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

[Duane1966]

I appreciate both of your replies, and I want to state up front that I have no intention of changing your minds or winning an argument. I respect your positions and I defer my personal judgments of doctrine and tradition to the authority of the Catholic Church. One of my reasons for participating in the forums is to get a sense of my church culture in the wider world, and it has been a very enlightening experience.

What I want to point out is this: I observed that 1) The rhetoric of mercy seems like a bad idea in defense of a traditional tribunal system that developed over centuries, which is the subject of dispute between Burke and Kasper as outlined in the NCR article and 2) that some conservative Catholics have reacted to the controversy with disproportionate vindictiveness.

You both immediately responded by sweeping aside the actual issue (making some procedural changes to the way the church processes annulments) and by making defenses of your understanding of biblical doctrine (how very Protestant!) to defend a definition of marriage you attribute to Jesus, God, and the Apostles (as if the decisions of the Magisterium are irrelevant?). I’m not an expert on Catholic culture (obviously) but it seems to me that your responses demonstrate the reasonable nature of my observations: when I brought up Catholics who go crazy and change the subject, you went a little crazy and changed the subject.

*No one is suggesting that we should teach that divorce and remarriage is not sinful. * We are kind of–sort of–talking about changing the process by which the church forgives a particular category of sin. This does not seem to justify the wave of terror sweeping conservative Catholic blogs. Tuesday–in a class on Patristic-Medieval Exegesis–I heard a Dominican Father say, “Any time you have to make your argument based on authority, it’s a sign your argument has problems.” When people respond to a minor threat by going nuclear, it’s a sign that their position is difficult to defend.

Let’s see. You state in your post how you feel that withholding the “Bread of Life” from divorced and remarried Catholics is not merciful. I and another responded how based on Jesus’ teaching and what St. Paul states in Cor. why the Church withholding the Eucharist is merciful. We responded to a statement you made. Since we quoted scripture you compared us to Protestants. Where did that come from? The question is: Are divorced and remarried Catholics living in a state of mortal sin? Without a decree of nullity the answer is yes. That is what Jesus taught and the MAGISTERIUM has upheld for thousands of years. Do you know why by withholding the Church is being merciful? Because St. Paul says and the Church teaches that receiving in such a state is bringing judgment on themselves.

P.S. How is commenting on a statement you made about mercy changing the subject?

 

[Sirach2]

Vico:

Sirach2:

Whereas, Benedict is exploring the possibility of invalidity

of a sacrament that is celebrated initially without faith.

This pertains to “a sacrament celebrated without faith” per Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI,

Isn’t that exactly what I said?

It seems however, that you are interpreting his words solely as “disparity of cult” rather than lack of true faith in the sacrament the spouses were undertaking. An example of this is parental pressure to have a “traditional wedding in church” and NOT that the couple truly believed with fullness of faith in what they were doing. Many such marriages were performed in that vein, and would make them invalid, whether both parties were Catholic or in a disparity of cult, as you understood it.

I myself was one of those who was not practicing my faith, but when I wanted to get married, all good folks go to the Church, yes? And as soon as the wedding was over, there was no more thought of Church - not for many years until I had a profound and blessed conversion. So my marriage was easily annulled, “Lack of due discretion” was the decree.

Since I never entered a second marriage, though I was allowed to marry due to the decree of nullity, there was never the question of whether or not I could receive communion. But many are not so fortunate, and were in the same mind-set as I was in with regard to their first marriage, often contracted by immature teens barely out of high school. There needs to be a pastoral solution for these persons, for when they mature and convert later in life with a strong desire to follow Christ and be one with Him, this stigma of the imprudent marriage prevents their reception of the sacraments…

In my conscience, there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that my marriage was invalid and that God did not bind me, because of the lack of faith in the sacrament, as Benedict worded it. Yet had I not obtained an annulment and wanted to remarry, there would be no impediment in my mind, except for the legality and error of a tribunal… I have much to share about “internal forum” decisions resulting from the scenario I just mentioned, but I’m certain you will not want to listen.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Thank you all for such an educational conversation. Someone was kind enough to provide a link to the National Catholic Register, with a piece that gave Cardinal Burke a chance to respond to the controversy generated by his very public conservative response to the synod.

I could be completely mistaken, but there seems to be an attitude of retribution among conservatives who feel outraged that Cardinal Kasper had the audacity to speak about making any kind of changes at all–

This is reflected in the tenor of their official response. I was especially confused (and disappointed) to see Cardinal Burke try and frame his defense of tradition as a ‘merciful’ position:

*The Church’s teaching on the matter, the cardinal said, is merciful, “because it respects the truth that the person is indeed bound by a prior union which the person, for whatever reason, is no longer living.”

“The Church holds the person to the truth of that marriage,” Cardinal Burke continued, “while at the same time being compassionate, understanding the situation of the person, welcoming them into the parish community in ways that are appropriate and trying to help them to lead as holy a life as they can, but without betraying the truth about their marriage.”

This, he said, is mercy.

“It simply makes no sense to talk about mercy which doesn’t respect truth. How can that be merciful?”*

It sounds a little convoluted to try and couple the rhetoric of mercy with a rigid adherence to a complicated tribunal system that was produced in very different era–an argument that Cardinal Burke makes in the same article–because mercy is not the application of tradition with disregard, but the judicious abrogation of debt.

Surely mercy is not the same thing as letting divorced-remarried Catholics hang around the parish on the fringes of community life, as second-tier Catholics forever barred from receiving the Eucharist? I have no objection to keeping divorced-remarried Catholics from certain official positions, but to bar them from receiving the Bread of Life…? It seems extreme, not merciful at all. It sounds like the traditional application of doctrine is more important to Cardinal Burke than the salvation of souls–or is communion irrelevant to our salvation? Should people with sin be denied the experience of forgiveness the rest of us receive?

As a very liberal person in a very liberal part of the world, I have still been able to accept and enter the Catholic faith even though I struggle with some of the Church’s policies (and I have been very blessed!). I am interested to see how many Catholics on the other side of the spectrum will be able to roll with the punches the rest of us have learned to endure out of the love for our common Mother. BUT regardless of how these synods turn out, I am pleased to be a part of the Holy Catholic Church.

If you’re having a marital relationship with someone to whom you are not validly married, you’re in a state of mortal sin. You can’t just go to Confession and go back and do it again anyway, because there must be a clear intent for you not to sin again. Those in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion. That’s not open for debate.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Isn’t that exactly what I said?

It seems however, that you are interpreting his words solely as “disparity of cult” rather than lack of true faith in the sacrament the spouses were undertaking. An example of this is parental pressure to have a “traditional wedding in church” and NOT that the couple truly believed with fullness of faith in what they were doing. Many such marriages were performed in that vein, and would make them invalid, whether both parties were Catholic or in a disparity of cult, as you understood it.

I myself was one of those who was not practicing my faith, but when I wanted to get married, all good folks go to the Church, yes? And as soon as the wedding was over, there was no more thought of Church - not for many years until I had a profound and blessed conversion. So my marriage was easily annulled, “Lack of due discretion” was the decree.

Since I never entered a second marriage, though I was allowed to marry due to the decree of nullity, there was never the question of whether or not I could receive communion. But many are not so fortunate, and were in the same mind-set as I was in with regard to their first marriage, often contracted by immature teens barely out of high school. There needs to be a pastoral solution for these persons, for when they mature and convert later in life with a strong desire to follow Christ and be one with Him, this stigma of the imprudent marriage prevents their reception of the sacraments…

In my conscience, there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that my marriage was invalid and that God did not bind me, because of the lack of faith in the sacrament, as Benedict worded it. Yet had I not obtained an annulment and wanted to remarry, there would be no impediment in my mind, except for the legality and error of a tribunal… I have much to share about “internal forum” decisions resulting from the scenario I just mentioned, but I’m certain you will not want to listen.

It’s not for us to decide whether or not our own marriages can be declared null. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have a degree in canon law floating around in my back pocket. Consider this: let’s say that we have a man, covered in blood, sitting next to the corpse of a young woman. A knife in her body is covered with his fingerprints. We could claim that it’s pretty obvious the man killed the woman. However, we don’t KNOW that for sure. Maybe we take a closer look and find out she’s holding a gun and she’s shot him with it. Maybe we find out that he was holding the knife and running and accidentally ran smack into her. Maybe his prints are on the knife because he tried to pull it out of her. This is why we have the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” in a court of law. It’s the same thing with marriage - valid until proven otherwise, unless you have a case where you can prove “on paper” that it’s not valid. Consequently we need to go through the proper channels. I do think, though, that the Church could focus on making the process more streamlined.

 

[Sirach2]

It’s not for us to decide whether or not our own marriages can be declared null.

Except that in the internal forum and inviolability of one’s conscience, the Holy Spirit can make very clear to the person that their marriage is not considered valid and bound by God. Some would give their lives for the veracity of this inspiration, and conscience is in the realm of judgment only by God. If a human tribunal misses the mark and fails to find good cause to nullify this type of marriage, then some folks are resorting to an internal forum decision with the help of their pastors. One CAF member whom I admire for his deep faith admitted that this was true in his case in another thread. If anyone would like to explore this, I have documentation provided by the Archdiocese of Detroit that I’d be glad to share – but not to get into a bull fight over it.

Keep in mind, that judgment is God’s – not ours, even though the rubrics regarding marriage do not admit for such a conclusion of conscience. THAT is one of the aspects under consideration in the Synod.

 

[Sirach2]

It’s not for us to decide whether or not our own marriages can be declared null. This is why we have the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” in a court of law. It’s the same thing with marriage - valid until proven otherwise, unless you have a case where you can prove “on paper” that it’s not valid. Consequently we need to go through the proper channels.

The Tribunals do not go by paper proof, but by solemn sworn testimony of the petitioner. They do not presume, as you hypothesize, that the couple are not able to obtain an annulment; they do not act as Defender of the Bond (of matrimony). They listen intently to all the details from the petitioner(s) and their witnesses on both sides.

Let’s look at the tragedy of St. Joan of Arc, who was tried in an** ecclesial** court, deemed to be a heretic, and burnt at the stake. Yet in her inmost being, with undisputable assurance of having been led by the Lord in her work for Him, we might call this a clear example of “internal forum” even though she had difficulty proving it to the ecclesiastics who were trying her case. Judgment is truly God’s.

You may note with interest that even though she was declared guilty as a heretic (which would bar her from communion, supposedly being in mortal sin), before she died, they allowed her to receive the Eucharist. We have the luxury now of knowing the end of her story, praise God! Pope Benedict gave a beautiful address on her. maidofheaven.com/joanofarc_pope_benedictxvi.asp

My point? Many of these couples have the very same indubitable inner assurance from God that their first marriage was invalid. Perhaps an ecclesial court might not agree, and full proof cannot always be shown to satisfy their inquiry into the matter. They entrust their decision to God’s mercy, conscious that they have thoroughly prayed and weighed the consequences before acting. Is it not true that if one’s conscience does not accuse them of committing a mortal sin, since full knowledge is one of the conditions, that it is not deemed to be mortal? Read Romans Ch. 2.
28-29. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.
What I’m saying is that nobody ought to judge their brother unless they know by some interior revelation from God that a person is living in mortal sin, and even then, they have no authority to condemn them. Rather, it is they themselves whom God will judge with the same measure they mete out to their brother. (Verse 1: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself.)

I believe we should allow the Holy Spirit to convict the Synod participants of God’s holy will, and refrain from passing harsh judgments on those who are involved in irregular marriages, without knowledge of their conscience before God. Yes we know the law, the Church’s teaching, the doctrine, and our speech should reflect the truth – to a point. Leave the rest to God’s judgment.

 

[Vico]

Isn’t that exactly what I said?

It seems however, that you are interpreting his words solely as “disparity of cult” rather than lack of true faith in the sacrament the spouses were undertaking. An example of this is parental pressure to have a “traditional wedding in church” and NOT that the couple truly believed with fullness of faith in what they were doing. Many such marriages were performed in that vein, and would make them invalid, whether both parties were Catholic or in a disparity of cult, as you understood it.

I myself was one of those who was not practicing my faith, but when I wanted to get married, all good folks go to the Church, yes? And as soon as the wedding was over, there was no more thought of Church - not for many years until I had a profound and blessed conversion. So my marriage was easily annulled, “Lack of due discretion” was the decree.

Since I never entered a second marriage, though I was allowed to marry due to the decree of nullity, there was never the question of whether or not I could receive communion. But many are not so fortunate, and were in the same mind-set as I was in with regard to their first marriage, often contracted by immature teens barely out of high school. There needs to be a pastoral solution for these persons, for when they mature and convert later in life with a strong desire to follow Christ and be one with Him, this stigma of the imprudent marriage prevents their reception of the sacraments…

In my conscience, there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that my marriage was invalid and that God did not bind me, because of the lack of faith in the sacrament, as Benedict worded it. Yet had I not obtained an annulment and wanted to remarry, there would be no impediment in my mind, except for the legality and error of a tribunal… I have much to share about “internal forum” decisions resulting from the scenario I just mentioned, but I’m certain you will not want to listen.

I am here to ask directly, no need for use of the word “seems”. Not sure what those words of Pope Benedict XVI are that you think I may be interpreting. I was purposely not interpreting and that is why I give the actual statements.

 

[Sirach2]

I am here to ask directly, no need for use of the word “seems”. Not sure what those words of Pope Benedict XVI are that you think I may be interpreting. I was purposely not interpreting and that is why I give the actual statements.

Yes, I understand that you gave some actual statements of what Benedict did to revise Canon Law. However, that was a different matter than when he was speaking about lack of faith in the sacrament of matrimony, article 4 of the document you’ve posted a number of times. His meaning is clearly not “disparity of cult.”

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.

You have worn my patience thin, Vico despite my asking that we stop belaboring it. I think it is best that we agree to disagree and move on.

 

[mkoopman]

Let me provide you with what you must have missed when you carefully read the article:

For those seeking to claim nullity of their marriages, he said, “The Church has to have an apt process to arrive at the truth about that claim,” whereby it can be established whether or not a marriage has been null. “But to simply have people come before what’s called an administrative process or a so-called ‘pastoral process,’” one in which “people simply tell their story to a priest,” who then makes the decision with regard to their reception of the sacraments — “how does that respect the truth of Our Lord’s teaching about marriage?”

“The marriage-nullity process is the fruit of centuries of development and by various expert canonists, one of the great ones being Pope Benedict XIV,” the cardinal said. “For us now simply to say we don’t need that anymore is the height of pride and therefore foolishness.”

I was responding to the language that you included in your previous post. Not to the quote that you have now excerpted that directly concerns the annulment process.

I think you’re going to have to be clearer–what precisely do you mean?

You deserve recognition for the Swiss cheese joke. I think I will use it in the future. But I am confused–I thought we were talking about divorce and remarriage and annulments, and now you are talking about euthanasia. Your argument is made of swiss cheese–its full of holes…

The question is about the truth of the Sacramental bond of Matrimony and how the perception that the free will of those who receive it is deemed to have a correlation to the effect of a free gift of grace.

What occurs when this element of the sacrament is compared to the nature of all sacraments? Is there an invalid Holy Orders when a candidate was not truly prepared for the Sacrament? What even then of Baptism; should we not Baptise infants because it may be found that the baby had his will bound to an improper understanding of the Body of Christ on the day of Baptism?

Of course, this is not being clever. It is not accepting the decades of process technology in the kewpee doll house proceedings of a heartless set of laws that smart bomb the invalid wedding day with high precision. The annulment smart bomb is a useless tragedy in the Life of Christ.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to translate these rules to other rites and all of the Sacraments? Where in the Gospel does Christ inform us of this element of the sacramental nature of marriage? Here is a clever hint: Saint Pope John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body does identify this element, precisely.

But are not his audiences related more to the natural law then to a proceeding whereby a Priest may have enough facts about the wedding day to declare the wedding a false witness to a pair of ignorant dolts who do not comprehend what it is that is needed to be sacramentally married. Surely mercy and the dignity of the person are well bound in such a well developed proceeding for those who were so poorly catechized as to not enter into a valid marriage.

If there is a Hell, since the understanding of whether there is a Hell or not is dependent upon what side of the bed one rises from in the morning, the entrance is bureacratically managed by those who used to sell annulment packages to the fettered masses.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I understand that you gave some actual statements of what Benedict did to revise Canon Law. However, that was a different matter than when he was speaking about lack of faith in the sacrament of matrimony, article 4 of the document you’ve posted a number of times. His meaning is clearly not “disparity of cult.”

You have worn my patience thin, Vico despite my asking that we stop belaboring it. I think it is best that we agree to disagree and move on.

It is lack of faith (op. cit.: “encourage apostasy”). The canon was revised in 2010, because the 1983 canon law tended “to facilitate and even in some way to encourage apostasy” and “The new law also made difficult the return of baptized persons who greatly desired to contract a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage.”.

 

[His_helpmeet]

The Tribunals do not go by paper proof, but by solemn sworn testimony of the petitioner. They do not presume, as you hypothesize, that the couple are not able to obtain an annulment; they do not act as Defender of the Bond (of matrimony). They listen intently to all the details from the petitioner(s) and their witnesses on both sides.

Let’s look at the tragedy of St. Joan of Arc, who was tried in an** ecclesial** court, deemed to be a heretic, and burnt at the stake. Yet in her inmost being, with undisputable assurance of having been led by the Lord in her work for Him, we might call this a clear example of “internal forum” even though she had difficulty proving it to the ecclesiastics who were trying her case. Judgment is truly God’s.

You may note with interest that even though she was declared guilty as a heretic (which would bar her from communion, supposedly being in mortal sin), before she died, they allowed her to receive the Eucharist. We have the luxury now of knowing the end of her story, praise God! Pope Benedict gave a beautiful address on her. maidofheaven.com/joanofarc_pope_benedictxvi.asp

My point? Many of these couples have the very same indubitable inner assurance from God that their first marriage was invalid. Perhaps an ecclesial court might not agree, and full proof cannot always be shown to satisfy their inquiry into the matter. They entrust their decision to God’s mercy, conscious that they have thoroughly prayed and weighed the consequences before acting. Is it not true that if one’s conscience does not accuse them of committing a mortal sin, since full knowledge is one of the conditions, that it is not deemed to be mortal? Read Romans Ch. 2.
28-29. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.
What I’m saying is that nobody ought to judge their brother unless they know by some interior revelation from God that a person is living in mortal sin, and even then, they have no authority to condemn them. Rather, it is they themselves whom God will judge with the same measure they mete out to their brother. (Verse 1: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself.)

I believe we should allow the Holy Spirit to convict the Synod participants of God’s holy will, and refrain from passing harsh judgments on those who are involved in irregular marriages, without knowledge of their conscience before God. Yes we know the law, the Church’s teaching, the doctrine, and our speech should reflect the truth – to a point. Leave the rest to God’s judgment.

All tribunal proceedings are heavily weighted toward the marriage being valid. It’s necessary for the petitioner and his/her witnesses to provide evidence to prove that the marriage is not valid. Furthermore, it’s all very well and good to say that one should follow one’s conscience - but this necessitates that it be an informed conscience. In any case, one cannot marry in the Catholic Church for a second marriage without a declaration of nullity. The Church will consider the first marriage valid until that time. Consequently, a person who wishes to remarry must obtain a civil marriage - in and of itself a mortal sin in such cases. (The only times a civil marriage may be valid for a Catholic are with a prior dispensation, or in the case of a couple who divorced each other, wish to remarry each other, and have not received a declaration of nullity. The Church still considers them married to each other and so a Church wedding is not required.)

 

[Sirach2]

All tribunal proceedings are heavily weighted toward the marriage being valid. It’s necessary for the petitioner and his/her witnesses to provide evidence to prove that the marriage is not valid.

Are you speaking as one who has been through the process? Or as one who has read varying opinions. I have been through an annulment proceeding and know that in my case, there was no such attitude that I was presumed married until proven otherwise. They did not appear to be dogmatic, confrontational, or condescending, but very understanding and charitable.

Furthermore, it’s all very well and good to say that one should follow one’s conscience - but this necessitates that it be an informed conscience.

I believe I alluded to that when said the couple spends much time in prayer to discern their situation before God, and that would certainly entail doing much research as well. I know couples who have painfully struggled over their situations. It is never taken lightly by one who is very conscientious and wanting to please God.

In any case, one cannot marry in the Catholic Church for a second marriage without a declaration of nullity.

That is understood. Are you forgetting that I had discussed an “irregular second marriage?”

 

[OraLabora]

The only times a civil marriage may be valid for a Catholic are with a prior dispensation, or in the case of a couple who divorced each other, wish to remarry each other, and have not received a declaration of nullity. The Church still considers them married to each other and so a Church wedding is not required.

This is not quite entirely accurate. In some countries, the Church is not legally licensed to perform marriages. Therefore couples must first have a civil legal ceremony followed by a religious ceremony in the Church. Obviously in the case of the divorced, the religious marriage is not possible.

 

[1newcatholic]

The question is about the truth of the Sacramental bond of Matrimony and how the perception that the free will of those who receive it** is deemed to have a correlation** to the effect of a free gift of grace.

What occurs when this element of the sacrament is compared to the nature of all sacraments? Is there an invalid Holy Orders when a candidate was not truly prepared for the Sacrament? What even then of Baptism; should we not Baptise infants because it may be found that the baby had his will bound to an improper understanding of the Body of Christ on the day of Baptism?

…

Perhaps it is worthwhile to translate these rules to other rites and all of the Sacraments? Where in the Gospel does Christ inform us of this element of the sacramental nature of marriage? Here is a clever hint: Saint Pope John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body does identify this element, precisely.

I am intrigued by the way you associate one change to one sacrament and limitless changes to all sacramental doctrine. In my very limited experience, these kinds of generalizations can lead people to genuinely believe that a little change is the same thing as chaos. I’m not sure if what you’ve described is a slippery slope or a straw man, but something just doesn’t quite sit right with the form of your presentation.

Did you know that once-upon-a-time, early Church Fathers taught that remarriage was not okay even in the case of spousal death, because death was “God’s way” of divorcing a couple? But that was a very long time ago, in another time and place, and now that seems silly to most of us. And yet the Catholic Church did not collapse when this particular understanding of marriage, divorce, and remarriage changed.

I think maybe that’s the reason for the deep alarm among Catholics–the potential for even a little change signals to them that big changes are possible, and if big changes are possible, what can we trust in? People with faith in the rules are troubled by changes in the rules, which is why I try and place my faith in a higher Authority.

 

[ProVobis]

Did you know that once-upon-a-time, early Church Fathers taught that remarriage was not okay even in the case of spousal death, because death was “God’s way” of divorcing a couple? But that was a very long time ago, in another time and place, and now that seems silly to most of us. And yet the Catholic Church did not collapse when this particular understanding of marriage, divorce, and remarriage changed.

Even today, though, many kids find it tough to accept a step-parent in case of a mother or father passing. Not as silly as you may think.

 

[mkoopman]

I am intrigued by the way you associate one change to one sacrament and limitless changes to all sacramental doctrine. In my very limited experience, these kinds of generalizations can lead people to genuinely believe that a little change is the same thing as chaos. I’m not sure if what you’ve described is a slippery slope or a straw man, but something just doesn’t quite sit right with the form of your presentation.

Did you know that once-upon-a-time, early Church Fathers taught that remarriage was not okay even in the case of spousal death, because death was “God’s way” of divorcing a couple? But that was a very long time ago, in another time and place, and now that seems silly to most of us. And yet the Catholic Church did not collapse when this particular understanding of marriage, divorce, and remarriage changed.

I think maybe that’s the reason for the deep alarm among Catholics–the potential for even a little change signals to them that big changes are possible, and if big changes are possible, what can we trust in? People with faith in the rules are troubled by changes in the rules, which is why I try and place my faith in a higher Authority.

I find it intriguing that you entirely side stepped the material that I was trying to emphasize, and particularily with respect to TOB and natural law. [edited]

When the pope declares Martin Luther a saint, I may reconsider Saint Augustine’s contribution as a Doctor of The Church. What little change would be signaled by K. Casper’s period of penance before remarriage? Did you know that this was the way remarriage was addressed in the early church?

Truth and our relationship to God through the natural law is still the crux of the marriage question. [edited]

 

[His_helpmeet]

Are you speaking as one who has been through the process? Or as one who has read varying opinions. I have been through an annulment proceeding and know that in my case, there was no such attitude that I was presumed married until proven otherwise. They did not appear to be dogmatic, confrontational, or condescending, but very understanding and charitable.

I believe I alluded to that when said the couple spends much time in prayer to discern their situation before God, and that would certainly entail doing much research as well. I know couples who have painfully struggled over their situations. It is never taken lightly by one who is very conscientious and wanting to please God.

That is understood. Are you forgetting that I had discussed an “irregular second marriage?”

I’m the sacramental wife of a man who has been through the process, yes. In our case, we thought at first that it would not be necessary for him to go through the full process as his ex was nominally Lutheran when they married and they married civilly. (He was not baptized at the time of their marriage, though he converted to Catholicism and was baptized after they married. In actual fact, because his ex was the cause of the marriage breakdown, the Petrine privilege would not apply either, even had DH never been baptized.) However, we eventually found out that he would need to go through the whole process. Our pastor advised us to marry civilly as he was familiar with the marital problems and had little doubt that a declaration of nullity would be granted. (DH and his first wife only married because they were pregnant and wanted to legitimize the baby, plus it was the only way for him to stay in the country. They were already re-thinking the engagement when they got pregnant. She later told him, and confirmed to a witness that she’d said this, that as far as she was concerned, marriage was glorified common-law, that all the trappings of a wedding were just ceremonial and didn’t really mean anything anyway, that the vows were just symbolic, and that she was free to walk away any time she wanted.) That said, we were not allowed to go to Holy Communion. (Part of the reason we married, as opposed to just waiting, is that we knew, the way things were going, that because we are fallen people I would either be living as DH’s mistress or as his wife before too long - and we felt that at least having a civil commitment would be a demonstration of our commitment to each other.) We both went to Confession two days before our convalidation, were chaste those two nights, and received Holy Communion for the first time in a year and a half at our convalidation, which was held during Sunday Mass.

DH found, too, that the tribunal’s response was very compassionate - though he did chafe at the delay. (His case took about 15 months.) I’m not saying that the tribunal isn’t compassionate. I’m saying that on the legal side of things (what’s necessary to prove the case) they must find evidence for the marriage not being valid in order to believe that it wasn’t. Otherwise, we could say that everybody’s marriage should be on trial because one would have no way of believing he or she was in a valid marriage to start with! That’s why they need to get evidence. That’s why there have to be witnesses. I’ve little doubt that whoever’s taking the evidence wouldn’t come in there and say, “So, prove to me WHY your marriage isn’t valid”. Yet, that’s the whole point of the interview.

Think about it this way: as a nurse, I used to work in a rural hospital. I worked acute care and occasionally helped in the emergency room. Let’s take the emergency room as an example. Your triage nurse decides in what order patients need to be seen. Effectively, the triage nurse is asking, “WHY is it that you came to the hospital? WHY should you be seen here?” But that isn’t the way the nurse approaches the patient. He or she assesses the situation, determines when a doctor is needed to attend, and prioritizes the situation accordingly. In some cases, if it does turn out that the situation is non-urgent or is inappropriate to the ER (for example, ear flushing - yes, I’ve had a patient come to triage for that in an urban facility) the nurse can suggest alternative places for care. Doesn’t mean the nurse is not being compassionate. In the same way, the tribunal might inform the person that there aren’t enough grounds for a decree of nullity. I worked with a physician who knew someone who had worked as a counsellor for a tribunal, working with people who either couldn’t get a decree of nullity or who needed counselling as part of the conditions for remarriage.

 

[Sirach2]

Our pastor advised us to marry civilly as he was familiar with the marital problems and had little doubt that a declaration of nullity would be granted. (DH and his first wife only married because they were pregnant and wanted to legitimize the baby, plus it was the only way for him to stay in the country. They were already re-thinking the engagement when they got pregnant.

She later told him, and confirmed to a witness that she’d said this, that as far as she was concerned,** marriage was glorified common-law**, that all the trappings of a wedding were just ceremonial and didn’t really mean anything anyway, that the vows were just symbolic, and that she was free to walk away any time she wanted.)

Clearly, this is a perfect example of what Pope Benedict had in mind when he wrote about the lack of faith in the sacrament, which would render the marriage invalid and null.

In the “internal forum” of your conscience, which is inviolable between you and God, there was no doubt whatsoever in your husband’s mind concerning its invalid nature. I alluded to this in the example I shared earlier about St. Joan of Arc. This is what I pray will be addressed in the synod – the possibility of a pastoral solution resulting from the “internal forum decision” of the couple, so they may receive the sacraments. It is purely a case by case matter, and not applicable to all who remarry.

CCC:

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

Dignitatis Humanae:

1. (c) On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.

Pacem in terris
5. But the world’s Creator has stamped man’s inmost being with an order revealed to man by his conscience; and his conscience insists on his preserving it. Men “show the work of the law written in their hearts. Their conscience bears witness to them.” (Rom 2:15) And how could it be otherwise?

6 The laws which govern men are quite different. The Father of the universe has inscribed them in man’s nature, and that is where we must look for them; there and nowhere else.

 

[Tigg]

I am intrigued by the way you associate one change to one sacrament and limitless changes to all sacramental doctrine. In my very limited experience, these kinds of generalizations can lead people to genuinely believe that a little change is the same thing as chaos. I’m not sure if what you’ve described is a slippery slope or a straw man, but something just doesn’t quite sit right with the form of your presentation.

Did you know that once-upon-a-time, early Church Fathers taught that remarriage was not okay even in the case of spousal death, because death was “God’s way” of divorcing a couple? But that was a very long time ago, in another time and place, and now that seems silly to most of us. And yet the Catholic Church did not collapse when this particular understanding of marriage, divorce, and remarriage changed.

I think maybe that’s the reason for the deep alarm among Catholics–the potential for even a little change signals to them that big changes are possible, and if big changes are possible, what can we trust in? People with faith in the rules are troubled by changes in the rules, which is why I try and place my faith in a higher Authority.

Oh, but what has been proposed is in no way a “little” change and if implemented has the potential to cause grave consequences to the Church. Crdl Burke, an outstanding theologian in his own right, has already said himself that he would not be able to “digest” what has been proposed.

Here is a great article you may want to read. It p(name removed by moderator)oints just some of the problems:

Changing Marriage Discipline Will Change Doctrine

In order for the Church to change its discipline to allow Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, one of three things would have to happen:

• The Church would have to stop presuming that marriages are valid until proven otherwise (Canon 1060).

•The Church would have to stop teaching that people in a state of grave sin shouldn’t receive the Eucharist (Canons 915-16).

•The Church would have to stop teaching that Sacramental absolution requires the resolution to stop sinning and amend one’s life (Canon 987).

If all of this were really just discipline, any or all of it could be changed. The difficulty is that a lot of this discipline expresses doctrine:

crisismagazine.com/2014/discipline-changes-doctrine-debate-heart-synod

 

[Sirach2]

Changing Marriage Discipline Will Change Doctrine

In order for the Church to change its discipline to allow Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, one of three things would have to happen:

• The Church would have to stop presuming that marriages are valid until proven otherwise (Canon 1060).

•The Church would have to stop teaching that people in a state of grave sin shouldn’t receive the Eucharist (Canons 915-16).

•The Church would have to stop teaching that Sacramental absolution requires the resolution to stop sinning and amend one’s life (Canon 987).

If all of this were really just discipline, any or all of it could be changed. **The difficulty is that a lot of this discipline expresses doctrine. **

---

The difficulty with this presumption is that the author is making comments out of context to the internal forum of the couple’s conscience, which is inviolate., and putting forth his own interpretation. He is believing that all who undertake second marriages are** living in mortal sin**, whereas, that may not be the case in God’s eyes, who alone judges the heart.