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

[ToeInTheWater]

I didn’t ask about my friends’ sex lives; they were denied marriage not because they were having sex but because they were living together. Even if they agreed to live as brother and sister during their engagement, they would have still been denied marriage at this Church.

I also know of many Catholics who did cohabit and WERE allowed to marry in Church anyway. I’ve also read many posts from Catholics, even deacons, who state that the majority of couples in marriage prep courses are cohabiting but not barred from pursuing marriage anyway.

And most people don’t wish to live on rugs on friends’ apartments nor is it proper to demand it of them. Also, most apartments have clauses in the contract that only allow known people to live there. In every apartment that I’ve lived in, I could get kicked out for having long-term guests.

Why is it “not proper”? You do realize that in many “Third World” countries, people do NOT have nice comfortable beds to sleep in every night? Some sleep on the cold hard ground and would send thankful prayers to God if they found a rug to sleep on. I concede there are cases in which not cohabitating would be economically disastrous, but I certainly don’t think that one should risk a near occasion of sin just to avoid discomfort. I concede that clauses in rental contracts regarding long-term guests may be more of a barrier.

Also, I’ve heard of the concept of platonic roommates but as a single woman living in the city, I would definitely never live with someone who I didn’t know. Really? That is the set up for becoming the victim of a crime right there. And that doesn’t even get into the petty sort of roommate issues like rent. I’d prefer to live in a smallish studio apartment.

If a single woman can live in a smallish studio apartment, then why can’t an engaged one? As for the issue of rental leases, maybe Chicago has very pro-landlord rental policies or something, but most places I know of, people ARE allowed to “break” leases, or sublet the apartment out.

But let’s stop being horrified with people co-habitating especially those who plan to marry, and demanding that they jump through impossible hoops.

In the case of your friends perhaps it was “impossible” and the priest involved did them an injustice, but I think that people often find it way too easy to rationalize sin (or putting oneself in a near occasion of sin). Many posters on CAF have stated that they “had” to cohabit with a romantic partner for “financial reasons” yet when pressed, conceded that cohabitation was NOT their only option.

Anyway, I think the topic of cohabitating is rather OT anyway. I assume you brought it up to bolster your argument that the Church should loosen up in general, and permit divorced and re-married couples to take Communion. So if your hypothetical African with three wives states that he just couldn’t abandon two of them, and states that he will remain married to them, and can’t commit to live as brother and sister with them, then would you find it the “pastoral option” to let him and three his wives all take Communion?

And if the Church did that, then don’t you think it just might hamper the Church’s efforts to provide catechesis to people in Africa that God meant for marriages to be monogamous?

I think there’s a delicate balance here between allowing for human frailty and being compassionate, and being so “compassionate” that you enable people to sin.

ETA: I see you posted while I was posting, this little gem:

In fact, no one should be marrying until they have established careers and are adults.

So graduate students are not adults? Do you also realize that in some parts of the world, there is no such thing as an “established career” for a large part of the population. What about people in refugee camps, none of them should be marrying either, it seems. That’s a whole lot of people who would never be fit for marriage. What do you propose for them? Let me guess, being allowed to cohabitate and fornicate, and have the Church look the other way? And what about when the inevitable pregnancies occur, for people who are too financially unstable to marry? Should the Church just accept abortion, then?

Just seems your arguments could be used to justify any sin, really.

 

[cena]

No, people shouldn’t get married in college. Marriage is a serious step and should be taken with lots of care. College students in their early twenties shouldn’t be marrying. In fact, no one should be marrying until they have established careers and are adults. Doing something stupid like marrying in college is a recipe for divorce.

And what a great daughter you are judging your parents!

Do you just agree with everything your parents do because they are your parents?

From what my mom told me it sounded like it gave a lot of temptation and my dad seemed to know it was wrong.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

I also know of many Catholics who did cohabit and WERE allowed to marry in Church anyway. I’ve also read many posts from Catholics, even deacons, who state that the majority of couples in marriage prep courses are cohabiting but not barred from pursuing marriage anyway.

And the case of my friends, they weren’t. The parish in question is apparently very well-known in traditionalist type Latin Mass circles. My friend’s fiance was sort of into that stuff for a while but they got over it quickly after they were nastily denied marriage. Both are Protestants now and have a young child. I actually didn’t think that this was an issue until my friends were denied marriage in the Church. Apparently, it does happen and people do have issues with it. Here is something that I found after Pope Francis married the co-habitating couples in September. Do you think that Francis would approve of this pastor’s tone?
stj-church.com/Weddingguidelines/The%20Cohabiting%20Couple.pdf

Why is it “not proper”? You do realize that in many “Third World” countries, people do NOT have nice comfortable beds to sleep in every night? Some sleep on the cold hard ground and would send thankful prayers to God if they found a rug to sleep on. I concede there are cases in which not cohabitating would be economically disastrous, but I certainly don’t think that one should risk a near occasion of sin just to avoid discomfort. I concede that clauses in rental contracts regarding long-term guests may be more of a barrier.

Lord is this like my mother arguing that I should be grateful and eat my veggies because of the starving children in African? We live in the U.S., not the Global South and no pastor should demand such hardships on anyone because they still live in the 1950s and have vapors over the fact that some couples aren’t virgins when they marry.

If a single woman can live in a smallish studio apartment, then why can’t an engaged one?

Because it is inconvenient for the couple. Are they supposed to maintain separate apartments and live apart after marriage for a year?

As for the issue of rental leases, maybe Chicago has very pro-landlord rental policies or something, but most places I know of, people ARE allowed to “break” leases, or sublet the apartment out.

I’ve never had a lease that allows someone to “break it” early without being culpable for the full twelve months rent. It is also quite impossible to sublet. I tried doing so when I was studying abroad for a semester and the only hit I got for “sublet” was an African scam artist. I ended up paying for an apartment I wasn’t using.

In the case of your friends perhaps it was “impossible” and the priest involved did them an injustice, but I think that people often find it way too easy to rationalize sin (or putting oneself in a near occasion of sin). Many posters on CAF have stated that they “had” to cohabit with a romantic partner for “financial reasons” yet when pressed, conceded that cohabitation was NOT their only option.

The example set by Pope Francis is that you marry co-habitating couples without demanding any extra of them. Period. The Church should be happy that people actually want Church weddings and shouldn’t scare them away by demanding perfection. I can tell you that my friends went to a Protestant church that was happy to marry them and are no longer Catholic. So I guess that we can congratulate the priest on making two ex-Catholics.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Anyway, I think the topic of cohabitating is rather OT anyway. I assume you brought it up to bolster your argument that the Church should loosen up in general, and permit divorced and re-married couples to take Communion.

It was brought up in conjunction with permitting bishops’ control over the annulment process. Pope Francis wants his priests and bishops to model welcome and acceptance of sinners. I read an interview with his biographer that the way to look at Pope Francis is through the Jesuit Spiritual Exercises. Before people can accept the Church, they have to learn that they are loved sinners. They have to be “mercy’d.” I think that Pope Francis thinks that the Church has demanded conversion up front rather than “mercy’ing” people first.

I don’t think that some bishops are on board with Pope Francis’ vision of the Church. Burke certainly isn’t. And if given the chance, I think that they would make it more difficult for co-habitating couples to marry, refuse to allow the children of gay couples to attend Catholic schools, or streamline the annulment process. Therefore guidelines in favor of mercy have to be established.

As for remarriage after divorce, that is quite the pickle. There are many reasons why the current system doesn’t work for most people. There are people who may revert back to Catholicism after many years and it strikes me as quite silly to suggest that a couple who has been married for many years not have sex. It also seems like quite the burden to suggest a young or middle aged divorcee not date and seek companionship.

So if your hypothetical African with three wives states that he just couldn’t abandon two of them, and states that he will remain married to them, and can’t commit to live as brother and sister with them, then would you find it the “pastoral option” to let him and three his wives all take Communion?

This is even a worse predicament than the remarriage situation. Bob African and his first wife can be married in the Church but his second two wives have to live as sister and sister. The argument that I’ve heard is permitting these women to find other husbands, but in certain societies, non-virgins cannot marry.

And if the Church did that, then don’t you think it just might hamper the Church’s efforts to provide catechesis to people in Africa that God meant for marriages to be monogamous?

That is a dilemma. What will probably happen in the situation is that Bob African will either choose not to be baptized or Bob’s younger two wives will end up as essentially bonded servants.

I think there’s a delicate balance here between allowing for human frailty and being compassionate, and being so “compassionate” that you enable people to sin.

And right now there seems to be a demand that people be perfect before being accepted by the Church.

ETA: I see you posted while I was posting, this little gem:

So graduate students are not adults? Do you also realize that in some parts of the world, there is no such thing as an “established career” for a large part of the population. What about people in refugee camps, none of them should be marrying either, it seems. That’s a whole lot of people who would never be fit for marriage. What do you propose for them? Let me guess, being allowed to cohabitate and fornicate, and have the Church look the other way? And what about when the inevitable pregnancies occur, for people who are too financially unstable to marry? Should the Church just accept abortion, then?

Just seems your arguments could be used to justify any sin, really.

We live in the U.S., not refugee camps in Africa. There are huge cultural differences. Frankly, I don’t think that most students are prepared to marry; people who marry in their early 20s have higher divorce rates. The Church should really be encouraging people to wait until their late twenties or early thirties to marry. Then people have had time to work, discover what they want in a partner, and mature. People should also date for years before marrying; I’d say two or three years at least.

Encouraging people to settle and encouraging early marriage inevitably leads to divorce. Since the Church is against divorce, it really shouldn’t be encouraging these things.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

We live in the U.S., not the Global South and no pastor should demand such hardships on anyone because they still live in the 1950s and have vapors over the fact that some couples aren’t virgins when they marry.

Well, I’m not going to even bother arguing your other points, because it seems you just don’t think traditional Catholic sexual morality is that important compared to a modern Western couple’s “convenience”. Not dire financial straits, but convenience. If you’re in such a mindset, I can’t think of any arguments to counter that.

You’re also completely overlooking the fact that couples who cohabitate actually have a higher risk of divorce than those who don’t. I have no idea if that cancels out the advantage of marrying later, but that throws a wrench into your argument that cohabitation is preferable to divorce. That is unfortunately a belief held by many young people, but it’s certainly not Church belief.

Now, it seems from your comments about rape victims that you have been affected by a particularly non-compassionate local Church, but I think that in reacting to this, you are going too far and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[cena]

It was brought up in conjunction with permitting bishops’ control over the annulment process. Pope Francis wants his priests and bishops to model welcome and acceptance of sinners. I read an interview with his biographer that the way to look at Pope Francis is through the Jesuit Spiritual Exercises. Before people can accept the Church, they have to learn that they are loved sinners. They have to be “mercy’d.” I think that Pope Francis thinks that the Church has demanded conversion up front rather than “mercy’ing” people first.

I don’t think that some bishops are on board with Pope Francis’ vision of the Church. Burke certainly isn’t. And if given the chance, I think that they would make it more difficult for co-habitating couples to marry, refuse to allow the children of gay couples to attend Catholic schools, or streamline the annulment process. Therefore guidelines in favor of mercy have to be established.

As for remarriage after divorce, that is quite the pickle. There are many reasons why the current system doesn’t work for most people. There are people who may revert back to Catholicism after many years and it strikes me as quite silly to suggest that a couple who has been married for many years not have sex. It also seems like quite the burden to suggest a young or middle aged divorcee not date and seek companionship.

This is even a worse predicament than the remarriage situation. Bob African and his first wife can be married in the Church but his second two wives have to live as sister and sister. The argument that I’ve heard is permitting these women to find other husbands, but in certain societies, non-virgins cannot marry.

That is a dilemma. What will probably happen in the situation is that Bob African will either choose not to be baptized or Bob’s younger two wives will end up as essentially bonded servants.

And right now there seems to be a demand that people be perfect before being accepted by the Church.

We live in the U.S., not refugee camps in Africa. There are huge cultural differences. Frankly, I don’t think that most students are prepared to marry; people who marry in their early 20s have higher divorce rates. The Church should really be encouraging people to wait until their late twenties or early thirties to marry. Then people have had time to work, discover what they want in a partner, and mature. People should also date for years before marrying; I’d say two or three years at least.

Encouraging people to settle and encouraging early marriage inevitably leads to divorce. Since the Church is against divorce, it really shouldn’t be encouraging these things.

No they can’t be perfect but they shouldn’t be in a constant state of mortal sin like divorce and remarriage.

If two people are validly married they are married until they die. Even if they separate in God’s eyes they are still married, and remarrying would be adultery

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Well, I’m not going to even bother arguing your other points, because it seems you just don’t think traditional Catholic sexual morality is that important compared to a modern Western couple’s “convenience”. Not dire financial straits, but convenience.

You’re also completely overlooking the fact that couples who cohabitate actually have a higher risk of divorce than those who don’t. I have no idea if that cancels out the advantage of marrying later, but that throws a wrench into your argument that cohabitation is preferable to divorce. That is unfortunately a belief held by many young people, but it’s certainly not Church belief.

Now, it seems from your comments about rape victims that you have been affected by a particularly non-compassionate local Church, but I think that in reacting to this, you are going too far and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I think that it depends on the “co-habitating” couple is. I think that lower income co-habitating couples end up getting divorced more often because of economic pressures. I’m not sure that the same applies to Bob and Sherry, an upper middle class couple who move into together while engaged. And it seems to me that the Church (and society) should be finding solutions to the economics rather than whining about couples who find their own solutions.

And I’m reacting to the pastoral application of certain situations in the Church as a whole. Yes, I’ve met my fair share of uncompassionate Catholics, but I don’t think that the archdioceses of Chicago is any different from any other dioceses in the U.S. It’s Bernardin’s old archdioceses, so I don’t think that one could argue that Chi-town is a traditionalist hotbed (although there are quite a few Latin Mass places in Chicago.) And the Church can say whatever it wants about rape victims, but I’m not sure how it can minister to them effectively while venerating the “virgins of purity.”

 

[sttcatherinefan]

No they can’t be perfect but they shouldn’t be in a constant state of mortal sin like divorce and remarriage.

If two people are validly married they are married until they die. Even if they separate in God’s eyes they are still married, and remarrying would be adultery

But you are sentencing people who may be innocent victims and who may made an innocent mistake to a life without having a spouse. That strikes me as punishment.

 

[cena]

But you are sentencing people who may be innocent victims and who may made an innocent mistake to a life without having a spouse. That strikes me as punishment.

The person they married is still their spouse. It doesn’t matter if they are separated they are still married. Valid marriage vows don’t expire until one of the people dies.

They stood before God and said that unconditionally they were going to be with that person until they died.

 

[cena]

I think that it depends on the “co-habitating” couple is. I think that lower income co-habitating couples end up getting divorced more often because of economic pressures. I’m not sure that the same applies to Bob and Sherry, an upper middle class couple who move into together while engaged. And it seems to me that the Church (and society) should be finding solutions to the economics rather than whining about couples who find their own solutions.

And I’m reacting to the pastoral application of certain situations in the Church as a whole. Yes, I’ve met my fair share of uncompassionate Catholics, but I don’t think that the archdioceses of Chicago is any different from any other dioceses in the U.S. It’s Bernardin’s old archdioceses, so I don’t think that one could argue that Chi-town is a traditionalist hotbed (although there are quite a few Latin Mass places in Chicago.) And the Church can say whatever it wants about rape victims, but I’m not sure how it can minister to them effectively while venerating the “virgins of purity.”

How dare you criticize girls who cared so much about their purity that they died for it. Would you be willing to die for any aspect of your faith?

 

[cena]

I think that it depends on the “co-habitating” couple is. I think that lower income co-habitating couples end up getting divorced more often because of economic pressures. I’m not sure that the same applies to Bob and Sherry, an upper middle class couple who move into together while engaged. And it seems to me that the Church (and society) should be finding solutions to the economics rather than whining about couples who find their own solutions.

And I’m reacting to the pastoral application of certain situations in the Church as a whole. Yes, I’ve met my fair share of uncompassionate Catholics, but I don’t think that the archdioceses of Chicago is any different from any other dioceses in the U.S. It’s Bernardin’s old archdioceses, so I don’t think that one could argue that Chi-town is a traditionalist hotbed (although there are quite a few Latin Mass places in Chicago.) And the Church can say whatever it wants about rape victims, but I’m not sure how it can minister to them effectively while venerating the “virgins of purity.”

So girls who were killed because they would not have sex before marriage are not victims (in fact they insult rape victims apparently)but people who divorce and remarry are?

 

[Memaw]

It should take into account that these are people with lives and not numbers and should be more gentle and merciful than it is.

How am I scaring people away from the process by reporting on an incident that I know happened? I’m sorry but there is a chance that the annulment process won’t be healing, that it will bring up old wounds, that an ex-spouse may contest the proceedings, that a case might be delayed for years, or that a slam dunk case might be rejected. What ends up hurting people more is when the process is sugarcoated and then they run into one of these problems. I would certainly feel misled. And Pope Francis thinks that the process doesn’t work very well, which is why he is reforming it.

Amazing all the ‘experience’ you’ve had concerning annulments. They are not treated like numbers. The Church is very careful concerning annulments. Like I said. ‘horror stories’ do not help those that need to look into the process. What looks like a "slam dunk case’"to you may be more complicated than you think. These are confidential so how would you know! No case is “delayed” for years. Each case if different. Many times the x-spouse contests the annulment but the case is based on facts at the time of the ‘wedding’ not the x-spouse’s disagreements at the time. The Church can’t just overlook the fact that many people are living in sin because of civil divorce and remarriage and allow them to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion while in the state of sin. Otherwise what would stop that from allowing everyone to do so. God Bless, Memaw

 

[tigerprowl]

The Church can’t just overlook the fact that many people are living in sin because of civil divorce and remarriage and allow them to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion while in the state of sin. Otherwise what would stop that from allowing everyone to do so. God Bless, Memaw

I fully agree to and adhere to the above. I go to Mass, I do not partake in Communion. I just started the annulment process, and I am one of those who was divorced and remarried when I fell away from the church. I am not looking for a shortcut nor awaiting a procedural change - that is simply not honest and presumptuous.

I have been following this thread and I unfortunately see some comments that support annulment “reform”, as if that is going to suddenly whitewash mortal sin and allow divorced couples to remarry and go to Communion at will. Well… it is not supposed to be easy. Being Catholic isn’t always easy.

Why is it that we (because I have admittedly done it too) rationalize our sins down, curve them down, beg them to be simply ignored? Look, I want the process to be less painful - but not at the cost of the sanctity of the Sacrament. Sacraments are blessed, and they are clearly not entitlements.

 

[cena]

I fully agree to and adhere to the above. I go to Mass, I do not partake in Communion. I just started the annulment process, and I am one of those who was divorced and remarried when I fell away from the church. I am not looking for a shortcut nor awaiting a procedural change - that is simply not honest and presumptuous.

I have been following this thread and I unfortunately see some comments that support annulment “reform”, as if that is going to suddenly whitewash mortal sin and allow divorced couples to remarry and go to Communion at will. Well… it is not supposed to be easy. Being Catholic isn’t always easy.

Why is it that we (because I have admittedly done it too) rationalize our sins down, curve them down, beg them to be simply ignored? Look, I want the process to be less painful - but not at the cost of the sanctity of the Sacrament. Sacraments are blessed, and they are clearly not entitlements.

God bless you.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

So girls who were killed because they would not have sex before marriage are not victims (in fact they insult rape victims apparently)but people who divorce and remarry are?

Of course, they are victims as are women who are raped and murdered and women who survive their rapes. Focusing on the victim’s purity seems to suggest that these girls are somehow better and more worthy than the other victims. I don’t think that this is at all the case but the Church sure seems to be saying that.

 

[cena]

Of course, they are victims as are women who are raped and murdered and women who survive their rapes. Focusing on the victim’s purity seems to suggest that these girls are somehow better and more worthy than the other victims. I don’t think that this is at all the case but the Church sure seems to be saying that.

Maria Goretti died before the guy raped her. He tried to get her to consent, she said no, he stabbed her 14 times. She chose death rather than fornication (consent) not rape (no consent). She said she would rather die than submit(implies some consent)

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=78

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Amazing all the ‘experience’ you’ve had concerning annulments. They are not treated like numbers. The Church is very careful concerning annulments. Like I said. ‘horror stories’ do not help those that need to look into the process. What looks like a "slam dunk case’"to you may be more complicated than you think. These are confidential so how would you know! No case is “delayed” for years. Each case if different. Many times the x-spouse contests the annulment but the case is based on facts at the time of the ‘wedding’ not the x-spouse’s disagreements at the time. The Church can’t just overlook the fact that many people are living in sin because of civil divorce and remarriage and allow them to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion while in the state of sin. Otherwise what would stop that from allowing everyone to do so. God Bless, Memaw

Here is a balanced response from America Magazine from about ten years ago.

This man had a good time with the process. americamagazine.org/issue/507/article/annulment

This one didn’t.
americamagazine.org/issue/520/faith-focus/anguish-annulment

So no, not everyone has a fluffy happy time of peace and reconciliation that takes two months and costs zero dollars. There are numerous threads here that consist of people complaining about the annulment process; some dioceses are notoriously backlogged and there is a chance that because the head judge is on leave or because the tribunal is moving offices. More urban districts are actually more notorious for backlogs. There is a huge number of people who either drop the case because they are told they have no case or just get frustrated and quit.

I actually think that encouraging more people to apply for annulments will exacerbate the problem especially since the U.S. bishops and (you apparently) are arguing that it is a certainty they will be granted and that the process will be healing. I think that the people with the clearest cases are those that are already applying. The people who aren’t probably don’t have clear cut cases or don’t have access to witnesses and evidence. Encouraging these people to apply will only cause them anger and frustration when their petition is denied or when they run into significant speedbumps.

As for remarried divorcees, I think that people make mistakes and that these mistakes have been forgiven. I think that people are abandoned by their spouses and may choose to remarry. (There was a funny song by George Strait a few years back about the abandoned wife getting back into the partying and dating game.) I really don’t think that many twenty year marriages have good grounds for annulments but I still feel for men and women who have to choose between having a fruitful love life and family life and being a full member of the Church.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Maria Goretti died before the guy raped her. He tried to get her to consent, she said no, he stabbed her 14 times. She chose death rather than fornication (consent) not rape (no consent). She said she would rather die than submit(implies some consent)

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=78

The guy was wielding a knife, ergo it wasn’t fornication. Also, this doesn’t explain Albertina Berkenbrock.

 

[cena]

Here is a balanced response from America Magazine from about ten years ago.

This man had a good time with the process. americamagazine.org/issue/507/article/annulment

This one didn’t.
americamagazine.org/issue/520/faith-focus/anguish-annulment

So no, not everyone has a fluffy happy time of peace and reconciliation that takes two months and costs zero dollars. There are numerous threads here that consist of people complaining about the annulment process; some dioceses are notoriously backlogged and there is a chance that because the head judge is on leave or because the tribunal is moving offices. More urban districts are actually more notorious for backlogs. There is a huge number of people who either drop the case because they are told they have no case or just get frustrated and quit.

I actually think that encouraging more people to apply for annulments will exacerbate the problem especially since the U.S. bishops and (you apparently) are arguing that it is a certainty they will be granted and that the process will be healing. I think that the people with the clearest cases are those that are already applying. The people who aren’t probably don’t have clear cut cases or don’t have access to witnesses and evidence. Encouraging these people to apply will only cause them anger and frustration when their petition is denied or when they run into significant speedbumps.

As for remarried divorcees, I think that people make mistakes and that these mistakes have been forgiven. I think that people are abandoned by their spouses and may choose to remarry. (There was a funny song by George Strait a few years back about the abandoned wife getting back into the partying and dating game.) I really don’t think that many twenty year marriages have good grounds for annulments but I still feel for men and women who have to choose between having a fruitful love life and family life and being a full member of the Church.

The standards in the U.S. for annulments are so low most marriages would fall under it.

The bishops are supposed to be looking at the facts and determining if the marriage was valid. If it was, an annulment can’t truly be granted, so they can’t make that claim.

If the Church lets these divorced and remarried people get communion not only are the going against infallible doctrine, but they are encouraging sacrilege.

When a person is validly married they stay married until God ends it by taking one of them to the next life. They stood before an altar before Him claiming God out them together and that they would stay together until death(things like abuse can be solved by divorce, but not remarriage). If they divorce they still have a spouse. To get ‘remarried’ is adultery. Adultery is a mortal sin, and it does not even occur just once in this situation but continually. You are saying someone in a continual state of mortal sin who has no sign of repentance should be a full member of the Church.

 

[otjm]

The standards in the U.S. for annulments are so low most marriages would fall under it.

That is a pretty bald statement, one that would seem to indicate that you have never studied what the impediments to marriage actually are. And if you have actually studied them, it would seem to show a sincere lack of understanding of people.

When 93% of divorced Catholics have not been granted a decree of nullity, it is a bit of a stretch to say that the Church is handing them out like jelly beans; and that seems to be your drift.

The bishops are supposed to be looking at the facts and determining if the marriage was valid. If it was, an annulment can’t truly be granted, so they can’t make that claim.

Actually, it is the tribunal which makes that decision, and the second tribunal which has to reach the same conclusion.

If the Church lets these divorced and remarried people get communion not only are the going against infallible doctrine, but they are encouraging sacrilege.

You seem to forget what the Church has taught since the beginning: the Holy Spirit was (and is) sent to keep the Church from error in matters of fith and morals. So if the Church decides that in some limited circumstances, certain people may receive Communion, the Church cannot be committing a sacrilege, as that would mean that the Promise which Christ made was a lie. I kinda think He didn’t lie…