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

[McCall1981]

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?

You do everything you can to encourage and guide them, and accept that they have free will.

You don’t change the doctrine of the Church so that they can remain in their same situation.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

It may not work with them but what about those who are contemplating divorce and possible remarriage with another right now? Shouldn’t we be careful about what we encourage or discourage with them?

 

[mgoforth]

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?

My opinion:

• Begin by telling them that Christ died for the love of them specifically, and that he is waiting for them in Heaven. I completely agree that hitting them over the head with rules, outside the context of Christ’s love is pointless.
• Tell them that anything they’ve done in the past can be forgiven in an instant if they believe in Jesus’ power to forgive them and repent of those sins.
• Explain the many graces God sends to His Church, most importantly through the Sacraments.
• While we’re talking with them about the Sacraments, explain why the Body of Christ is so sacred and the respect that it deserves. Talk about the logical progression from Baptism >> Confession >> Eucharist. As well as the need for Confession THEN the Eucharist, ad infinitum until death.

What I would NOT suggest - Giving them the Eucharist (our Lord Himself) to consume without full understanding of their own sins or what they’re doing to Him and to themselves.

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world." 1 Corinthians 11:27-32

And if after all that, they won’t accept the Church and her teachings?

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

Jesus never said we should do anything more than offer others His love and pray for them. We’re not supposed to beg them or change the core of His teachings - the Faith that He died to give us - just so they will join a watered down version of the Church.

 

[Seraphim73]

As I see it, I think he does have a point. The remarrieds are not excommunicated.

That’s baloney. The are excluded from Communion. That is the very definition of excommunicated. In this case you have to call a spade a spade.

 

[ProVobis]

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

Not to give you a hard time, but where would the definition of scandal (bad example) fall into play here?

 

[ProVobis]

That’s baloney. The are excluded from Communion. That is the very definition of excommunicated. In this case you have to call a spade a spade.

Not everyone excluded from communion is deemed excommunicated. Some pro-abortion politicians by their bishops for example.

 

[Phil502]

lanacion.com.ar/1750351-the-synod-on-the-family-the-divorced-and-remarried-seem-excommunicated

I am struggling with this quote. I assume that Pope Francis is talking about remarried divorcees who are sexually active. I assume so because remarried divorcees who “live as brother and sister” can already receive communion.

The problem is that sexually active remarried divorcees are persistently and unrepentantly engaging in a gravely immoral act (sex with someone to whom they are not validly married). That is the perennial teaching of the Church. I know that it’s a very hard teaching, but it is a teaching that necessarily follows from Christ’s words.

I just don’t see how the quote “I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on” is consistent with persistently and unrepentantly engaging in gravely immoral acts. I cannot imagine Padre Pio, or any of the saints, saying that a Catholic who is persistently and unrepentantly engaging in gravely immoral acts is setting a good example by doing so. I just don’t understand that.

The Holy Father’s hypothetical remarried divorcee says “my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here.” Presumably that is a reference to either the failure of the first marriage, or the decision to enter into a second marriage. But as always, neither of those things is the issue here. The issue here is the ongoing, unrepentant acts of adultery. It is not a past mistake, but an ongoing choice, that makes the person in question ineligible to be a godparent.

My other struggle with these words is a practical one. Pope Francis seems to be saying that sexually active remarried divorcees should be integrated at every level of parish life: not only should they be free to receive Communion, but they should also be able to be godparents, EMHCs, and so forth. What I don’t understand is this: if it is unmerciful and unnecessary to exclude sexually active remarried divorcees from any part of parish life, how is it fair to exclude from parish life other people who are involved in a pattern of unrepentant grave sin? For example, consider the following three people:

• Alice is a Catholic who goes to Mass regularly and is active at her parish. She is a remarried divorcee whose first marriage has not be annulled. She is sexually active, and does not confess her sexual activity in confession with a firm purpose of amendment. Her second marriage is very stable and involves children.
• Betty is a Catholic who goes to Mass regularly and is active at her parish. She is a divorcee who is in a long-lasting relationship with a man. She lives with her partner, and is sexually active with him. She does not confess her sexual activity in confession with a firm purpose of amendment. Her relationship is very stable and involves children.
• Cathy is a Catholic who goes to Mass regularly and is active at her parish. She is in a civil marriage with another woman. She lives with her partner, and is sexually active with her. She does not confess her sexual activity in confession with a firm purpose of amendment. Her relationship is very stable. She and her partner adopted two children several years ago, and have been raising them together ever since.

According to the Holy Father, Alice should be allowed to partake in every part of parish life: receiving Communion, distributing Communion, teaching religious education, being a godmother, and so forth. The question is: is it fair to exclude Betty and Cathy from parish life?

The only difference between Alice and Betty is that Alice is civilly married to her partner, while Betty is not. But according to the Church, neither of them is married to the man she is currently living with, and both of them regularly engage in gravely immoral acts. Is it really fair to exclude Betty from parish life and include Alice, solely because of Alice’s civil marriage?

And Cathy: her situation is virtually identical to Alice’s. Both of them are cohabitating with people to whom they are civilly married. Neither of them is married to her current partner in the eyes of the Church. Both engage in gravely immoral acts regularly (sex with someone who is not one’s spouse). Both are in stable relationships that involve children.

If mercy and compassion demand that we not restrict Alice from full participation in parish life, surely they also demand that we not restrict Betty and Cathy? Surely we shouldn’t be legalistic and unmerciful to Betty and Cathy?

In other words, it seems to me that the Holy Father’s words here work just as well as an argument for integrating cohabitating couples and same-sex couples fully into parish life.

I don’t want to come to these conclusions. I don’t at all mean to attack the Holy Father. I am looking for help interpreting Pope Francis’ words here in light of the perennial teachings of the Church. Any insights would be appreciated.

Alice can not go to confession, that sacrement is blocked for her.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

It really misrepresents the Pope and his synod aim to claim that this is about ‘filling seats at Mass’. What it is is representing Christ and His message as clearly as can be to those who have no real relationship with Him. People in pastoral positions, the layman as well as the religious, meet people everyday in real suffering having been brought up in the faith but not having a real grasp of relationship with Christ. 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. When abstaining from meat on a Friday meant sacrifice it was far more effective than when abstaining from meat on Friday meant seafood platter night.

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.

 

[Transformer]

Alice can not go to confession, that sacrement is blocked for her.

What do you mean? If Alice decided to cease all sexual activity, she could go to confession and receive absolution. She would then be required to only receive the Eucharist at a parish where she is not known, to avoid scandal.

But Alice intends to continue having sex, and so she does not present herself for confession.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

That’s baloney. The are excluded from Communion. That is the very definition of excommunicated. In this case you have to call a spade a spade.

Yes. They are practically excommunicated even if the bishops say they aren’t.

 

[McCall1981]

That’s baloney. The are excluded from Communion. That is the very definition of excommunicated. In this case you have to call a spade a spade.

Yes. They are practically excommunicated even if the bishops say they aren’t.

They are only “excommunicated” in the sense of temporarily barring themselves from communion until they confess, the same as any one else, with any other sin.

It’s no different than any other sin, as soon as they stop committing it, they can go to confession, then receive communion.

 

[otjm]

You do everything you can to encourage and guide them, and accept that they have free will.

You don’t change the doctrine of the Church so that they can remain in their same situation.

I have not suggested changing doctrine, Pope Francis has not suggested changing doctrine, and I seriously doubt the Holy Spirit will allow any change.

But the whole issue is not about changing doctrine; it is about how we can pastorally deal with these issues, in light of the fact that currently we don’t seem to be making much headway with current pastoral practice.

 

[McCall1981]

I have not suggested changing doctrine, Pope Francis has not suggested changing doctrine, and I seriously doubt the Holy Spirit will allow any change.

But the whole issue is not about changing doctrine; it is about how we can pastorally deal with these issues, in light of the fact that currently we don’t seem to be making much headway with current pastoral practice.

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.

 

[Phil502]

What do you mean? If Alice decided to cease all sexual activity, she could go to confession and receive absolution. She would then be required to only receive the Eucharist at a parish where she is not known, to avoid scandal.

But Alice intends to continue having sex, and so she does not present herself for confession.

She has a stable marriage and children. Now she should tell her spouse that the “marriage” is essentially over, she and her spouse can only live as brother and sister, how many marriages could sustain that? What is the consequences if her marriage breaks up as far as the children are concerned. Probably Alice can not take this path.

 

[Seraphim73]

They are only “excommunicated” in the sense of temporarily barring themselves from communion until they confess, the same as any one else, with any other sin.

It’s no different than any other sin, as soon as they stop committing it, they can go to confession, then receive communion.

Excommunicated means being barred from Communion. And it’s always temporary if the person repents. I’m afraid in this case people are avoiding the word because of the negative connotations. If you remarry without an annulment you are excommunicated, period.

 

[McCall1981]

Excommunicated means being barred from Communion. And it’s always temporary if the person repents. I’m afraid in this case people are avoiding the word because of the negative connotations. If you remarry without an annulment you are excommunicated, period.

In a sense, yes, the same as anyone else would be for any other sin. I have no problem with the word excommunicated, but I understand it to refer to the Church designating a person as barred from the sacraments, as oppossed to a person “self-excommunicating” themself due to committing a mortal sin.

Either way, there’s nothing wrong with the word

 

[ProVobis]

Excommunicated means being barred from Communion. And it’s always temporary if the person repents. I’m afraid in this case people are avoiding the word because of the negative connotations. If you remarry without an annulment you are excommunicated, period.

I have no problem with that.

However, going back to pre-1970 divorce was grounds for excommunication (I believe) as well as marrying someone who was divorced. The former is now not barred from communion but the latter still is.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

They are only “excommunicated” in the sense of temporarily barring themselves from communion until they confess, the same as any one else, with any other sin.

It’s no different than any other sin, as soon as they stop committing it, they can go to confession, then receive communion.

It is near impossible for Sarah, the remarried woman to confess and leave her sin in the same way that it is when I go to Confession. Sarah isn’t going to stop having sex with her husband. Only a priest who never was married could come up with that one.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

It really misrepresents the Pope and his synod aim to claim that this is about ‘filling seats at Mass’. What it is is representing Christ and His message as clearly as can be to those who have no real relationship with Him. People in pastoral positions, the layman as well as the religious, meet people everyday in real suffering having been brought up in the faith but not having a real grasp of relationship with Christ. 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. When abstaining from meat on a Friday meant sacrifice it was far more effective than when abstaining from meat on Friday meant seafood platter night.

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.

I think the Friday meat thing is a good comparison. I hardly ever eat meat and I adore eating delicious seafood! Sheesh, I have spent vacations eating only yummy fish. I’ve gone days without eating meat in perfect happiness. I also have had an eating disorder in the past and used Lent as a way to cover my eating habits. So it really is one size fits all and is odd to me based on my experiences. I think that the same deal has to be for remarriage. There are lots of remarried divorcees out there and yet the Church is still discussing this like it is scandalous in wider society. It is like suggesting that average middle class people are sacrificing because they cannot afford high quality meatless meals during Lent. There really needs to be a rethinking.

 

[ProVobis]

It is near impossible for Sarah, the remarried woman to confess and leave her sin in the same way that it is when I go to Confession.

Harder but not impossible.