Concerning changes to the sacrament of marriage (communion for divorced and remarried)

[otjm]

I see that scandal is commonly given in these times, regarding marriage. Claiming invincible ignorance with regard to honesty of consent is virtually impossible in these times.

Does hook up mean free union? It is not a term I grew up with.

Knowing * in the same sense as mortal sin knowing of the character of sin, of its opposition to God’s law. (Catechism of PIus X): 4 Q. Is it a sin to transgress a Precept of the Church?
A. Knowingly to transgress a Precept of the Church in grave matter is a mortal sin.

10 Q. Besides grave matter, what is required to constitute a mortal sin?
A. To constitute a mortal sin, besides grave matter there is also required full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin.
CIC Canon 1101 – §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or signs used in the celebration of a marriage.
§ 2. If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such a party contracts invalidly.

• Hebrews 10:
  **26 **For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, **27 **But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. **28 **A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. **31 **It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

If you thing that I am claiming invincible ignorance on the part of those I described, I am not. Go back and read again what I wrote.

Let’s change it slightly - you know someone who is Lutheran; you tell them (in an RCIA class, ok?) what the Church teaches. They get to the end and they say “I understand what you have told me sufficiently to be able to say it back to you. However, I still believe with all my heart and soul that Luther was right about justification, and I cannot join the Church because I don’t accept it”

You may call that anything you want. People who approach the Church to get married all too often are driven not by a belief and acceptance of what the Church teaches, but because they are culturally Catholic. they like the smells an bells, but they really don’t believe that God is going to send them to hell if they don’t go to Mass regularly, they are shacked up with their significant other, or at least engaged in serial fornication with them; their parents and the parents of friends of theirs are divorced and some of them remarried and they think that annulments are just Catholic divorces, and they really, really do not believe that if they are unhappy in a marriage that they are “cursed” to having to stay in it. But they have family who all want this Catholic wedding, so that is what they are going to do, an they don’t want to tick off the pastor, so they go along to get along.

Their belief system has been formed strongly since they were in middle school, and that formation has been from the secular world, because the 1 hour a week that they hit an missed through middle school and high school was simply something they were (maybe) forced to do.

You may call it anything you want, but unless you are really sheltered, or you simply have no contact with people in their 20’s (except the few devout ones who go to Mass regularly), In any event if you don’t understand what I am saying, there is little I can say that conveys the status of today’s youth. 80% of them don’t go to Mass regularly, and of the rest, their opinions, like those of their peers, parents, grand parents and great grand parents, chart out all over the spectrum of what they believe the Church teaches, or they don’t believe, or simply don’t accept. Cafeteria Catholics is another name, and they are legion.

 

[ProVobis]

It is my understanding that this issue cannot change (from some of the public exchanges of some Cardinals), but a) that is my impression from reading what they have said and b) should something of some variation come forth, I have enough trust in the Holy Spirit and the 2000 years of wisdom of the Church to say "Roma locuta est, causa finite est.

Which comes down to this: Rome has spoken; the matter is decided, now shut up.

The last three words being mine solely.

The matter was decided when God created heaven and earth. Just sayin…

 

[otjm]

The matter was decided when God created heaven and earth. Just sayin…

No s^&t Sherlock.

 

[Vico]

If you thing that I am claiming invincible ignorance on the part of those I described, I am not. Go back and read again what I wrote.

Let’s change it slightly - you know someone who is Lutheran; you tell them (in an RCIA class, ok?) what the Church teaches. They get to the end and they say “I understand what you have told me sufficiently to be able to say it back to you. However, I still believe with all my heart and soul that Luther was right about justification, and I cannot join the Church because I don’t accept it”

You may call that anything you want. People who approach the Church to get married all too often are driven not by a belief and acceptance of what the Church teaches, but because they are culturally Catholic. they like the smells an bells, but they really don’t believe that God is going to send them to hell if they don’t go to Mass regularly, they are shacked up with their significant other, or at least engaged in serial fornication with them; their parents and the parents of friends of theirs are divorced and some of them remarried and they think that annulments are just Catholic divorces, and they really, really do not believe that if they are unhappy in a marriage that they are “cursed” to having to stay in it. But they have family who all want this Catholic wedding, so that is what they are going to do, an they don’t want to tick off the pastor, so they go along to get along.

Their belief system has been formed strongly since they were in middle school, and that formation has been from the secular world, because the 1 hour a week that they hit an missed through middle school and high school was simply something they were (maybe) forced to do.

You may call it anything you want, but unless you are really sheltered, or you simply have no contact with people in their 20’s (except the few devout ones who go to Mass regularly), In any event if you don’t understand what I am saying, there is little I can say that conveys the status of today’s youth. 80% of them don’t go to Mass regularly, and of the rest, their opinions, like those of their peers, parents, grand parents and great grand parents, chart out all over the spectrum of what they believe the Church teaches, or they don’t believe, or simply don’t accept. Cafeteria Catholics is another name, and they are legion.

I did read it.

For a Catholic to not accept the teachings of the Church on faith and morals is a grave sin in itself. To not investigate and find out what the Church teaches due to indifference is a grave sin. Culpability is another matter. Since you are not claiming invincible ignorance, and the sources of sin are ignorance, passion, and malice, then which do you intend as the cause?

 

[mkoopman]

I am inclined to think that people are getting their their knickers in a knot because of reliance on media reporting, and because they fail to realize that media stays in business too often because it is excellent at “stirring the pot”. Cardinal Burke is right - the media by and large have hijacked this issue.

…

We need to sit back, relax, and trust the Holy Spirit to lead the Church as it examines a major, major problem. All the fear and anxiety I have been seeing seems to miss the point that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. The Church has been around for 2,000 years, and in spite of all of the sinful people who have been members, still manages to present the Gospel, the message of Christ. I kind of think it will continue to do so.

The flavor of the light you throw on the media is properly ordered, but perhaps it is improperly directed?

Is the Holy Spirit acting through His Body when we look at those headlights like a deer?

We must take the news media spin and deflate it, bend it and subject it to reason … we do not take the reasoned matters of the church that are so clearly affirmed by the words of Our Lord, Christ Jesus and bend then in conformity with the nuanced posits of the agents of barbarism that live as anti-Christs in the press and entertainment industry.

That is, we focus on family. Huh-n, haven’t I heard of something like “Focus on Family” somewhere, before?

Is family what government dictates it must be by rule of force … not rule of law … but by the dictatorship of relativism? Or, is family the good and beautiful relationship that was created by God?

 

[otjm]

I did read it.

For a Catholic to not accept the teachings of the Church on faith and morals is a grave sin in itself. To not investigate and find out what the Church teaches due to indifference is a grave sin. Culpability is another matter. Since you are not claiming invincible ignorance, and the sources of sin are ignorance, passion, and malice, then which do you intend as the cause?

Are you and I talking on the same page? I t looks to me like we are reading in different books; or maybe one of us is in a book and one watching a movie.

For starters, I am not a priest (and I suspect you are not either). So niether of us can look into the hearts of any of these people and determine what sin, and to what degree of culpability, exists in them.

I am talking aoubt why the synod is being called, and what the synod is looking at. You seem to be on a different topic, and both you and I are talking about valid or not valid marriages, but you seem to want to be pursuing it from a morality standpoint.

Maye be it is just me, and maybe I have it all wrong; but I have read a bit of what Pope Francis has said about the synod; and I have read commentary in both Our Sunday Visitor and the National Catholic Register (aligned with EWTN), and neither of them, nor the Pope, nor Cardinal O’Malley (not someone I would call a wild eyed liberal) are calling for a redefinition of marriage, nor the open admission of adults living in an adulterour marriage to Communion.

And none of the reading I have done has had anything significant to say about an investigation into the moral standing of the people they are concerned about.

However, I do not take that to mean they have no concern about that; all seem to be looking for how we can address the issues so that those who have strayed from the Church (either by simply not coming anymore, or coming and not acknowledging the rules viz a viz Communion) can be reconciled to Christ.

Your concern seems (and I may be wrong) to find some way to stand in judgment of the ones who have strayed. I would love to be wrong about that, but that’s how I read your posts.

I am not a confessor, so it is not up to me to stand in judgment of how these folks got to where they are - invincible ignorance and/or damning mortal sins openly, freely and whole heartedly engaged in. I, like the bishops, the Pope, and the others engaged in this discussion would like to see people reconciled to Christ. Believe me, I have a number of relatives in this situation.

For a Catholic to not accept the teachings of the Church on faith an morals is objectively a grave sin. It is not automatically a grave sin with any given individual as there are a number of matters which can impact the gravity to them personally . And that is a matter for their confessor, of whom I am not. Nor is it the subject matter of this thread. Nor do I need you lecturing me about sin, as I know a bit more than you may think. What I think, however, is off topic, which is the synod subject matter.

 

[felsguy]

“serial fornicators” “perpetual adulterers and their concubines”

What time are tryouts for the throwing team? Do we have to bring our own stones?

 

[felsguy]

serial fornicators

perpetual adulterers and their concubines

What time are tryouts for the throwing team? Do we have to bring our own stones or will they be provided?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What time are tryouts for the throwing team? Do we have to bring our own stones or will they be provided?

Tryouts will start as soon as we have people that pass the qualification: John 8:7.

 

[Vico]

Are you and I talking on the same page? I t looks to me like we are reading in different books; or maybe one of us is in a book and one watching a movie.

For starters, I am not a priest (and I suspect you are not either). So niether of us can look into the hearts of any of these people and determine what sin, and to what degree of culpability, exists in them.

I am talking aoubt why the synod is being called, and what the synod is looking at. You seem to be on a different topic, and both you and I are talking about valid or not valid marriages, but you seem to want to be pursuing it from a morality standpoint.

Maye be it is just me, and maybe I have it all wrong; but I have read a bit of what Pope Francis has said about the synod; and I have read commentary in both Our Sunday Visitor and the National Catholic Register (aligned with EWTN), and neither of them, nor the Pope, nor Cardinal O’Malley (not someone I would call a wild eyed liberal) are calling for a redefinition of marriage, nor the open admission of adults living in an adulterour marriage to Communion.

And none of the reading I have done has had anything significant to say about an investigation into the moral standing of the people they are concerned about.

However, I do not take that to mean they have no concern about that; all seem to be looking for how we can address the issues so that those who have strayed from the Church (either by simply not coming anymore, or coming and not acknowledging the rules viz a viz Communion) can be reconciled to Christ.

Your concern seems (and I may be wrong) to find some way to stand in judgment of the ones who have strayed. I would love to be wrong about that, but that’s how I read your posts.

I am not a confessor, so it is not up to me to stand in judgment of how these folks got to where they are - invincible ignorance and/or damning mortal sins openly, freely and whole heartedly engaged in. I, like the bishops, the Pope, and the others engaged in this discussion would like to see people reconciled to Christ. Believe me, I have a number of relatives in this situation.

For a Catholic to not accept the teachings of the Church on faith an morals is objectively a grave sin. It is not automatically a grave sin with any given individual as there are a number of matters which can impact the gravity to them personally . And that is a matter for their confessor, of whom I am not. Nor is it the subject matter of this thread. Nor do I need you lecturing me about sin, as I know a bit more than you may think. What I think, however, is off topic, which is the synod subject matter.

No we are not on the same page. History of the last few responses:

1. I posted to Helen on Catholics.
2. You responded that what learning means is pivitol.
3. I responded that claiming invincible ignorance with regard to honesty of consent is virtually impossible today.
4. You responded “If you thing that I am claiming invincible ignorance on the part of those I described, I am not.” Then you gave a Lutheran example.
5. I asked what you thought the source of sin was, of ignorance, passion, or malice, and that culpability is a different matter.
6. You responed with “So niether of us can look into the hearts of any of these people and determine what sin, and to what degree of culpability, exists in them.” and that you are talking about why the Synod is called.

I agree that we can’t look into individual hearts, and I do not suggest that. It is not a particular person, but in general that is discussed, and not culpability as I stated. It is objective sin, as I am asking you the question about that so I can understand (4). It is not about judgement. I think you have grave and moral confused. Objective grave sin can result in moral sin or venial sin or no sin. We confess grave sin but are absolved from mortal sin.

A previous synod on the family resulted in Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio which is about faith and morals. It will not be possible to discuss pastoral topics in this synod without consideration of faith and morals.

So lets just stop. I see you want to go elsewhere.

 

[Sirach2]

As I understand it, as complex as the annulment process can be, it’s actually the best in the United States. And I hear it’s terrible 18th or 19th century terrible in the rest of the world. I think the Pope wants to universally update the annulment process to use 21st century technology and methods Church-wide.

I have deeper understanding after reading this report. No wonder there is a call to examine pastoral means to help couples that are in limbo and unable to know for months/years whether or not their marriage was null. We are so blessed in the US that we imagine the process is uncomplicated everywhere else. May the participants during the Synod find a viable solution as they listen to the Holy Spirit while they deliberate this difficult issue.

Also, in more developed countries like the United States, tribunals have the resources and staff necessary to process cases, whereas many other countries outside of Europe, North America, and Australia do not have the resources or education necessary to staff a Tribunal, much less process cases. That is why the numbers of annulments are so high when compared to the rest of the world.

For many years canonists have had difficulty addressing all of the diverse canon law needs presented to them. There were not enough canonists and too many dioceses were understaffed. Many people coming before tribunals for marriage cases were desperately in need of assistance especially when they had difficult cases. Many tribunals had backlogs of cases due to limited personnel

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Tryouts will start as soon as we have people that pass the qualification: John 8:7.

This does not preclude making judgments. You might want to read Matthew 18:15-20.

We are, in fact, required to make judgments.

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

As I understand it, as complex as the annulment process can be, it’s actually the best in the United States.

That depends on what you mean by “best”.

It would be fair to say that it is most common and most streamlined in most of the United States.

.

 

[ProVobis]

This!

As I understand it, as complex as the annulment process can be, it’s actually the best in the United States. And I hear it’s terrible 18th or 19th century terrible in the rest of the world. I think the Pope wants to universally update the annulment process to use 21st century technology and methods Church-wide.

I hope so but the application process would become less complicated IMO if an annulment is filed ASAP after the divorce, even before dating again if possible. Also 2 or 3 witnesses should suffice and hopefully they won’t be dragging their feet. All of course should answer the questions as best as they can and be as specific as they can. Vagueness will only trigger more questions and that delays the process. Above all, be patient. Been there.

 

[Sirach2]

This does not preclude making judgments. You might want to read Matthew 18:15-20.

We are, in fact, required to make judgments.

Here are the conditions for fraternal correction as found in Third Spiritual Alphabet by Francisco de Osuna, pg. 588. It is the best one I have found on this subject. I pray it will help you.

The first is certain knowledge of the sin; do not correct on the basis of mere suspicion. [Such as seeing folks in invalid second marriages receive communion, and not knowing whether they are lawfully abstaining from sexual intimacy - which allows them to receive.]

The second is meekness in correcting; if we threaten angrily, we will provoke the person we discipline and cause him to commit further sin. [Some folks lord it over others in a dogmatic all-knowing condescension.]

The third condition is that there be no one else more suitable for correcting. If some who are as good or better than I see the sinner or if they are his superiors or are more familiar with them, I can probably assume and believe that one of them will discipline him. However if it were certain they would not, then I would be bound to correct him, provided the other five conditions were simultaneously present.

The fourth is that there must be hope that my counsel will correct him. If this hope is not present, I should not discipline him.

The fifth condition is that his sin be mortal, not venial.

The sixth is that there does not appear to be a better time or place for discipline than when I see him sin or when I choose to correct him.

Though it is difficult to meet any one of the six conditions, the most troublesome is that of discerning whether or not the sin is mortal. If we cannot determine the seriousness of the sin, let us place our finger to the mouth, sealing our lips, so we will not admit evil in our effort to do good or destroy instead of building up.

 

[gavri]

Thanks for the info.

Shalom!

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Though it is difficult to meet any one of the six conditions, the most troublesome is that of discerning whether or not the sin is mortal.

Matthew 18:15-20 is silent about discerning whether or not the sin is mortal.

The process is not designed to read someone’s mind or soul. It is based on an objective assessment of whether an action or inaction is consistent with the moral life according to the Church’s teachings.

It is both medicinal and judicial.

Everyone one of us is required to make those sorts of judgments every day in our own lives, in the lives of our families, and in considering politicians and other public officials.

.

 

[Sirach2]

Matthew 18:15-20 is silent about discerning whether or not the sin is mortal.

The process is not designed to read someone’s mind or soul. It is based on an objective assessment of whether an action or inaction is consistent with the moral life according to the Church’s teachings.

It is both medicinal and judicial.

Everyone one of us is required to make those sorts of judgments every day in our own lives, in the lives of our families, and in considering politicians and other public officials.

I see you missed the point of this holy author entirely. So sad. We are not permitted to judge the heart, as you well know, and not everybody is called to issue fraternal correction, especially when they know not all the particulars and may cause more harm than good in the process … be it ever so well-meaning.

 

[johnnyc176]

I wish they would follow Cardinal Burke’s advice and not even discuss the communion issue. If the liberals prevail in this those outside the Church (and within) that want wholesale changes (contraception, homosexual marriage, abortion) will look at this as an opening.

 

[Vico]

I wish they would follow Cardinal Burke’s advice and not even discuss the communion issue. If the liberals prevail in this those outside the Church (and within) that want wholesale changes (contraception, homosexual marriage, abortion) will look at this as an opening.

If they do cover it, then they will have to deal with CIC canon law 915 which deals with external forum (not the internal which is private and would be a break of the seal of confession). There are two situations: those with a penalty, and others that obstinately persist in manifest grave sin (eastern: are publicly unworthy). Notice that does not imply culpability, but it could give scandal to admit them to communion. The scandal is twofold against the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage (in the the case of Catholic civil re-marriage).CIC (Latin) Canon 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

CCEO (eastern) Canon 712 Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist.