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

[rfournier103]

See this article…

THANK YOU for posting this.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

I see you missed the point of this holy author entirely. So sad.

I see you continue your practice of deflecting substantive comments by making personal assessments of other posters. So unhelpful.

.

 

[mkoopman]

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.

So, wrestling my brother to the ground and making him cry, “Uncle!” is not to be considered medicinal within fraternal correction?

If I were to catch my wife with the postman would this then call for fraternal correction? Or, perhaps I should expect that someone else would address this matter?

Just wondering – with ever new state laws on marriage it behooves us to stay both legal and moral.

 

[Sirach2]

Pope Benedict’s thought on communion for divorced and remarried couples:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12387941&postcount=15

 

[Vico]

Pope Benedict’s thought on communion for divorced and remarried couples:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12387941&postcount=15

As one can read in 1998 CDF document by Cardinal Ratzinger “John Paul II clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in opposition to the statements of the Magisterium”.

doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

Pope Benedict XVI (a.k.a., Cardinal Ratzinger) later took some action the resolve inconsistencies in the canon law.

Between Nov 27, 1983 and Dec 21, 2010, it was canonically possible for a Catholic to formally defect from the Catholic religion and then marry validly in a non-Catholic celebration without dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult or the need for permission in the case of mixed marriages. The change was made to the canon law through Moto Proprio Omnium In Mentem of Pope Benedict XVI, to make no exceptions.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

 

[Sirach2]

As one can read in 1998 CDF document by Cardinal Ratzinger “John Paul II clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in opposition to the statements of the Magisterium”.

doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

I see nothing that indicates what you claim, Vico. His thought is repeated almost verbatim here as was said in the link I provided.

1. c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset.
2. In fact, the Code states that only a “valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055, § 2). Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the “absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being.

 

[Sirach2]

Pope Benedict XVI (a.k.a., Cardinal Ratzinger) later took some action the resolve inconsistencies in the canon law.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

I was getting ready for mass, and did have time to review the second portion of your post, so I did not comment in my post that followed.

Art. 3. The text of can. 1086 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law is modified as follows:
“A marriage between two persons, one of whom was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid”.

Art. 4. “Marriage between two baptized persons, one of whom was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism, and the other a member of a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church, cannot be celebrated without the express permission of the competent authority”.

As I now understand it, there is still no discrepancy from his original thoughts. All he is saying is that a marriage is invalid (Art. 3) or requires dispensation from the competent authority. (Art. 4) I have attended a wedding where this dispensation was given, and therefore, rendered the marriage valid.

In the first instance, if the marriage is invalid, there is no problem having a good second marriage validated, should that ever occur. In the interim status of invalidity, they are considered fornicating. (We know what that involves, yes?)

Neither of these address the issue of second marriages, nor his thoughts concerning “internal forum” or in the absence of faith, the “sacrament does not come into being.”

In the second paragraph of the link I provided concerning his thought, it is noteworthy to read this comment. “Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.”

And let us rejoice that his wish is coming to pass with the calling of the Synod. I trust all of us are devoting much prayer for the participants to listen to the Spirit.

 

[ProVobis]

Notice that does not imply culpability, but it could give scandal to admit them to communion.

Precisely that.

And FWIW, 40-50 some years ago I knew people who felt they needed to abstain from communion “simply” because they chose to live apart from their spouse.

As Luke 17:2 records

It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

 

[Vico]

I see nothing that indicates what you claim, Vico. His thought is repeated almost verbatim here as was said in the link I provided.

1. c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset.
2. In fact, the Code states that only a “valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055, § 2). Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the “absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being.

I don’t follow, what do you think I claim? It was about Catholics that later convert that prompted me to post what I did. If one has defected the can be a later conversion and the first marriage could would have been valid without Catholic form for the baptized Catholic.

 

[Vico]

…
As I now understand it, there is still no discrepancy from his original thoughts. …

Neither of these address the issue of second marriages, nor his thoughts concerning “internal forum” or in the absence of faith, the “sacrament does not come into being.”
…

With this revision it seems to be resolved that absence of faith does not invalidate marriage.

In Omnium In Mentem, he did not address his thoughts on internal forum.

Absence of faith is touched on however, with defection. Second marriages also are one motive for issuing Omnium In Mentem revision of canon law with regard to defection because one defected may be bound under that law (compared to 1917 or 2010 canon law).
“…the need to clarify the precise meaning of the phrase or desired to eliminate it completely. In this regard, related reasons drawn from juridical experience were adduced: the appropriateness of not treating these cases differently than civil unions between baptized persons who make no formal act of abandonment; the need to demonstrate consistently that marriage is a sacrament; the risk of encouraging clandestine marriages; additional repercussions in countries where canonical marriage has civil effects, and so forth.”

ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/bas2changes.htm

 

[Sirach2]

Vico, I’m getting those annoying “data base errors” that folks have documented in “bug reports” so I cannot quote you. You asked “what do you think I claim?” It is greek to me because you stated:

As one can read in 1998 CDF document by Cardinal Ratzinger “John Paul II clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in opposition to the statements of the Magisterium”.

There Is absolutely no mention in this document by Ratzinger that JPII clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions … etc. I note too, that this was written in 1981, several years prior to Ratzinger’s in 1998, wherein much more thought had been concluded in the interim. There is merely a footnote at the bottom of the page in reference to other documents, including JPII’s, but Ratzinger never made that statement at all.

Furthermore, in that particular document by JPII, you’ll find this paragraph where Ratzinger echoed JP’s very words in his 1998 writing:
4. d. Further study is required, however, concerning the question of whether non-believing Christians – baptized persons who never or who no longer believe in God – can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two baptized persons is ipso facto a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a “valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055, § 2).
Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the “absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being.
Secondly, you wrote: “With this revision it seems to be resolved that **absence of faith does not invalidate marriage.” **This was not my wording, nor was it the intended meaning of either Ratzinger or JPII, as I posted above.

So maybe it is I who am confused by what you are trying to say.

 

[Vico]

Vico, I’m getting those annoying “data base errors” that folks have documented in “bug reports” so I cannot quote you. You asked “what do you think I claim?” It is greek to me because you stated:

There Is absolutely no mention in this document by Ratzinger that JPII clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions … etc. I note too, that this was written in 1981, several years prior to Ratzinger’s in 1998, wherein much more thought had been concluded in the interim. There is merely a footnote at the bottom of the page in reference to other documents, including JPII’s, but Ratzinger never made that statement at all.

Furthermore, in that particular document by JPII, you’ll find this paragraph where Ratzinger echoed JP’s very words in his 1998 writing:4. d. Further study is required, however, concerning the question of whether non-believing Christians – baptized persons who never or who no longer believe in God – can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two baptized persons is ipso facto a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a “valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055, § 2).
Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the “absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being.
Secondly, you wrote: “With this revision it seems to be resolved that **absence of faith does not invalidate marriage.” **This was not my wording, nor was it the intended meaning of either Ratzinger or JPII, as I posted above.

So maybe it is I who am confused by what you are trying to say.

The topic is “the juridical question of what evidence of the “absence of faith” would have as a consequence”. If defection is evidence of the “absence of faith”, then the juridical question is on the consequence. The 1983 canon law it allowed for exceptions in form of celebration, dispensation from disparity of cult, and permission for of disparity of worship, whereas the revised canon law does not. So in the 1983 law the juridical effect was that matrimony for the defected could be valid, whereas now it is not. That is what I mean by settled.

This is what I have referred to, in 1998 document from CDF: *

Concerning Some Objections To The Church’s Teaching On The Reception Of Holy Communion By Divorced And Remarried Members Of The Faithful:*5. Many argue that the position of the Church on the question of divorced and remarried faithful is overly legalistic and not pastoral.

   A series of critical objections against the doctrine and  praxis of the Church pertain to questions of a pastoral nature. Some say, for  example, that the language used in the ecclesial documents is too legalistic,  that the rigidity of law prevails over an understanding of dramatic human  situations. They claim that the human person of today is no longer able to  understand such language, that Jesus would have had an open ear for the needs of  people, particularly for those on the margins of society. They say that the  Church, on the other hand, presents herself like a judge who excludes wounded  people from the sacraments and from certain public responsibilities.


   One can readily admit that the Magisterium’s manner of  expression does not seem very easy to understand at times. It needs to be  translated by preachers and catechists into a language which relates to people  and to their respective cultural environments. The essential content of the  Church’s teaching, however, must be upheld in this process. It must not be  watered down on allegedly pastoral grounds, because it communicates the revealed  truth.


Certainly, it is difficult to make the demands of the Gospel  understandable to secularized people. But this pastoral difficulty must not lead  to compromises with the truth. In his Encyclical *Veritatis splendor*, John Paul II clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in  opposition to the statements of the Magisterium (cf. ibid. 56). 
         Furthermore, concerning the position of the Magisterium as  regards the question of divorced and remarried members of the faithful, it must  be stressed that the more recent documents of the Church bring together the  demands of truth with those of love in a very balanced way. If at times in the  past, love shone forth too little in the explanation of the truth, so today the  danger is great that in the name of love, truth is either to be silenced or  compromised. Assuredly, the word of truth can be painful and uncomfortable. But  it is the way to holiness, to peace, and to inner freedom. A pastoral approach  which truly wants to help the people concerned must always be grounded in the  truth. In the end, only the truth can be pastoral. “Then you will know the  truth, and the truth will set you free” (Jn. 8:32).

doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

 

[Sirach2]

I am following you better now, although I am not in full agreement. Ratzinger is ambivalent between the two documents that were posted in this thread. We are truly on the cusp of further development and the Spirit will surely be present in the minds and hearts of the Synod participants. We will just have to await their decision and give our filial assent to their teaching.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Ratzinger is ambivalent between the two documents that were posted in this thread.

There is no ambivalence on these points:

"But this pastoral difficulty must not lead to compromises with the truth. In his Encyclical Veritatis splendor, John Paul II clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in opposition to the statements of the Magisterium (cf. ibid. 56). "

That precludes any “application” of the Church’s consistent teaching about sexual relations between a validly married man and woman as the only moral option that would permit those engaging in other sexual relationships to receive the Eucharist.

.

 

[mkoopman]

Vico, I’m getting those annoying “data base errors” that folks have documented in “bug reports” so I cannot quote you. You asked “what do you think I claim?” It is greek to me because you stated:

There Is absolutely no mention in this document by Ratzinger that JPII clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions … etc. I note too, that this was written in 1981, several years prior to Ratzinger’s in 1998, wherein much more thought had been concluded in the interim. There is merely a footnote at the bottom of the page in reference to other documents, including JPII’s, but Ratzinger never made that statement at all.

Furthermore, in that particular document by JPII, you’ll find this paragraph where Ratzinger echoed JP’s very words in his 1998 writing:
4. d. Further study is required, however, concerning the question of whether non-believing Christians – baptized persons who never or who no longer believe in God – can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two baptized persons is ipso facto a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a “valid” marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055, § 2).
Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the “absence of faith” would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being.
Secondly, you wrote: “With this revision it seems to be resolved that **absence of faith does not invalidate marriage.” **This was not my wording, nor was it the intended meaning of either Ratzinger or JPII, as I posted above.

So maybe it is I who am confused by what you are trying to say.

It appears that being incoherently drunk at a Christian wedding may invalidate the completion of the sacramental bond much akin to the aligned civil marriage requirement for being of sound mind. Would being an undocumented person then parallel with the vows of an atheist at a wedding? Marriage to a citizen would not then yield immunity from deportation under any circumstance.

Temporary marriage in the manner of certain muslim authorities would clearly ban one from receiving the sacraments. We may need to clarify such issues for atheists who were married in christian ceremonies.

 

[Vico]

I am following you better now, although I am not in full agreement. Ratzinger is ambivalent between the two documents that were posted in this thread. We are truly on the cusp of further development and the Spirit will surely be present in the minds and hearts of the Synod participants. We will just have to await their decision and give our filial assent to their teaching.

I am striving to understand what is ambivalent. Could you identify the ambivalent statements in the two Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI documents I find this this thread? which are:

1. 1998 CDF document by Cardinal Ratzinger
   Footnote 4 added later to CDF document above: meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005.

doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

1. 2009 Omnium In Mentem – Pope Benedict XVI later took some action the resolve inconsistencies in the canon law.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

 

[Sirach2]

I am striving to understand what is ambivalent. Could you identify the ambivalent statements in the two Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI documents I find this this thread? which are:

1. 1998 CDF document by Cardinal Ratzinger

doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

We are having difficulty and are talking past one another, I think.
I am not referring to YOUR two documents, but to the one I initially posted in contrast with your #1 above …
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350098?eng=y

… where it states that there is “possible recourse to a decision “in the internal forum” to receive communion by a divorced and remarried Catholic if the lack of recognition of the nullity of his previous marriage (because of a verdict held to be erroneous or because of the impossibility of proving its nullity in procedural form) were to contrast with his firm conviction of conscience that that marriage was objectively null.”

Contrast this with your link where he does not support pastoral solutions that stand in opposition to statement of the Magisterium.

There is vacillation between his two points of view, which give evidence of ambivalence, IMO. See my Post #63.

Could we please allow this to be worked out in the Synod?

 

[OraLabora]

Could we please allow this to be worked out in the Synod?

Bingo. Being from the Benedictine tradition, whatever is decided at the Synod, I will assent to in communion with the Magisterium, whether I agree with the outcome or not.

I am curious though, of those posting here on this topic, how many are in fact directly affected by whatever the decision will be? I know it doesn’t apply to me and God forbid that it ever should. But I think it would be helpful to understanding the pastoral concern if those directly affected could speak about the impact it’s had on them, and what their circumstances are, and if it’s the case why they haven’t sought or can’t seek an annulment.

 

[johnnyc176]

Could we please allow this to be worked out in the Synod?

A little too late for that. Cardinal Kasper felt the need to state his opinions prior to the Synod and politicized it by accusing others of politicizing the issue. Also it looks like lay people will have an opportunity to be involved in the Synod. Not a good decision I agree but it is what it is.

 

[YoungTradCath]

A little too late for that. Cardinal Kasper felt the need to state his opinions prior to the Synod and politicized it by accusing others of politicizing the issue. Also it looks like lay people will have an opportunity to be involved in the Synod. Not a good decision I agree but it is what it is.

I know right?