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

[otjm]

the difficulty is that when people decide to marry, there isn’t much you can say to them that would change their minds.

At that point, you are exactly right on.

However, what you posited in the question was “single people who haven’t found a spouse” - and I would submit that might be the time to tell them to start looking around without blinders.

Once they have found the person - well, the old saying “Love is blind - but the neighbors aren’t” applies.

 

[sennincatholic]

All I can say is we should pray unceasingly for the inspiration and intervention of the Holy Spirit in the Synod.Thats the best we can do at our little levels.

 

[bisco1]

it’s more important that people be raised in a loving, Godly family, and be taught by their parents to marry someone similarly raised. that has been destroyed by our society, and the results are obvious.

 

[pnewton]

One who remarries after a civil divorce without an annulment. is not just “known” as an adulterer, one is an adulterer.

Not necessarily. It has already been stated that the annulment process does not annul the previous marriage, but rather recognizes a defect that made the marriage null in the beginning. Thus the current marriage could be the first and only valid marriage.

 

[pnewton]

I could see it where lack of form was the invalidity of the first marriage. That, however, is so easily resolved that it is not really the subject of denial of Communion because it can be remedied so quickly.

Beyond that, in my opinion, it gets so murky so fast that I am not sure the couple can sort that out. .

There may be a more than defect in form. For example:

So-called “open” marriage
Temporary marriages with pre-nuptial agreements
Marriages where on has a partner on the side
Marriage where a party is sterilized in preparation for marriage.

 

[pnewton]

Know also that there is no marriage in which only one side makes errors, makes bad judgments, and makes poor decisions. The only purely innocent spouse was Mary."

I have to say I do not agree with this. It is too much like saying since Mary was the only perfect woman, a rape victim must bear some fault. There are many cases where one party is a true victim in the divorce. Even sinful people can be innocent in one area and should not be held accountable for their spouse beating on them or deciding they want to move on to greener pastures.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Cardinal Walter Kasper’s efforts to change the Church’s discipline of refusing Holy Communion to those who have contracted an invalid second marriage has been joined by another member of the Sacred College, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

He gave an interview after the Extraordinary Synod on the Family to Inside the Vatican magazine (November 2014) in which he argued: “Let’s take this case: A husband is abandoned by his wife. There are also three children. A woman goes to live with this man; she helps him, raises his three kids. Ten years go by, their union is solid. If this woman were to come to me for Communion, say, during her father’s funeral Mass, or the day of one of the children’s Confirmation, what should I do? Deny it to her, since she is in an illicit situation and in letting her go to Communion I would also be committing an illicit act, as I would be indirectly recognizing that that man’s marriage wasn’t indissoluble?”

This is already quite a bit, but he continued: “Or, while recognizing the non-legitimate nature of that situation, how could I ask that woman – in admitting her to Communion – to abandon the man and his three children? What would become of that man? What would become of those kids? In that case, realistically, it wouldn’t be possible to manage an (sic) non-legitimate situation without causing even more suffering and pain. So, would it really be totally impossible to admit her to Communion? In admitting her to Communion, would I be going against the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage? I really don’t think so: in fact, this has to do with a case of exception.”

The cardinal’s conclusion is particularly disturbing because his job is to issue authentic and binding interpretations of the Code of Canon Law. Here, he plainly contradicts the “Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried” of June 24, 2000 by his predecessor at the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Cardinal Julian Herranz.

That Declaration says: “Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that require the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.” The Declaration concludes: “no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.”

Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s approach displays no “firmness” and is not a “sign of strength” but rather is refusal to call the hypothetical woman to conversion. A Catholic woman living with a Catholic man (who is in fact married to someone else) is ordinarily aware that her behavior is seriously sinful. If she is not, it is the duty of a diligent pastor of souls to inform her of why this is so.

Whatever laudable good that woman may be doing for the children of the man with whom she is cohabiting does not change the nature of her obligation to the Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery. A Catholic’s desire to receive Holy Communion must be guided by the doctrine of the Church. In the theoretical case posed by Cardinal Coccopalmerio, he displays a well informed knowledge of the woman’s situation, which implies that he has had and continues to have the opportunity to catechize her about the sinfulness of adultery, and about the Church’s encouragement of people in her situation of avoid sin by living as brother and sister when the good of the children is best served by not separating from each other. (Asking her to “abandon the man and his three children” is not the only alternative available).

Instead, he posits a non-existent “exception” to the moral law concerning the grave sinfulness of adultery. This amounts to an appeal to emotion, which caricatures the call to fidelity to the Sixth Commandment and the Church’s discipline regarding the reception of Holy Communion, depicting it as uncharitable rigorism. The unstated presumption in the Cardinal’s scenario is that the woman deserves to receive Holy Communion because she is a good person, and her adulterous behavior should not be taken seriously.

The stunning conceit here is that God is not offended, so why should the Church “exclude” her. This presumption is detrimental to Catholic doctrine and life. No matter what anyone claims about “exceptions,” the truth of the Faith remains: adultery is a mortal sin, and those in the state of mortal sin must refrain from receiving Holy Communion because the sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion does offend God, and may lead others into the same sin.

What does this approach reveal? That for some Churchmen, the primary mission of the Church is to provide consolation. Uncomfortable doctrines and derivative Church discipline must be cast aside. But the Gospel call to conversion often involves upsetting a sinner in the hope that he will see that it is not God’s law that wounds us, but our sins. True consolation lies in rediscovering the joy of living in God’s grace by rejecting sin. Therein lies the path to both peace of soul now, and salvation in the world to come.

Unfortunately, we’re likely to hear a great deal about “hard” cases between now and next October’s Synod, which is only going to confuse things further.

 

[Memaw]

That’s what I would have guessed. If that is the case, then even objectively what some are calling adultery is not adultery as the previous marriage is not valid even before the declaration of nullity. In which case, there will be in some cases no objective impediment to communion.

But one doesn’t know that ahead of the annulment process, and it cannot be presumed to be so. We have to be careful we don’t jump out ahead of the Holy Spirit. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Dawnia]

Not necessarily. It has already been stated that the annulment process does not annul the previous marriage, but rather recognizes a defect that made the marriage null in the beginning. Thus the current marriage could be the first and only valid marriage.

Until a decree of nullity is issued, the marriage is valid. Just as annulment doesn’t turn marital relations into fornication, annulment doesn’t whitewash adultery.

 

[McCall1981]

Here’s a quote from a recent interview Card Burke gave to Le Figaro Magazine:

What are the stakes in what has become a controversy?

"In an age filled with confusion, as we see with Gender Theory, we need the teaching of the Church on marriage. Yet, we are on the contrary pushed towards a direction for the admission to communion of divorced and remarried persons. Without mentioning this obsession with lightening the procedures of annulment of the marital bond. All this will lead de facto to a kind of “Catholic divorce”, and to the weakening of the indissolubility of marriage, whose principle is nonetheless reaffirmed. However, the Church must defend marriage, and not weaken it. The indissolubility of marriage is not a penance, nor a suffering. It is a great beauty for those who live it, it is a source of joy. I am therefore very worried, and I call upon all Catholics, laymen, priests, and bishops, to involve themselves, from now up to the upcoming Synodal assembly, in order to highlight the truth on marriage."

• Interview granted in Rome to Jean-Marie Guénois
  Le Figaro Magazine, Dec. 19, 2014 issue, p. 46.

 

[Sirach2]

Yet, we are on the contrary pushed towards a direction for the admission to communion of divorced and remarried persons. Without mentioning this **obsession **with lightening the procedures of annulment of the marital bond. All this will lead de facto to a kind of “Catholic divorce”, and to the weakening of the indissolubility of marriage, whose principle is nonetheless reaffirmed.

The only one I view as “pushing” with an “obsession” is Card. .Burke. who has once again distorted the process of inquiry and debate by injecting adjectives that stir controversy and alarm; when in truth, we should all be praying for the Spirit’s unfailing guidance. This may disappoint His Eminence [and certain CAF members] when the final results do not meet with his desired expectations and wishes.

Be assured, I have been to communion at daily mass since the Synod began, and I never fail to lift up Our beloved Pope Francis, for in the end, only** his** final decision will be the correct one.

 

[cena]

Until a decree of nullity is issued, the marriage is valid. Just as annulment doesn’t turn marital relations into fornication, annulment doesn’t whitewash adultery.

I don’t think the marriage is valid necessarily, but the couple should wait until the marriage has been annulled officially. They should assume it is valid until the decree is made. Because if it isn’t it would definitely be adultery. If their marriage is annulled then any marital relations before being married properly would be fornication.

 

[LongingSoul]

Here’s a quote from a recent interview Card Burke gave to Le Figaro Magazine:

I am therefore very worried, and I call upon all Catholics, laymen, priests, and bishops, to involve themselves, from now up to the upcoming Synodal assembly, in order to highlight the truth on marriage."

The truth on marriage is extensively expressed by the development of 2000 years of Catholic theology on the subject. I’d wager that the majority of faithful Catholic clergy and laymen aren’t similarly ‘very worried’ by the work of this current synodal assembly’.

 

[pnewton]

Until a decree of nullity is issued, the marriage is valid. Just as annulment doesn’t turn marital relations into fornication, annulment doesn’t whitewash adultery.

That is the opposite or what was said earlier. Can you show anywhere that it is the authority of the Church that nullifies the marriage?

I really think you are wrong on this, but will keep looking.

 

[pnewton]

But one doesn’t know that ahead of the annulment process, and it cannot be presumed to be so. We have to be careful we don’t jump out ahead of the Holy Spirit. God Bless, Memaw

Sometimes, one can know with all the moral certainty that one can ever know anything that a marriage was invalid. Yes, we need to be cautious.

Catholics are still obliged to the follow canon law on the matter, but since the topic under discussion is changes that can be made, I see this as a reasonable line of inquiry. Also, not all were Catholic at the time of marriage, divorce and remarriage and my truly be invincibly ignorant of all sin in the matter. Such a one was not obligated to follow Catholic canon law at the time, and may not be in a state of mortal sin.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

I have to say I do not agree with this. It is too much like saying since Mary was the only perfect woman, a rape victim must bear some fault. There are many cases where one party is a true victim in the divorce. Even sinful people can be innocent in one area and should not be held accountable for their spouse beating on them or deciding they want to move on to greener pastures.

Unfortunately, given the Church’s embrace of the virgin martyrs, the Catholic Church does seem to suggest that rape victims are at fault for their rape. I really cannot reconcile the Church that venerates Blessed Albertina Berkenbrock not suggesting that the victims of rape who survive are guilty for their own rape. Really can you see the Church consoling a college girl who perhaps drank a few beers at a frat party and was date raped? She would be considered a harlot and would be blamed for going to a party and drinking rather than being consoled as a victim.

In the same way, I think that someone who is considered an innocent victim by society might be considered sinful to enter into their marriage in the first place. For instance, the Catholic Church would probably argue that an abuse victim should have been able to recognize the spouse was abusive prior to the marriage. It doesn’t matter the reasons the he or she stayed with the abuser; the Church would recognize the victim as sinful for going through with the marriage. I don’t think they are but that is the Church’s position.

 

[cena]

Unfortunately, given the Church’s embrace of the virgin martyrs, the Catholic Church does seem to suggest that rape victims are at fault for their rape. I really cannot reconcile the Church that venerates Blessed Albertina Berkenbrock not suggesting that the victims of rape who survive are guilty for their own rape. Really can you see the Church consoling a college girl who perhaps drank a few beers at a frat party and was date raped? She would be considered a harlot and would be blamed for going to a party and drinking rather than being consoled as a victim.

In the same way, I think that someone who is considered an innocent victim by society might be considered sinful to enter into their marriage in the first place. For instance, the Catholic Church would probably argue that an abuse victim should have been able to recognize the spouse was abusive prior to the marriage. It doesn’t matter the reasons the he or she stayed with the abuser; the Church would recognize the victim as sinful for going through with the marriage. I don’t think they are but that is how screwed up the Church is.

Virgin martyrs show that their virginity and not offending God by fornication was so important to them that they were willing to die for it.

Someone forced to do something against their will is not responsible. St. Augustine said something along the lines of no consent no sin. Someone who had been drunk and raped (drunk people can’t give consent ) isn’t blamed for the rape.

Not all abusive spouses are abusive before marriage. What if they go through a really hard time and the husband becomes an alcoholic or drug addict for the first time in his life and becomes abusive? You can’t predict something like that. Where did you hear the Church blames the person who is being abused?

 

[pnewton]

Unfortunately, given the Church’s embrace of the virgin martyrs, the Catholic Church does seem to suggest that rape victims are at fault for their rape.

Wow! Again, I can not agree. I would bet that nothing can be produced where the Catholic Church blames rape victims for their rape, to any extent. The existence of virgin martyrs does** not** logically translate to such a statement.

 

[cena]

Unfortunately, given the Church’s embrace of the virgin martyrs, the Catholic Church does seem to suggest that rape victims are at fault for their rape. I really cannot reconcile the Church that venerates Blessed Albertina Berkenbrock not suggesting that the victims of rape who survive are guilty for their own rape. Really can you see the Church consoling a college girl who perhaps drank a few beers at a frat party and was date raped? She would be considered a harlot and would be blamed for going to a party and drinking rather than being consoled as a victim.

In the same way, I think that someone who is considered an innocent victim by society might be considered sinful to enter into their marriage in the first place. For instance, the Catholic Church would probably argue that an abuse victim should have been able to recognize the spouse was abusive prior to the marriage. It doesn’t matter the reasons the he or she stayed with the abuser; the Church would recognize the victim as sinful for going through with the marriage. I don’t think they are but that is the Church’s position.

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[Dawnia]

That is the opposite or what was said earlier. Can you show anywhere that it is the authority of the Church that nullifies the marriage?

I really think you are wrong on this, but will keep looking.

Canon Law 1060 - Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.