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

[ProVobis]

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.

For the record, I’m not accusing Pope Francis of anything. I’m sure he intends to do the right thing for the Church. I was just pointing out what can happen from a psychological and social point of view. I firmly believe that more effort should be directed into saving the sacramental marriage, if we value the sacraments at all. I know a few couples who have regretted their decisions to divorce, including my own. Perhaps the new partner wasn’t as different as the first partner in some cases, but this is more of a marriage counseling issue. And certainly keeping the faith is part of any marriage counseling process.

 

[mgoforth]

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.

Notice the final thing these early Gentile-Christians were to abstain from - sexual immorality. Divorce and remarriage has always been viewed as sexual immorality. The teaching is based on Christ’s own words in these very explicit passages:

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Luke 16:18

**“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” **Matthew 5:32

He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.” Mark 10:11

He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” John 4:16-18

Trusting in the Holy Spirit, I believe that this clear and straight-forward teaching will prevail within the Church - much to the dismay of the world. There are too many bishops who realize that real “love” doesn’t mean making someone happy in their sins for the doctrine on marriage to change.

 

[Sirach2]

That is a totally different situation. .
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?

You are misreading my post. I did not say a word about “communion” … I merely noted that there may be a surprising pastoral solution that will blow away some folks’ minds, similar to the pastoral situation that existed in the early Church and was most certain to have caused bitter factions. This is easily seen in many of St. Paul’s epistles.

I’m just asking folks to take a deep breath and allow the process to unfold with those who have the God-given authority to guide the faithful.

 

[Sirach2]

He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” John 4:16-18

Yes, this has been quoted here numerous times. Did you notice however, that the “law” said she was to be stoned? Why do you think Jesus did not permit the “law” to be enforced? He turned the table on those who thought themselves so pure as to judge her, and invited them to carry out the sentence.

No, Jesus showed mercy to her and cautioned her to straighten out her life. He saw the heart, which is something I believe many are missing here, and the root of Acts 15:19, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”

There may be a pastoral decision that completely escapes all of us, as our Magisterium seeks a way to reconcile those “who are turning to God” that does not go against doctrine. Let’s not quibble about the communion issue.

 

[McCall1981]

You are misreading my post. I did not say a word about “communion” … I merely noted that there may be a surprising pastoral solution that will blow away some folks’ minds, similar to the pastoral situation that existed in the early Church and was most certain to have caused bitter factions. This is easily seen in many of St. Paul’s epistles.

I’m just asking folks to take a deep breath and allow the process to unfold with those who have the God-given authority to guide the faithful.

I understand that your intention in saying “don’t worry” is good, but when Cardinals are this concerned, why in the world wouldn’t regular Catholics be too?

From Cardinal de Paolis:

"We observe that the wording of the text of the proposition generates ambiguities. It speaks of the “current discipline” and a possible modification of this, but this prompts a few doubts that require examination.** In reality, the regulation in effect is not only a “current discipline,” as if this were a matter of a merely ecclesiastical norm and not of divine norms ratified by the magisterium, with doctrinal and magisterial motivations that concern the very foundations of Christian life, of conjugal morality, of the meaning of and respect for the Eucharist, and of the validity of the sacrament of penance. We are in the presence of a discipline founded on divine law.** It is not emphasized enough that the documents of the Church in this matter do not impose obligations on the part of authority, but rather affirm that the ecclesiastical authority cannot act otherwise, because this “discipline” cannot be modified in its essential elements. The Church cannot act otherwise. It cannot modify the natural law or respect for the nature of the Eucharist, because this is a question of the divine will.

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. Moreover, doctrine by its very nature is not modifiable if it is the object of the authentic magisterium of the Church. Before talking about and dealing with any change in the discipline in force, it is necessary to reflect on the nature of this discipline. In addressing this matter one must, in the first place, reflect on this doctrine and on its level of firmness; there must be careful study of what can be modified and what cannot be modified. The doubt has been insinuated into the proposition itself when it calls for exploration, which must be doctrinal and prior to any decision.

We can also ask ourselves if it is the competency of a synod of bishops to deal with a question like this: the value of the doctrine and discipline effective in the Church, which have been formed over the course of centuries and have been ratified with statements on the part of the supreme magisterium of the Church. Moreover, who is competent to modify the magisterium of other popes? This would constitute a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, the innovations that would be introduced if the text of the proposition were approved would be of unprecedented gravity:

a) the possibility of admitting to Eucharistic communion with the explicit approval of the Church a person in a state of mortal sin, with the danger of sacrilege and profanation of the Eucharist;

b) doing this would bring into question the general principle of the need for the state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Eucharistic communion, especially now that a generalized practice has been introduced or is being introduced into the Church of receiving the Eucharist without previous sacramental confession, even if one is aware of being in grave sin, with all of the deleterious consequences that this practice involves;

c) the admission to Eucharistic communion of a believer who cohabits “more uxorio” would also mean bringing into question sexual morality, particularly founded on the sixth commandment;

d) this would also lend support to cohabitation or other bonds, weakening the principle of the indissolubility of marriage."

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

 

[agnes_therese]

I understand that your intention in saying “don’t worry” is good, but when Cardinals are this concerned, why in the world wouldn’t regular Catholics be too?

Personally, I’m not worrying because it’s WAY above my pay grade. I’ll decide whether to worry when:
a) the Vatican calls to ask my opinion; or
b) the Vatican issues an actual decision. Then we can discuss facts, instead of all this endless speculation.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

For interest:

Here is the complete interview in English.

And here it is in Spanish.

The important passage (emphasis mine):

Y fue una inquietud pastoral: ¿entonces le van a dar la comunión? No es una solución si les van a dar la comunión. Eso solo no es la solución: la solución es la integración.

This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? It is not a solution if they are allowed to received Communion. That alone is not the solution. The solution is integration.

Here are the English meanings for ‘solo’:

1: alone, by oneself

pasa los días solo en su cuarto
he spends the days alone or on his own in his room

iré solo
I’ll go alone or on my own

dejar solo a alguien
to leave somebody alone

me quedé solo
I was left alone

se quedó solo a los siete años
he was left an orphan or alone in the world at seven

2 : lonely

me siento muy solo
I feel very lonely

3: único : only, sole, unique

hay un solo problema
there’s only one problem

su sola preocupación es ganar dinero
*his one or only concern is to make money

con esta sola condición*
on this one condition

hay una sola dificultad
there is only or just one problem

no hubo ni una sola objeción
*there was not a single objection

tendremos que comer pan solo*
we shall have to eat plain bread

cantar solo
to sing solo

4: a solas : alone

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Acts 15:19, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”

The issue at hand at the time was circumcision.

Well, Jesus certainly prevented the stoning but, he was still pretty strict…

Also, Mar 10:11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her.
Mar 10:12 And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

There’s nothing preventing the divorced & remarried folks from participating in the Mass, they just can’t partake in the sacraments.

 

[PTL]

There’s nothing preventing the divorced & remarried folks from participating in the Mass, they just can’t partake in the sacraments.

And if they do not have sexual relationship, even they are divorced or divorced and remarried, they still can receive the Eucharist. This applies to gays and lesbians also. They can have homosexual tendency as long as they have no homosexual behavior.

Jesus pardoned the woman in adultery but told her to “sin no more”. That is the key.

 

[Sirach2]

I understand that your intention in saying “don’t worry” is good, but when Cardinals are this concerned, why in the world wouldn’t regular Catholics be too?

And then you go on to post what has been referenced a zillion times about communion. Again, I am not isolating this into anything whatsoever concerning communion. As you noted, I am indeed saying, “don’t worry” … it was also a command from Our Lord, if you are in the mode of quoting scripture. Who is listening to THAT verse? It is for the Magisterium to figure out and give their guidance. We wait and pray, meanwhile.

 

[Sirach2]

The issue at hand at the time was circumcision.

Well, Jesus certainly prevented the stoning but, he was still pretty strict…

Of course, but circumcision was the Law at the time, and to disobey it, brought severe consequences. Genesis 17:11-14

[11] And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. [12] An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: [13] And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. [14] **The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant. **%between%

 

[otjm]

I understand that your intention in saying “don’t worry” is good, but when Cardinals are this concerned, why in the world wouldn’t regular Catholics be too?

Again, we get back to an issue as if it were the only issue before the synod, and we continue to pound on it.

In fact, there are circumstances where a remarried couple in an irregular marriage may be admitted to Communion, and it is not a new proposal.

Moral law is not going to be stood on its head; doctrine is not going to be reversed.

The issue can be put to rest by those who trust the Holy Spirit, and in 2000 years, the reliability of the Holy Spirit has been unwavering. It is time to move on and discuss the rest of what is before the synod.

And for those who do not trust the Holy Spirit, perhaps they can take that conversation somewhere else.

Elsewhere, I asked the question: consider the scene; the woman is caught in adultery again, and again brought before Christ - what is He going to do?

The last time I asked the question, the one it was posed to didn’t get the issue.

Sexual sins are not the only mortal sins out there, but they seem to get the most focus, and given that it is the topic of conversation (sexual congress between two in an irregular marriage), then let’s take it a bit further.

It seems that there are any number of people who say that the couple has one alternative: to live as brother and sister. And I do not disagree that this is the means for them to be able to approach their priest to seek permission to receive.

And if they “fail” - then what?

That in essence is no different a question than asking any other individual who has a problem with a sexual sin - “OK, you confessed. However, you sinned again, so…”

What result in the second issue?

And how is that all so different than the first? (Hint - the difference is not that one is married and the other not).

Or are we taking the position (perhaps unspoken and not necessarily thought through) that Christ, in the second scene, would pick up the first stone?

In the US alone (and the Pope is not holding this synod solely for the US) we have 25% of all married Catholics now divorced. Additionally, we have 75% of adult Catholics not attending Mass on a weekly basis. The likelihood is that the larger portion of divorced Catholics are not attending regularly, particularly if they are in a subsequent irregular marriage.

With no disagreement with those concerned about the question of reception of the Eucharist, what are we to do differently to get these folks back to the Church? It should be obvious that what we are currently doing is not having much, if any impact.

 

[McCall1981]

Again, we get back to an issue as if it were the only issue before the synod, and we continue to pound on it.

In fact, there are circumstances where a remarried couple in an irregular marriage may be admitted to Communion, and it is not a new proposal.

Moral law is not going to be stood on its head; doctrine is not going to be reversed.

The issue can be put to rest by those who trust the Holy Spirit, and in 2000 years, the reliability of the Holy Spirit has been unwavering. It is time to move on and discuss the rest of what is before the synod.

And for those who do not trust the Holy Spirit, perhaps they can take that conversation somewhere else.

**Elsewhere, I asked the question: consider the scene; the woman is caught in adultery again, and again brought before Christ - what is He going to do?

The last time I asked the question, the one it was posed to didn’t get the issue.**

Sexual sins are not the only mortal sins out there, but they seem to get the most focus, and given that it is the topic of conversation (sexual congress between two in an irregular marriage), then let’s take it a bit further.

It seems that there are any number of people who say that the couple has one alternative: to live as brother and sister. And I do not disagree that this is the means for them to be able to approach their priest to seek permission to receive.

And if they “fail” - then what?

That in essence is no different a question than asking any other individual who has a problem with a sexual sin - “OK, you confessed. However, you sinned again, so…”

What result in the second issue?

And how is that all so different than the first? (Hint - the difference is not that one is married and the other not).

Or are we taking the position (perhaps unspoken and not necessarily thought through) that Christ, in the second scene, would pick up the first stone?

In the US alone (and the Pope is not holding this synod solely for the US) we have 25% of all married Catholics now divorced. Additionally, we have 75% of adult Catholics not attending Mass on a weekly basis. The likelihood is that the larger portion of divorced Catholics are not attending regularly, particularly if they are in a subsequent irregular marriage.

With no disagreement with those concerned about the question of reception of the Eucharist, what are we to do differently to get these folks back to the Church? It should be obvious that what we are currently doing is not having much, if any impact.

He forgave her the first time because she had a firm intention to stop committing the sin. He would forgive her a second time if she again had a firm intention to stop committing the sin. The group we are talking about cannot demonstrate a firm intention to stop the sin because they choose to remain in the relationship (yes, they could leave the relationship, or live as brother and sister, but presumably these are not the people we are talking about).

 

[otjm]

I understand that your intention in saying “don’t worry” is good, but when Cardinals are this concerned, why in the world wouldn’t regular Catholics be too?

From Cardinal de Paolis:

I cut the text, because it is a moot point; neither moral law nor doctrine are at risk.

I can’t say why several of the Cardinals saw fit to, outside of the synod, address issues within it, but that is not really the issue.

The issue is, what do we do now? What we have been doing for the last 50 years isn’t working; more and more people are leaving the Church; more and more people are getting divorced; more and more of them are remarrying without bothering with a tribunal.

The bottom line is not Communion; the bottom line is finding a way to bring people back into the Church.

And that is going to require “thinking outside the box”, to borrow a facile phrase, because somewhere, somehow, we have to stop the hemorrhaging.

Some people are better at coming up with solutions than others are. I cannot speak for any of the Cardinals, or for that matter, any of the bishops. Some of them will be able to propose solutions which do not turn moral law and doctrine upside down; others may not be able to come up with solutions, but will be able to help fine tune them, and it is entirely possible that some may not want to make any changes or see any need.

Being pastoral does not mean that one ignores doctrine and moral law; but it does mean that one understands the human condition and attempts to bring mercy and reconciliation. And in a society as chaotic and as secular as ours is, we definitively need to find a way to reconcile people to the Church and to Christ.

 

[otjm]

He forgave her the first time because she had a firm intention to stop committing the sin. He would forgive her a second time if she again had a firm intention to stop committing the sin. The group we are talking about cannot demonstrate a firm intention to stop the sin because they choose to remain in the relationship (yes, they could leave the relationship, or live as brother and sister, but presumably these are not the people we are talking about).

You don’t know whether people in irregular marriages are willing to live as brother and sister or not, and many of them do not know.

Some of them have clearly and thoroughly left the Church and are not going to return. That leaves a whole lot of people, particularly those under the age of about 50, who were so poorly catechized in their youth that they truly have no clue as to what the Church teaches - on much of anything - moral law, doctrine, and right down the line.

And within that group are a whole lot of people who, odds are, never understood and accepted the permanency of marriage - which in and of itself may be grounds for a decree of nullity. A point that I think escapes too many.

So, what kind of litmus test do you propose, and how does that differ from another individual who is engaged in some other sexual sin?

 

[otjm]

Personally, I’m not worrying because it’s WAY above my pay grade. I’ll decide whether to worry when:
a) the Vatican calls to ask my opinion; or
b) the Vatican issues an actual decision. Then we can discuss facts, instead of all this endless speculation.

Bingo!

 

[otjm]

Notice the final thing these early Gentile-Christians were to abstain from - sexual immorality. Divorce and remarriage has always been viewed as sexual immorality. The teaching is based on Christ’s own words in these very explicit passages:

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Luke 16:18

**“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” **Matthew 5:32

He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.” Mark 10:11

He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” John 4:16-18

Trusting in the Holy Spirit, I believe that this clear and straight-forward teaching will prevail within the Church - much to the dismay of the world. There are too many bishops who realize that real “love” doesn’t mean making someone happy in their sins for the doctrine on marriage to change.

I have no question but that the clearly defined moral law as well as doctrinal positions will continue on.

However, it misses the issue completely.

How do we deal with people who are on the wrong side of this issue - those in irregular marriages? Going out and beating them with a stick is not going to work.

Quoting the law to them is not going to help them change; how do you propose they be helped to change?

 

[mgoforth]

With no disagreement with those concerned about the question of reception of the Eucharist, what are we to do differently to get these folks back to the Church? It should be obvious that what we are currently doing is not having much, if any impact.

If we want to be instantly popular and attract droves of lapsed Catholics, we should stop talking about sin, Confession and all the rest. We should ordain openly gay priests (male and female of course) and start sending the Eucharist through the registered mail when folks can’t find the time to make it to Mass on Sunday. Ok, enough sarcasm…please forgive me.

My point is that I don’t think we should do anything differently. Filling seats at Mass can’t be the only goal, and certainly not at the expense of the Faith. Plenty of people have always been, and will continue to be, attracted to the fullness of the Truth that only the Catholic Church contains.

However, many people will continue to be utterly repulsed by our beliefs or say that the teachings we strive to follow are just too hard. That’s nothing new…it’s been happening since the very beginning. Read any one of St. Paul’s epistles and tell me what you think he might say about this issue. What did he say to the churches of his day when he heard about various immoral practices they were engaged in? Did he ever suggest that they modify any part of the gospel because the feelings of those involved might be hurt?

If the Church has been at war with the sinful culture of the world for 2000 years, why change now? Our mission isn’t to be “nice”. Our mission isn’t to be “popular”. Our mission is to preach the Truth through our words and our deeds, and most likely to be hated for it.

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me." John 15:18-21

With that said, I agree that we should wait for the Holy Father and the other bishops to come to a decision, and pray for them in the meantime. They’ll make the right choice as they always have.

 

[McCall1981]

You don’t know whether people in irregular marriages are willing to live as brother and sister or not, and many of them do not know.

Some of them have clearly and thoroughly left the Church and are not going to return. That leaves a whole lot of people, particularly those under the age of about 50, who were so poorly catechized in their youth that they truly have no clue as to what the Church teaches - on much of anything - moral law, doctrine, and right down the line.

And within that group are a whole lot of people who, odds are, never understood and accepted the permanency of marriage - which in and of itself may be grounds for a decree of nullity. A point that I think escapes too many.

So, what kind of litmus test do you propose, and how does that differ from another individual who is engaged in some other sexual sin?

If they are willing to live as brother and sister, great, they can be forgiven, and if not, they can’t, it doesn’t matter what I or they think about it.

Many people are poorly Catechized. Some of them may thus have grounds for an annulment, great, if they get one they can be forgiven and return to communion, if they don’t they can’t.

My litmus test is for the Church to have a process where it, in conjunction with the people involved, determine whether the first marriage was valid.

The only difference between this sin and any other sexual sin, is that this sin needs to be investigated because it may, or may not, actually be a sin (depending on whether or not there exists a valid first marriage). Most other sexual sins (like a homosexual relationship, etc) don’t have that possibility, so they don’t need to be investigated. Other than that, no difference.

 

[ProVobis]

For interest:

Here is the complete interview in English.

And here it is in Spanish.

The important passage (emphasis mine):

Y fue una inquietud pastoral: ¿entonces le van a dar la comunión? No es una solución si les van a dar la comunión. Eso solo no es la solución: la solución es la integración.

This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? It is not a solution if they are allowed to received Communion. That alone is not the solution. The solution is integration.

Here are the English meanings for ‘solo’:

1: alone, by oneself

pasa los días solo en su cuarto
he spends the days alone or on his own in his room

iré solo
I’ll go alone or on my own

dejar solo a alguien
to leave somebody alone

me quedé solo
I was left alone

se quedó solo a los siete años
he was left an orphan or alone in the world at seven

2 : lonely

me siento muy solo
I feel very lonely

3: único : only, sole, unique

hay un solo problema
there’s only one problem

su sola preocupación es ganar dinero
*his one or only concern is to make money

con esta sola condición*
on this one condition

hay una sola dificultad
there is only or just one problem

no hubo ni una sola objeción
*there was not a single objection

tendremos que comer pan solo*
we shall have to eat plain bread

cantar solo
to sing solo

4: a solas : alone

Thank you. I was looking for the derivation of the translation and you did a nice job.