardi, S.J, did that.

Because “trickle down economics” is a term of derision used solely by U.S. progressives against U.S. conservative politicians, the Pope would be the last person in the world to use it in what he considers his trade mark Exhortation. Ergo my wish that Francis be told what is going on regarding translations of his words.

You need look no further than this thread; ten pages of debating what the Pope meant, when all the while he is assuming that we are being given his “very clear” remarks.

 

[Dawnia]

Similarly, it is unknown whether some couples had the right presence of mind to receive the sacrament of marriage with proper faith. Pope Benedict alluded to this.

Too many look at the pure letter of the law and adamantly stand in judgment of their hearts, something God has forbidden.

Hence the anullment process.

 

[Phil502]

That’s not my reasoning at all. Annulments are not Catholic divorce - they are a decision by the Church that a valid marriage never actually occurred in the first place. Therefore, nothing is ended when the two parties go their separate ways. Also, Christ didn’t need to write all of Canon Law for us. He gave us the basics, which are non-negotiable, and then left it up to His Church to handle specific variations. But that doesn’t mean the specific solutions can undermine the doctrinal foundations. Again, he clearly says divorce and remarriage is sinful. Persons who receive a decree of nullity were never married, therefore they can’t get divorced (except in the eyes of the state, which doesn’t matter much) and can’t be RE-married. This is all very logical.

I’ll need some help from you to understand how something Jesus defined as adultery can be compared with the canonization of saints…??

I also fail to see how someone turning their back on the wedding vows they professed in front of God - “till death do us part” - can possibly be labeled “fruits of the spirit”. Putting lipstick on this pig with nice sounding phrases simply doesn’t change the underlying realities of the sins committed.

I think maybe you are putting some lipstick on the annulment part. I have a hard time believing a tribunal can actually see inside someones heart from that far away and deem a marriage invalid. If the Church is going to do that and I think they should, certainly they can find a way to make the process a little better. I think this is the main idea, to find forgiveness, not change doctrine.

I certainly wonder one thing often, how many of the divorced people that show up to Church and want to be completely in are the ones that broke the Vows of their marriage? I have to believe it’s not the oathbreakers, some sure but not most. It’s real easy to say, hey, too bad, your spouse left you, now go and live half a life, than it is to do it.

 

[pnewton]

Some argue that if you allow Communion for the divorced and civilly married that it wouldn’t change the indissoubility of marriage.

I think this remains the crux of the matter. It has been argued this is not possible, and argued that it is. I really think it should be obvious this is not an issue this thread will solve. I am of the camp that the Church is able to bind and loose in many areas and that it is at least possible for communion to be received by some, depending on the circumstances. I have written in detail on this in the past and am at the point of wait and see, since the Church is addressing this issue.

 

[Transformer]

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean divorcees approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

Serious questions:

Is there anyone whom the Church should tell not to receive Communion? How about a woman who had an abortion last week, not due to serious hardship, but mere convenience? Let’s say that she has not gone to confession, is not repentant, and intends to have another abortion if she gets pregnant again. Should the Church tell her that she is perfectly free to present herself for Communion?

What about a hitman, who kills others for a living? Let’s say that he killed an innocent man yesterday, is not repentant, and intends to continue in his profession. Should the Church teach that he is perfectly free to present himself for Communion?

If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, then aren’t you guilty of the very hypocrisy of which you accuse us Catholics? Aren’t you pridefully claiming to be purer than other sinners?

My point, obviously, is not to claim that remarried divorcees are the equivalent of hitmen. My point is to find out where you draw the line. You seem to reject as hypocritical the very idea of the Church teaching that some people should not present themselves for Communion. Do you really follow that logic through to its conclusion? Is there any mortal sin that makes someone unfit to receive the body and blood of Christ?

For that matter, how do you interpret 1 Corinthians 11:27? Who would you say receives the Eucharist unworthily? How would one go about receiving the body and blood of Christ unworthily? If committing a gravely immoral act, not repenting, and then receiving the Eucharist doesn’t count, what does?

 

[bisco1]

I think maybe you are putting some lipstick on the annulment part. I have a hard time believing a tribunal can actually see inside someones heart from that far away and deem a marriage invalid. If the Church is going to do that and I think they should, certainly they can find a way to make the process a little better. I think this is the main idea, to find forgiveness, not change doctrine.

I certainly wonder one thing often, how many of the divorced people that show up to Church and want to be completely in are the ones that broke the Vows of their marriage? I have to believe it’s not the oathbreakers, some sure but not most. It’s real easy to say, hey, too bad, your spouse left you, now go and live half a life, than it is to do it.

there are many sins that are hard to avoid, but we do our best to live in grace.

 

[Seraphim73]

Serious questions:

Is there anyone whom the Church should tell not to receive Communion? How about a woman who had an abortion last week, not due to serious hardship, but mere convenience? Let’s say that she has not gone to confession, is not repentant, and intends to have another abortion if she gets pregnant again. Should the Church tell her that she is perfectly free to present herself for Communion?

What about a hitman, who kills others for a living? Let’s say that he killed an innocent man yesterday, is not repentant, and intends to continue in his profession. Should the Church teach that he is perfectly free to present himself for Communion?

If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, then aren’t you guilty of the very hypocrisy of which you accuse us Catholics? Aren’t you pridefully claiming to be purer than other sinners?

My point, obviously, is not to claim that remarried divorcees are the equivalent of hitmen. My point is to find out where you draw the line. You seem to reject as hypocritical the very idea of the Church teaching that some people should not present themselves for Communion. Do you really follow that logic through to its conclusion? Is there any mortal sin that makes someone unfit to receive the body and blood of Christ?

For that matter, how do you interpret 1 Corinthians 11:27? Who would you say receives the Eucharist unworthily? How would one go about receiving the body and blood of Christ unworthily? If committing a gravely immoral act, not repenting, and then receiving the Eucharist doesn’t count, what does?

I will say there is something out of balance when a faithful, loving person who has been faithful to a second spouse is compared to an unrepentant murderer.

 

[Seraphim73]

Serious questions:

Is there anyone whom the Church should tell not to receive Communion? How about a woman who had an abortion last week, not due to serious hardship, but mere convenience? Let’s say that she has not gone to confession, is not repentant, and intends to have another abortion if she gets pregnant again. Should the Church tell her that she is perfectly free to present herself for Communion?

What about a hitman, who kills others for a living? Let’s say that he killed an innocent man yesterday, is not repentant, and intends to continue in his profession. Should the Church teach that he is perfectly free to present himself for Communion?

If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, then aren’t you guilty of the very hypocrisy of which you accuse us Catholics? Aren’t you pridefully claiming to be purer than other sinners?

My point, obviously, is not to claim that remarried divorcees are the equivalent of hitmen. My point is to find out where you draw the line. You seem to reject as hypocritical the very idea of the Church teaching that some people should not present themselves for Communion. Do you really follow that logic through to its conclusion? Is there any mortal sin that makes someone unfit to receive the body and blood of Christ?

For that matter, how do you interpret 1 Corinthians 11:27? Who would you say receives the Eucharist unworthily? How would one go about receiving the body and blood of Christ unworthily? If committing a gravely immoral act, not repenting, and then receiving the Eucharist doesn’t count, what does?

I will say there is something out of balance when a faithful, loving person who has been faithful to a second spouse is compared to an unrepentant murderer. I know you’re not intentionally equating the two but you are the second person to make that analogy.

 

[Dawnia]

I will say there is something out of balance when a faithful, loving person who has been faithful to a second spouse is compared to an unrepentant murderer. I know you’re not intentionally equating the two but you are the second person to make that analogy.

That is a rather large disparity.

The problem is that the person being faithful is not being faithful to their spouse, but rather someone who isn’t their spouse in the eyes of God. Would a man who’s faithful to his mistress be golden as well? Both couples aren’t married in the eyes of God, why should one get a pass and not the other?

 

[otjm]

As Cardinal de Paolis said:

"The proposition, to the extent to which it provides for the possibility of admitting the divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion, in fact constitutes a change of doctrine. And this contrary to the fact that it is said that there is no intention to modify doctrine. "

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350935?eng=y

If they want to change pastoral practice in a way that does not change doctrine, then fine, but at least one “pastoral” option being considered would change doctrine, which is the problem.

In part, it appears that the Cardinal was answering a different issue. And in part I don’t think you have sufficient knowledge to determine what might or might not be a change in doctrine. If the Synod is struggling with these issues, then it is highly unlikely that laity know better than the bishops, Cardinals, and theologians who have not yet reached any consensus.

And one needs to keep in mind that there was a consensus before, but the minority report was the one which Paul 6 chose to follow.

How about, instead of us all being armchair theologians, we wait for the Pope to receive a final report from the synod and subsequently make his decision?

 

[otjm]

I think maybe you are putting some lipstick on the annulment part. I have a hard time believing a tribunal can actually see inside someones heart from that far away and deem a marriage invalid. If the Church is going to do that and I think they should, certainly they can find a way to make the process a little better. I think this is the main idea, to find forgiveness, not change doctrine.

I certainly wonder one thing often, how many of the divorced people that show up to Church and want to be completely in are the ones that broke the Vows of their marriage? I have to believe it’s not the oathbreakers, some sure but not most. It’s real easy to say, hey, too bad, your spouse left you, now go and live half a life, than it is to do it.

Tribunals are not tasked with seeing into anyone’s heart; they are tasked with reviewing evidence. And if the evidence is inadequate, because of one or the other party not being able to articulate clearly what was going on at the time of the marriage ceremony or if witnesses are dead, or missing, or uncooperative, or simply can’t remember, then even though the marriage may be invalid in the eyes of God, the Church is not going to find it invalid.

So you are right, that time can be a detriment to a decision. Taking two or more years to make a determination is a long, long time, and if I remember correctly, Benedict 16 had said this needs to be resolved and decisions rendered more quickly.

As to your comments about who petitions, there have been plenty of people who have reconciled with God, and not only realized their error, but have moved to change their ways. “oath breaker” could be many things; it could be a spouse who committed adultery which lead to the divorce; but it could also be the innocent spouse who filed, because of the need for protection.

 

[McCall1981]

In part, it appears that the Cardinal was answering a different issue. And in part I don’t think you have sufficient knowledge to determine what might or might not be a change in doctrine. If the Synod is struggling with these issues, then it is highly unlikely that laity know better than the bishops, Cardinals, and theologians who have not yet reached any consensus.

And one needs to keep in mind that there was a consensus before, but the minority report was the one which Paul 6 chose to follow.

How about, instead of us all being armchair theologians, we wait for the Pope to receive a final report from the synod and subsequently make his decision?

He’s referring to the proposal regarding communion for the remarried that is in the Synod final document, which is what I said he’s referring to.

I may not have sufficient knowledge to determine what constitutes a change in doctrine, which is why I refer to a Cardinal saying that this is a change in doctrine. This isn’t the laity claiming to know better than Bishops, Cardinals or theologians, because its a Cardinal that is saying it.

 

[otjm]

He’s referring to the proposal regarding communion for the remarried that is in the Synod final document, which is what I said he’s referring to.

I may not have sufficient knowledge to determine what constitutes a change in doctrine, which is why I refer to a Cardinal saying that this is a change in doctrine. This isn’t the laity claiming to know better than Bishops, Cardinals or theologians, because its a Cardinal that is saying it.

Let me try it a different way: the cardinal addressed one specific point; there is more than one point on the table. I have no idea how he would address the other points, and most like, until the synod finishes its work, we will not hear from him concerning other points.

 

[Seraphim73]

That is a rather large disparity.

The problem is that the person being faithful is not being faithful to their spouse, but rather someone who isn’t their spouse in the eyes of God. Would a man who’s faithful to his mistress be golden as well? Both couples aren’t married in the eyes of God, why should one get a pass and not the other?

Again, this is an unbalanced view I think. The person has been remarried for 20 years with children and she is still his “mistress”? Her first husband found himself another woman and left her for the other person. They didn’t start dating until after the divorce was final. And now she’s his 20 year adulterous mistress who really is in the same category as hitmen and abortionists? There is something seriously wrong here. I think I’d be a little less presumptuous in saying how God sees this situation.

 

[pnewton]

Again, this is an unbalanced view I think. The person has been remarried for 20 years with children and she is still his “mistress”?

I think the words that are used in these situations are exactly why the issue needs to be visited. Is a marriage invalid because of some defect, or is the marriage invalid only because canon law has ruled it invalid? Since marriage is insoluble, I would think that an annulment would indicate there never was a valid marriage. If that is the case, the first person was not the spouse even before the annulment.

 

[Memaw]

I think maybe you are putting some lipstick on the annulment part. I have a hard time believing a tribunal can actually see inside someones heart from that far away and deem a marriage invalid. If the Church is going to do that and I think they should, certainly they can find a way to make the process a little better. I think this is the main idea, to find forgiveness, not change doctrine.

I certainly wonder one thing often, how many of the divorced people that show up to Church and want to be completely in are the ones that broke the Vows of their marriage? I have to believe it’s not the oathbreakers, some sure but not most. It’s real easy to say, hey, too bad, your spouse left you, now go and live half a life, than it is to do it.

Since when is living alone, half a life?? I have been alone for over 30 years( by death, not divorce) and I do not consider my life a half life. I have been alone longer than I was married,(18 years). I have a very full life with my family and faith.I attended daily Mass for 40 years and still do, taught CCD for over 20 years. I was fairly young when widowed and spent my time raising my children and later babysitting my grandchildren while their mothers worked. No day cares for them. I enjoyed every minute of it and am very close to all my grandkids. Being alone does not mean setting around feeling sorry for oneself. I kept busy and thanked God for all my Blessings. God Bless, memaw

 

[McCall1981]

Let me try it a different way: the cardinal addressed one specific point; there is more than one point on the table. I have no idea how he would address the other points, and most like, until the synod finishes its work, we will not hear from him concerning other points.

What other points are you referring to?

 

[ProVobis]

I think the words that are used in these situations are exactly why the issue needs to be visited. Is a marriage invalid because of some defect, or is the marriage invalid only because canon law has ruled it invalid? Since marriage is insoluble, I would think that an annulment would indicate there never was a valid marriage. If that is the case, the first person was not the spouse even before the annulment.

I think there can be no hard and fast rules on the annulment process. Don’t forget, it’s become a learning process for all the parties involved. Not only the couple but mistresses and other parties. This is really new territory for the Church and an important step forward. One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that there is a psychological evaluation of one or both parties. (At least I was evaluated by a psychologist; in fact it was the only human contact I had in the entire process.) Psychologists play a big part and I’m sure they’re providing some (name removed by moderator)ut in the matter. There’s no reason why their work and research shouldn’t continue.

 

[Dawnia]

Again, this is an unbalanced view I think. The person has been remarried for 20 years with children and she is still his “mistress”? Her first husband found himself another woman and left her for the other person. They didn’t start dating until after the divorce was final. And now she’s his 20 year adulterous mistress who really is in the same category as hitmen and abortionists? There is something seriously wrong here. I think I’d be a little less presumptuous in saying how God sees this situation.

It’s not unbalanced. The motives would be different, but the actions are the same. Having sex with someone who is not your spouse, regardless of your motives or fidelity to the person who isn’t your spouse, is adultry. The civil divorce is irrelevant, because it has no affect on sacramental marriage.

No presumption involved. It is spelled out in Jesus’s own words.