Confirmation brings one into full communion, right?

[jmcrae]

Seems to me that it would only make sense to REQUIRE Reconciliation prior to first Communion for cases of grave/mortal sin.

Right - and if someone is adamantly refusing to go, I would never force him or her.

However, fear of the unknown, lack of time management skills, and inexperience with making a good Examination of Conscience can prevent people who do, in fact, have something to confess, from making it in to the Confessional, which is why it is important to strongly encourage everyone in the whole group to go to Confession (whether it’s a group of children, or a group of RCIA Candidates), and to make a point of providing an easily-accessible opportunity for them to go.

I find that it’s a good strategy to tell them that all they have to do is go into the Confessional and talk to the priest - if they don’t want to actually celebrate the Sacrament, they don’t have to.

This way, I have satisfied my obligation to make certain that they have had a full opportunity to celebrate this Sacrament, and know for certain that they have all overcome any fear they may have had, of going into the Confessional (so that that is not an obstacle).

I would have no way of knowing whether any of them actually celebrated the Sacrament, of course - that would be none of my business.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Just to clear things up for a couple of posters who inquired:

I’m a baptized non-Catholic, and yep, I’ve made my first confession (never felt better than I did after that), divorced, but not re-married.

Maybe I’m being “scrupulous”… but there was confusion over what impact divorce had on my being received into the Church, and although it’s been cleared up, I’m paranoid that someone got something wrong somewhere and I’ll be confirmed, receive first communion, and then find out that I wasn’t supposed to after all and there ya go, mortal sin (unworthily receiving the Eucharist).

Not exactly Knowledge, Intent, and Commitment are the foundations of sin in their absence sin is not commited. thus you would have to know your acceptance was invalid before hand

I’ve been assured that divorce itself isn’t an issue, but elsewhere (in the Cathechism, I believe) I read that even without re-marriage, divorce is a sin. Am I wrong?

Well, kind of, sort of, given the stacking of issues associated with divorce it is hard to imagine one would not sin in that process. However some who are abondoned through no fault of their own and thus could be in grace. However they may well lose emotional control at some point in that process.

Since it would have been difficult for you to have been married in the Catholic Church you were not divorced with in a catholic sacramental marriage. You were attempting a Natural Marriage, the attempt failed. Had you been successfully married in a Natural Marriage you would inseparable from your spouse.

 

[jmcrae]

Not exactly Knowledge, Intent, and Commitment are the foundations of sin in their absence sin is not commited. thus you would have to know your acceptance was invalid before hand Well, kind of, sort of, given the stacking of issues associated with divorce it is hard to imagine one would not sin in that process. However some who are abondoned through no fault of their own and thus could be in grace. However they may well lose emotional control at some point in that process.

Since it would have been difficult for you to have been married in the Catholic Church you were not divorced with in a catholic sacramental marriage. You were attempting a Natural Marriage, the attempt failed. Had you been successfully married in a Natural Marriage you would inseparable from your spouse.

Careful!! These are evaluations that only a Marriage Tribunal can make.

We as lay Catholics are required to assume that all marriages are valid marriages (including natural marriages between two unbaptized persons) until definitely proven otherwise by the Tribunal.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’ve never said or implied Confirmation forgives sins. Sorry for any misimpression you got.

I am questioning whether someone is REQUIRED to celebrate Reconciliation prior to first Communion, with no qualification or exception or particular judgment. Regardless of their actual state of sin, seriousness of sin, conscience, etc. My impression is that the answer is yes, though I am not sure I understand why that is a universal norm (if in fact it is). Seems to me that it would only make sense to REQUIRE Reconciliation prior to first Communion for cases of grave/mortal sin.

It would seem 99.9999999999% of all adult first communions associated with infant baptism could be covered by needing confession or state of presumption, thus the extremely rare adult free of sin through years between baptism and communion would be too rare to find; or even search for.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Careful!! These are evaluations that only a Marriage Tribunal can make.

We as lay Catholics are required to assume that all marriages are valid marriages (including natural marriages between two unbaptized persons) until definitely proven otherwise by the Tribunal.

The choice to separate openly displays a lack of true marriage.

 

[jmcrae]

The choice to separate openly displays a lack of true marriage.

And again, before leaping into that second marriage, make sure to get an official ruling on this from the Tribunal.

 

[diggerdomer]

Careful!! These are evaluations that only a Marriage Tribunal can make.

We as lay Catholics are required to assume that all marriages are valid marriages (including natural marriages between two unbaptized persons) until definitely proven otherwise by the Tribunal.

Not exactly. There are many reasons that a marriage could be publicly known to be invalid from the beginning.

Easy examples: If I am married, then attempt a second marriage, publicly with no qualms about the fact that I am already married, the Catholic Church (and, therefore, any reasonably educated Catholic) would KNOW that my “second marriage” was in fact invalid. Or, if 10-year olds attempted marriage. Or, if a Catholic priest attempted marriage. THere are any number of such examples.

It’s only when an *existing *marriage is called into question, and a decree of nullity is sought, that a tribunal is involved to determine whether or not it was invalid.

 

[jmcrae]

Not exactly. There are many reasons that a marriage could be publicly known to be invalid from the beginning.

Easy examples: If I am married, then attempt a second marriage, publicly with no qualms about the fact that I am already married, the Catholic Church (and, therefore, any reasonably educated Catholic) would KNOW that my “second marriage” was in fact invalid. Or, if 10-year olds attempted marriage. Or, if a Catholic priest attempted marriage. THere are any number of such examples.

Even when the case is “obvious,” (beause everyone who divorces considers their case to be “obvious”) it still goes through the Tribunal. Without their “rubber stamp”, no second marriage is permitted.

For example, King Henry VIII’s case seems “obvious” on the surface - he had married his cousin. (Big no-no.) One minor snag, though - he had asked the Pope to give him a special dispensation, and validate the marriage - thus making it indissoluable. The Pope then had to explain to him that he could not reverse-engineer the dispensation, King Henry decided to start up his own Church, and here we are today.

 

[diggerdomer]

Just to clear things up for a couple of posters who inquired:

I’m a baptized non-Catholic, and yep, I’ve made my first confession (never felt better than I did after that), divorced, but not re-married.

Maybe I’m being “scrupulous”… but there was confusion over what impact divorce had on my being received into the Church, and although it’s been cleared up, I’m paranoid that someone got something wrong somewhere and I’ll be confirmed, receive first communion, and then find out that I wasn’t supposed to after all and there ya go, mortal sin (unworthily receiving the Eucharist).

I’ve been assured that divorce itself isn’t an issue, but elsewhere (in the Cathechism, I believe) I read that even without re-marriage, divorce is a sin. Am I wrong?

Divorce in and of itself is not a sin. In that respect, don’t worry.

Remarriage could be a problem, down the road. If this is a concern, talk with your pastor/parish pastoral team to get more clarity.

Best wishes.

 

[diggerdomer]

Even when the case is “obvious,” (beause everyone who divorces considers their case to be “obvious”) it still goes through the Tribunal. Without their “rubber stamp”, no second marriage is permitted.

For example, King Henry VIII’s case seems “obvious” on the surface - he had married his cousin. (Big no-no.) One minor snag, though - he had asked the Pope to give him a special dispensation, and validate the marriage - thus making it indissoluable. The Pope then had to explain to him that he could not reverse-engineer the dispensation, King Henry decided to start up his own Church, and here we are today.

I would disagree with the term “rubber stamp” regarding a Marriage Tribunal decision.

I agree that anyone wishing to marry in the Catholic Church who’s been previously married would most likely need to go through some process involving a Tribunal.

My point is that there are clear cases where a marriage could be known to be invalid regardless of the Tribunal, even though the Tribunal process may be necessary to formally allow a “second marriage” to validly occur.

 

[jmcrae]

I would disagree with the term “rubber stamp” regarding a Marriage Tribunal decision.

I was using the term in an ironic way - yes, I am aware of the processes involved. It often takes more than a year of full time research to “state the obvious” as some people think. (Because the reality is that these things are not so obvious, once you start to examine them.)

I agree that anyone wishing to marry in the Catholic Church who’s been previously married would most likely need to go through some process involving a Tribunal.

“Most likely” is an understatement. All cases have to go through the Tribunal - there are no exceptions.

My point is that there are clear cases where a marriage could be known to be invalid regardless of the Tribunal, even though the Tribunal process may be necessary to formally allow a “second marriage” to validly occur.

And the reason for this is that “obvious” is not always that obvious.

There are always unique circumstances where even the most blatantly “obvious” case could, indeed, turn out to be a valid marriage (for example, unusually mature ten year olds who in fact were able to give consent, or where, unknown to the party of the first part, a Declaration of Nullity had, in fact, been obtained for the first marriage, by the party of the second part, such that the apparent “second marriage” was, in fact, perfectly valid - even though no one present at the ceremony was aware that a Declaration of Nullity had been obtained already, so they thought they were assisting at an illicit wedding).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The Catholic Church does not recognize a “second” marriage even a widow is married then marries again in a separate time she has two husbands as she was married in different time.

The tribunal is not omniscient nor omnipresent it is a body used to declare a person free to marry or impeded to marry by their best determination. Whether one is truly married is only known by the combined couple. I have sympathy for the tribunal however to rule two people with hate between them are properly united as one is well let’s say questionable. And to ever call a marriage “invalid” is unwise

 

[quiet52]

Divorce in and of itself is not a sin. In that respect, don’t worry.

Remarriage could be a problem, down the road. If this is a concern, talk with your pastor/parish pastoral team to get more clarity.

Best wishes.

It is not true that divorce is never a sin. Divorce MAY, or may not, be a sin – it depends on the circumstances. It is not a sin if an abused spouse must file for divorce to protect himself/herself and the children financially and for other reasons, for example. However, in some states divorce is easily obtained, and if one spouse decides not to care about the marriage, and decides to divorce simply to ignore responsibilities, etc., that spouse may be committing a mortal sin.

 

[diggerdomer]

Divorce MAY, or may not, be a sin – it depends on the circumstances.

That’s equivalent to what I said. I didn’t say divorce is never sinful.