Communion for the divorced

[Tomdstone]

You are just playing with words here.

Is the theory of marriage annulments a play on words to some extent? Cardinal Kasper has said that
that in some cases a marriage annulment is a divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.

 

[franklinstower]

This has all been very helpful. One more question. What is the scriptural argument for not allowing communion for a divorced person without an annulment? I am trying to get at where exactly the rule comes from that you cannot take communion if you are in this type of sin.

 

[nodito]

This has all been very helpful. One more question. What is the scriptural argument for not allowing communion for a divorced person without an annulment? I am trying to get at where exactly the rule comes from that you cannot take communion if you are in this type of sin.

It’s based on the scriptural understanding of marriage, divorce, and remarriage (Mark 10:1-12) that explains that remarriage is adultery, which is a grave sin. And 1 Corinthians 11:27 that says it is sinful to eat and drink the blood of Christ in an unworthy manner. The prohibition against communion is for all people in a state of unconfessed mortal sin, not just those who have committed adultery. The sticking point is that with most other types of sins, a person can confess and resolve not to commit it again, whereas a person who has entered an irregular marriage situation can have no firm purpose of ammendment unless they leave their legal spouse or resolve to practice continence.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Is the theory of marriage annulments a play on words to some extent? Cardinal Kasper has said that
that in some cases a marriage annulment is a divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.

No, it’s not. Here’s the difference:

A divorce ENDS a legal marriage. The marriage existed; now it does not exist anymore. Divorces can be granted for just about any reason - “irreconcilable differences” covers a lot of ground, and in some areas, it’s only required that a couple be separated for 1 year before they divorce. The reasons aren’t really relevant.

A declaration of nullity is a statement (not an action) that a marriage covenant NEVER EXISTED. There was something fundamentally missing from the marriage in the first place. There must be sufficient evidence that there was something missing, and that the something missing was enough to render the marriage invalid (e.g. intent not to be open to life, intent not to be faithful, lack of valid consent, previous valid or presumably valid marriage and the other spouse is still alive, etc.). The ONLY time the Church can allow a marriage to be “dissolved” is in very specific situations when one or both parties are not baptized. This can be done because their marriage is only a natural, and not a sacramental marriage. (It’s still valid, but it has not been raised to the level of a sacrament because of the lack of Baptism. Jesus said what God has joined could not be separated; these people have not been joined by God due to one or both of them not being baptized.)

In summary: divorce ends something that was there. It’s a verb - an action word. A declaration of nullity is a statement that something never WAS there. It’s a noun - a thing.

It is true that we are seeing more declarations of nullity granted today. However, I would encourage people to look at the statistics behind who requests and who is granted declarations of nullity. I have not seen them myself, but my theory is that many of those being granted declarations fall into one of a few categories:

1. Catholic who “fell away” from the Church and was married outside it, divorced and now wishes to be remarried in the faith
2. Non-Catholic divorced person wishing to marry a Catholic
3. Non-Catholic divorced and remarried person wishing to become Catholic

Hubby has a declaration of nullity from his first marriage. He and his ex were not Catholic at the time and married in a civil ceremony under less than ideal circumstances (pregnancy and he was an immigrant). They became Catholic after they married and the marriage only lasted 4 years. They had no marriage preparation and his ex had a very different understanding of marriage than he (and the Church) did.

ETA - Final point: in a declaration of nullity the Church simply says that the marriage covenant was invalid. They are NOT saying that there was no relationship. Clearly, the couple had a legal contract, they had a conjugal life, and they may well have had children together. What they are saying was that this relationship did not meet the criteria for a Christian marriage.

 

[NovusFidem]

This has all been very helpful. One more question. What is the scriptural argument for not allowing communion for a divorced person without an annulment? I am trying to get at where exactly the rule comes from that you cannot take communion if you are in this type of sin.

For a divorced person, communion is allowed.

For a divorced AND remarried person, communion is not allowed.

The argument is that a divorced person is still in a Sacramental Marriage - they are divorced only by law, not by Divine Law.

If a person is still married and takes another spouse, they are effectively committing adultery. (which goes against God’s Commandments)

No one who’s in a state of Mortal Sin (such as adulterous people) may receive the Eucharist.

That’s basically it.

Edit:

Annulment is an acknowledgement that there never was a valid marriage. Which is why divorced people who want to marry another person need first get an annulment. If the previous marriage was valid, a new marriage would put them in an adulterous relationship. If the previous marriage was invalid, a new marriage would be a first marriage, so no sin would be committed.

 

[PaulinVA]

This has all been very helpful. One more question. What is the scriptural argument for not allowing communion for a divorced person without an annulment? I am trying to get at where exactly the rule comes from that you cannot take communion if you are in this type of sin.

Let’s spell it out.

A person may receive Holy Communion if they are free from mortal (grave) sin.

There are a lot of mortal sins. In this case, we are talking about living in a permanent state of adultery, by being married to one person while still married to another.

Unless the Church declares the first marriage was not a valid marriage, the second marriage puts the parties in state of mortal sin, since it is presumed they are having marital relations.

People in a state of mortal sin can not present themselves for Holy Communion.

 

[Gorgias]

One more question though. Lets say a person got married and according to all of the Churches rules that marriage is considered valid. The man abuses the woman physically and so she leaves and later remarries and has children within the new marriage. Does that in any way change the stance of the Catholic Church?

It doesn’t “change it”, per se… but the Church’s view includes examples such as these.

This is what the nullity process is all about. Let’s say that there’s a marriage that was entered into in good faith, and was presumed to be valid, and it goes horribly wrong. The nullity process asks the question, “was this marriage valid from the very beginning?” (It’s important to note that it’s not asking “did bad things happen in the marriage?”, because that’s not the question at hand.) Nullity processes try to determine whether one or both spouses entered into the marriage invalidly (and, in doing so, make the marriage invalid).

You really asked two questions: first, does the Church say that a woman who undergoes physical abuse must continue to reside in that situation of abuse? Absolutely not!

Second, does the Church say that a person who was in a marriage presumed to be valid cannot enter into a subsequent marriage? Absolutely it does! If a divorced person wishes to re-marry, he must go through the nullity process; if it is determined that he was never in a valid marriage from the beginning, then he’s free to marry. If it’s determined that his original marriage was, in fact, valid, then he’s not free to marry another (because he’s still married to his first spouse).

Does that answer your questions?

Assuming the Church does not allow the sacraments doesn’t it seem harsh to not allow the husband and wife (assuming they are both Catholic) to receive the graces of the sacraments at least for the benefit of the innocent children of that marriage?

That’s what the pastoral provision of “living as brother and sister” is all about. It’s not an automatic thing; the couple’s pastor must discern that this is the appropriate course of action – and the couple themselves must be able to live it out.

Here’s the thing: let’s suppose we have a couple of Catholics who were both married previously, got divorces to their spouses, and then met up and married outside the Church. Let’s suppose that they went to confession. Would that confession be valid? After all, they confessed to adultery, right? But, there’s a problem: even though they might be contrite about their sin, they’re planning to go back home and commit the sin of adultery again, right? So, even if they were contrite, they still do not have a firm resolve not to commit the sin again. So, it’s not that the Church says “you can’t receive communion because we say so” – it’s because the re-married couple themselves make each other unable to receive communion, through their (sinful) actions. Does that help explain it a bit better?

It would be a great loss for her to not receive them so I can see how this stance by the Church could lessen the quality of life for the children involved in my hypothetical example.

But, it’s already a “great loss” for her, inasmuch she’s living in a sinful state and not trying to avoid that sin.

Lets add also that in this hypothetical example neither person is capable of being chaste so the option of living together as brother and sister would not work out.

Fair enough. Still, though: that means that they’re sinning (seriously sinning – ‘mortally’ sinning – sinning “unto death”!) on a regular basis. How can they approach the sacraments if they’re actively and intentionally giving in to sin?

 

[franklinstower]

It doesn’t “change it”, per se… but the Church’s view includes examples such as these.

This is what the nullity process is all about. Let’s say that there’s a marriage that was entered into in good faith, and was presumed to be valid, and it goes horribly wrong. The nullity process asks the question, “was this marriage valid from the very beginning?” (It’s important to note that it’s not asking “did bad things happen in the marriage?”, because that’s not the question at hand.) Nullity processes try to determine whether one or both spouses entered into the marriage invalidly (and, in doing so, make the marriage invalid).

You really asked two questions: first, does the Church say that a woman who undergoes physical abuse must continue to reside in that situation of abuse? Absolutely not!

Second, does the Church say that a person who was in a marriage presumed to be valid cannot enter into a subsequent marriage? Absolutely it does! If a divorced person wishes to re-marry, he must go through the nullity process; if it is determined that he was never in a valid marriage from the beginning, then he’s free to marry. If it’s determined that his original marriage was, in fact, valid, then he’s not free to marry another (because he’s still married to his first spouse).

Does that answer your questions?

That’s what the pastoral provision of “living as brother and sister” is all about. It’s not an automatic thing; the couple’s pastor must discern that this is the appropriate course of action – and the couple themselves must be able to live it out.

Here’s the thing: let’s suppose we have a couple of Catholics who were both married previously, got divorces to their spouses, and then met up and married outside the Church. Let’s suppose that they went to confession. Would that confession be valid? After all, they confessed to adultery, right? But, there’s a problem: even though they might be contrite about their sin, they’re planning to go back home and commit the sin of adultery again, right? So, even if they were contrite, they still do not have a firm resolve not to commit the sin again. So, it’s not that the Church says “you can’t receive communion because we say so” – it’s because the re-married couple themselves make each other unable to receive communion, through their (sinful) actions. Does that help explain it a bit better?

But, it’s already a “great loss” for her, inasmuch she’s living in a sinful state and not trying to avoid that sin.

Fair enough. Still, though: that means that they’re sinning (seriously sinning – ‘mortally’ sinning – sinning “unto death”!) on a regular basis. How can they approach the sacraments if they’re actively and intentionally giving in to sin?

First of all-- thank you everyone for the thoughtful answers. I want to say that most of it seems very reasonable. I have to disagree with the stance of the Catholic Church on this specific point however. I don’t think the Church is being disingenuous but I think it is mistaken on the nature of the sin. There are many reasons why someone in my example simply ***could not ***fulfill the requirements of the Church in order to be able to receive communion-- people can get really damaged in many ways in life, they can be abused as children sexually and otherwise, they can be neglected deeply, and have profound wounds within, they can be in great poverty and not have been given the necessary love support and social skills to better themselves (even if they could with the proper support over a long period of time). Sometimes these kinds of damage come together in a perfect storm of sorts and make certain people actually unable to attract healthy mates and/or unable to live on their own and unable to see the reasons for this…

In cases like this even when the person is willing to be healed of the disorders placed in them by upbringing or other traumatic events it can take years to heal fully from this and most people are not ready to do so until they come to a certain state of maturity spiritually. I witness this type of situation regularly. Communion would be the single most important element for the healing of such an individual in my opinion.

All of these considerations make the sinner in question not innocent but certainly wounded deeply and unable to presently get out of that sin. It is here that I see the denial of communion to be particularly unfortunate because it would seem to me that the real presence of Christ would be the most important element in healing the more deeply seated disorders that could lead to the possibility of fulfilling Gods commandments.

Someone here stated that it is not the Church who withholds Communion but the sinner who excludes themselves. I cant see the truth in that. I think if the Church made allowances as does the Orthodox Church for situation such as these we would see just what we do see in the Orthodox Church which is that the sinner in question would be allowed to take communion and they would experience deep and profound healing from that communion because Christ is present in it and apparently not withholding himself from that person. From there it seems that a healthy life and the maturity and ability to fulfill Gods will in the areas in grown into over a period of time.

Just my two cents and certainly not calling into question the validity of the Catholic faith and please take my comments in the light they were intended-- just very serious caring reflection on the practical ins and outs of helping people come to God and get healed.

 

[nodito]

First of all-- thank you everyone for the thoughtful answers. I want to say that most of it seems very reasonable. I have to disagree with the stance of the Catholic Church on this specific point however. I don’t think the Church is being disingenuous but I think it is mistaken on the nature of the sin. There are many reasons why someone in my example simply ***could not ***fulfill the requirements of the Church in order to be able to receive communion-- people can get really damaged in many ways in life, they can be abused as children sexually and otherwise, they can be neglected deeply, and have profound wounds within, they can be in great poverty and not have been given the necessary love support and social skills to better themselves (even if they could with the proper support over a long period of time). Sometimes these kinds of damage come together in a perfect storm of sorts and make certain people actually unable to attract healthy mates and/or unable to live on their own and unable to see the reasons for this…

In cases like this even when the person is willing to be healed of the disorders placed in them by upbringing or other traumatic events it can take years to heal fully from this and most people are not ready to do so until they come to a certain state of maturity spiritually. I witness this type of situation regularly. Communion would be the single most important element for the healing of such an individual in my opinion.

All of these considerations make the sinner in question not innocent but certainly wounded deeply and unable to presently get out of that sin. It is here that I see the denial of communion to be particularly unfortunate because it would seem to me that the real presence of Christ would be the most important element in healing the more deeply seated disorders that could lead to the possibility of fulfilling Gods commandments.

Someone here stated that it is not the Church who withholds Communion but the sinner who excludes themselves. I cant see the truth in that. I think if the Church made allowances as does the Orthodox Church for situation such as these we would see just what we do see in the Orthodox Church which is that the sinner in question would be allowed to take communion and they would experience deep and profound healing from that communion because Christ is present in it and apparently not withholding himself from that person. From there it seems that a healthy life and the maturity and ability to fulfill Gods will in the areas in grown into over a period of time.

Just my two cents and certainly not calling into question the validity of the Catholic faith and please take my comments in the light they were intended-- just very serious caring reflection on the practical ins and outs of helping people come to God and get healed.

Franklinstower,

Thank you for your thoughts. It’s clear you’re really reflecting and grappling with this issue.

Would it be fair to sum up your position on reception of Communion as this: That some people, unable to meet the Church’s requirements for reception (That they be Catholics free of mortal sin, not publicly contradicting moral law and Church teaching) ought to be able to receive in order to benefit from the grace of God in the sacrament so that they may improve their lives and grow closer to God?

If Communion isn’t really a sign of communion with one another (because only those in a state of grace - not to be confused with only those who are sinless, which would be nobody - can be in communion with the Church and one another in Christ), then what rationale is there for denying communion to anyone, be they unrepentant sinners, Protestants, Jews, or even athiests who, because of their uprbringing, are unable to meet the Church’s requirements at this time and yet might really benefit from the grace that the Eucharist imparts?

Also, how do we reconcile such a view with 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment* on himself.

 

[franklinstower]

Nodito–

What you stated is pretty close to my thoughts- but not exactly. The scripture you quoted does not go into specifics-- I would suggest that it is possible that the specific way in which the Catholic Church interprets that statement could be in error, or else that there are other ways for other Churches to take those same words. Again I would bring up the position of the Orthodox Church here as an example of a different way to approach the whole situation.

Two more points to make here.

Without knowing it in my examples above I was describing a friend of mine who is a member of the Greek Orthodox Church. She was raised in a very dysfunctional manner, there was physical abuse, emotional abuse, manipulation, and religious abuse involved and as is often the case she was the person in her family most effected by the abuse. When I first saw her face, before I knew her, I remember thinking to myself that I had never seen a woman so deeply hurt and it was etched in her features and countenance.

As I grew to know her she began to spend a great deal of time in prayer and began to enter into contemplative prayer all the while taking communion in her Church. Over the past eight years she has often remarked that there are two things really that are saving her and healing her on very deep levels. (I can personally vouch for the deep and profound spirituality that she is entering into). The two thing that she can clearly see that are responsible for the profound healing that is happening in her life are taking Communion and contemplative prayer. Over the years she has mentioned in deep and sacred moments of conversation with me that these two things have done what nothing else ever could. She can connect specific changes in her life and psyche to taking Communion.

I cant imagine that when she takes communion in the Orthodox Church that she is heaping sin upon sin and that the fruits of that would be profound healing of her second marriage, herself, and of the children involved in it. I just cant see how the notion that she should not be taking communion squares with her deep relationship with God and the healing it is producing.

I wont say that the Catholic Church and its stance on this is wrong but I will say that the Orthodox approach is working for this woman. I could not be convinced that Jesus is somehow deeply troubled by the Orthodox Churches approach on communion based on the fruit that I see in this woman. It seems that the Catholic Church would deny this woman communion and I wont say that is wrong, but as a person who is neither Catholic or Orthodox I feel there may be here, an example of different ways in which the Holy Spirit is working through different Churches…

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to know the Catholic Churches stance on Communion in the Orthodox Church and weather of not it is considered valid.

 

[NovusFidem]

In cases like this even when the person is willing to be healed of the disorders placed in them by upbringing or other traumatic events it can take years to heal fully from this and most people are not ready to do so until they come to a certain state of maturity spiritually. I witness this type of situation regularly. Communion would be the single most important element for the healing of such an individual in my opinion.

And it is. I, for example, had depression for many years, and my laziness is both a sin and a hindrance. I regret profoundly this sinful state I live (I laze around all day long), I confess and receive Communion.

People who can’t receive Communion are those who do not regret their sins. A remarried person is doing just that: they know they live in a state the Church says it is sin, but they don’t want to change their situation. How can they receive the Eucharist if they still love their sin more?

All of these considerations make the sinner in question not innocent but certainly wounded deeply and unable to presently get out of that sin. It is here that I see the denial of communion to be particularly unfortunate because it would seem to me that **the real presence of Christ **would be the most important element in healing the more deeply seated disorders that could lead to the possibility of fulfilling Gods commandments.

I see. Let’s go step by step.

There are Sacraments for the dead, and Sacraments for the living.

A person who has sinned has zero Grace - they “fell from Grace”. Without Grace, they are basically dead.

How can they live again?

In this situation, we have 2 Sacraments of the dead. All of them remove your sins and increase your Grace: **Baptism **(removes our original state of sin) and **Penance **(absolution - removes our current state of sin). Both places us in a state of (+)Grace.

So, we have

Birth (1 sin) → Baptism (completely removes sin, +1 Grace) → Sin (+1 sin for every sin) → **regret **-> Penance (completely removes sin, +1 Grace) = 0 sin, +2 Grace

Now, confessed, with that (+2) Grace in your “Spiritual Status”, you are a part of the living. You are in a state of Grace and free of sin.

In this situation, we have 5 Sacraments of the living. All of them increase your Grace. FOUR of them are: **Confirmation **(St. T.Aquinas said: “Confirmation is to Baptism what Growth is to Generation”); **Matrimony **(receives Grace for this journey - you’ll NEED it ); Holy Orders (you receive more Grace to follow this path and guide others). And, finally, the Blessed Eucharist (gives you continuous strength through Grace in your daily life).

All of this is simply “+1 Grace”, that’s it. Then, you also have Extreme Unction (imbues Grace into those too weak/close to physical death; removes sin) - the only Sacrament of the living that can remove sins (venial sins, mostly; mortal sins regretted but not confessed, in theory at least).

Now, back to you. Your words were: “…]make the sinner in question (…) wounded deeply and unable to presently get out of that sin”. They are hurt, and for that they need treatment.

Question time:

Q: What is hurting them? What is stopping them from healing? What is holding them back?
a) Their sins
b) Their lack of grace
c) Both (a) and (b) are right
d) None

Q: What can remove their sins?
a) Baptism
b) Penance
c) Eucharist
d) Both (a) and (b) are right

So, for the people you are right to be concerned about, to receive the Eucharist would do nothing for them. They would continuously receive Grace, but all that Grace would be marred by their sins…

… :newidea:

… Say, you have a **cup **(this is you) of **water **(this is grace). You drink it when you are thirsty.

Then, I drop **mud **(or worse - this is sin) in your cup.

As long as there is mud in your cup, you won’t drink from it. No matter how much more water you try to add to this cup, as long as there is mud in it, it is undrinkable.

Basically, that’s it.

To offer those in a state of sin more water for their cup wouldn’t help them. What they truly need is to remove the sin first and foremost, so that the grace can be effective.

Just my two cents and certainly not calling into question the validity of the Catholic faith and please take my comments in the light they were intended-- just very serious caring reflection on the practical ins and outs of helping people come to God and get healed.

No, I’ll take them as an offense to my faith and my person. How dare youuuu??

Seriously. If people take offense where none was outrightly intended, they just WANT to be offended, not your fault at all