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

[Sirach2]

This is an excerpt taken from material obtained by my pastor within the Archdiocese of Detroit in the 1970’s.

From the anthropological point of view this partnership in life and love is of far greater moral and human significance than any particular aspect of the total relationship. This marital state of mind is the result of an authentic marital existence. It is creative. In the couple themselves, it creates true mutual love (something which may have been entirely lacking in their first marriage); it fosters in them true parental love for their children - in fact a true human family in which life and love are fully shared. The fact that they may receive the sacraments in this marital state of mind, provided they abstain from intercourse, means that the marital state of mind itself and all the human values which it created do not stand under condemnation. The only aspect of the total relationship which stands under condemnation is sexual intercourse.

According to these principles the invalidly married are “living in sin.” A principlist way of thinking finds it contradictory to speak of true, interior conversion which effects no external change. A cessations from sexual acts can be the only sign of true conversion because these acts are deemed to be sinful. In this principlist theology of sin, the emphasis is laid on the external act. The couple may show all the signs of Christian living, but if they have intercourse they must be regarded as “unrepentant.” In this theological perspective, there can be no question of administering the sacraments to concubinarii.

Moral response is always a response to God’s grace given in an actual situation. The perfection of this response cannot be measured by any external criteria! [in this case, engaging in sexual intercourse]The subjectively perfect response to grace may fall far short of the objective demands of the law. Does God will them to separate? or does He will them to live as brother and sister? or does he will them to be saved and sanctified within the family which they have created? Only the people themselves, in sincere prayer, can ultimately discern God’s will. If a couple sincerely believe that they can receive the sacraments, if they say that they are convinced that God doesn’t demand their separation, and if they are showing signs of genuine Christian living, then only the immediate danger of scandal to the community should bar them from the sacraments. [In that case, they may go to another parish where they are unknown.]

In this world of failures, the sacraments are given to men to nourish and strengthen them. Though the priest can help them in forming their conscience, he cannot take over the duty of making the decision. Here, too, it is true that the final moral certainty of conscience is achieved by the individuals themselves.
James McManus, C.SS.R., St. Joseph’s College, Hawkstone Park, Weston-under-Redcastle, Shrewsbury.
The last sentence, “final moral certainty of conscience” belongs in the realm of “internal forum” that I shared in my last post. This has been addressed by many authors besides this religious and is probably worth our time to study its application. After much prayer, study and discernment to find God’s will with regard to their failed marriage, and God answers with absolute conviction of the Holy Spirit, then I believe they have no moral failing if they receive the sacraments. Only full knowledge of sin can render a sin mortal, as we are taught in the Catechism, and that would certainly be missing here.

 

[AnneTeresa]

From the anthropological point of view this partnership in life and love is of far greater moral and human significance than any particular aspect of the total relationship. This marital state of mind is the result of an authentic marital existence. It is creative. In the couple themselves, it creates true mutual love (something which may have been entirely lacking in their first marriage); it fosters in them true parental love for their children - in fact a true human family in which life and love are fully shared. The fact that they may receive the sacraments in this marital state of mind, provided they abstain from intercourse, means that the marital state of mind itself and all the human values which it created do not stand under condemnation. The only aspect of the total relationship which stands under condemnation is sexual intercourse.

According to these principles the invalidly married are “living in sin.” A principlist way of thinking finds it contradictory to speak of true, interior conversion which effects no external change. A cessations from sexual acts can be the only sign of true conversion because these acts are deemed to be sinful. In this principlist theology of sin, the emphasis is laid on the external act. The couple may show all the signs of Christian living, but if they have intercourse they must be regarded as “unrepentant.” In this theological perspective, there can be no question of administering the sacraments to concubinarii.

Moral response is always a response to God’s grace given in an actual situation. The perfection of this response cannot be measured by any external criteria! [in this case, engaging in sexual intercourse]The subjectively perfect response to grace may fall far short of the objective demands of the law. Does God will them to separate? or does He will them to live as brother and sister? or does he will them to be saved and sanctified within the family which they have created? Only the people themselves, in sincere prayer, can ultimately discern God’s will. If a couple sincerely believe that they can receive the sacraments, if they say that they are convinced that God doesn’t demand their separation, and if they are showing signs of genuine Christian living, then only the immediate danger of scandal to the community should bar them from the sacraments. [In that case, they may go to another parish where they are unknown.]

 

[otjm]

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:

Cardinal Burke is as you say; and not to make too fine a point of it, he is not the first Cardinal, or theologian, or bishop, or priest who has had difficulty with something Rome has said or done in matters disciplinary. In short, I trust the wisdom of the Church (and I consider Cardinal Burke to be part of that wisdom) when it speaks. I am not so naive as to presume that when Roma locutus est, that all of its members agree causa finita est.

And as to your quote from Crisis Magazine, who anointed them to decide if the list they give is the sum and total and substance of all the possible reasons? They have limited it to three possibilities, I would submit, because those three fit their world view; not because those are the only possibilities. They don’t have their title for no reason; not so much that the Church is in crisis, but rather that they see a crisis everywhere.

Rather than p(name removed by moderator)oint the problems, they limit the issues to what they see.

 

[1newcatholic]

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. While, apparently, you retain your faith in Mao’s Little Red Book and getting high.

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. Or do you believe in eugenics and that the higher authority for controlling eugenics is the state?

Let’s see–Mao’s Little Red Book, getting high, and eugenics. All you forgot to mention was my penchant for abusing small animals and setting occupied buildings on fire.