Criminals get communion, but not a person with an "invalid" marriage

[seekdatruth]

Please explain this to me. A person can perpetrate the most horrific crime, be it murder, sexual abuse, rape, anything, yet go to confession and be clear to receive the Eucharist. Meanwhile, a person who was married outside the church, no matter how seriously they take their vows and consider them a covenant made with God, can go to confession and truly be repentant, yet all that means nothing in the eyes of the church. All that matters, apparently, is if all the appropriate fees and classes have been paid and done. How can an 8-hour class, during which we are discouraged from bothering anyone with questions, be assurance that a marriage will last? Apparently, marriage failure rates within the Catholic Church are about equal with non-Catholic marriages, so what’s so special about a Catholic wedding vs. a non-Catholic wedding that needs such serious punishment, when criminals of other varieties get excused without a fuss? Believe me, I understand Mother Church is supposed to be doing this out of respect and the dignity of the sacrament of marriage, and we need to send a clear message to our children about the seriousness of failed marriages (the effect of broken homes on children being one). I very much agree with punishing that, yet why does a rapist or murderer not get some sort of serious punishment as well?

 

[NCSue]

Please understand that I’m not a priest, but here’s my thought.
A criminal who is still actively committing serious crimes could not receive Communion, while a repentant criminal - one who is sincere in wanting ammendment of life - can. Someone whose marriage is invalid would, in a sense, not show the proper disposition for receiving Communion, while one whose marriage is annulled - i.e. someone who has been able to demonstrate by following the proper procedure to have their marriage declared invalid - can receive Communion.
Does that make sense?

Peace,
Sue
acts17verse28.blogspot.com/

 

[bilop]

Please explain this to me. A person can perpetrate the most horrific crime, be it murder, sexual abuse, rape, anything, yet go to confession and be clear to receive the Eucharist. Meanwhile, a person who was married outside the church, no matter how seriously they take their vows and consider them a covenant made with God, can go to confession and truly be repentant, yet all that means nothing in the eyes of the church. All that matters, apparently, is if all the appropriate fees and classes have been paid and done. How can an 8-hour class, during which we are discouraged from bothering anyone with questions, be assurance that a marriage will last? Apparently, marriage failure rates within the Catholic Church are about equal with non-Catholic marriages, so what’s so special about a Catholic wedding vs. a non-Catholic wedding that needs such serious punishment, when criminals of other varieties get excused without a fuss? Believe me, I understand Mother Church is supposed to be doing this out of respect and the dignity of the sacrament of marriage, and we need to send a clear message to our children about the seriousness of failed marriages (the effect of broken homes on children being one). I very much agree with punishing that, yet why does a rapist or murderer not get some sort of serious punishment as well?

The key is repentance. If the criminal repents, and intends to sin no more, he can receive absolution and Holy Communion.

Likewise, if the person in an invalid marriage, repents that sin, and intends to no longer have marital relations, they can receive absolution and Holy Communion.

However, if they intend to continue relations with the person they invalidly married, then they are committing ongoing adultery/fornication, and are not repentant. Therefore, they can’t receive absolution, and can’t receive Holy Communion, as they are in a state of mortal sin.

Hope that helps.

God Bless

 

[puzzleannie]

Please explain this to me. A person can perpetrate the most horrific crime, be it murder, sexual abuse, rape, anything, yet go to confession and be clear to receive the Eucharist. Meanwhile, a person who was married outside the church, no matter how seriously they take their vows and consider them a covenant made with God, can go to confession and truly be repentant, yet all that means nothing in the eyes of the church. l?

no that is not how it goes. Both persons must rectify whatever is going on in their lives that prevents them from being in God’s grace and in full communion with the Church. The person who has stopped the sinful behavior can confess, be absolved, do penance, and return to communion. The person who has not yet stopped the sinful behavior or condition still has a way to go, and yes, sometimes it takes time, whether it is an illicit marriage situation, or another problem. One cannot be said to have confessed and be repentant until the underlying problem has been resolved.

there is another angle to marriage problems too. Often it is not a matter of one’s personal sin–for instance a non-Catholic marries someone they think is free to marry. When the non-Catholic wishes to join the church she finds out that according to Catholic law, her spouse was not free to marry, and therefore, through no fault of her own, she (and her spouse) will have to take whatever steps are necessary to validate this marriage, and wait for her full communion with the Church, until that happens. She did not sin, but still has to accept the God-given authority over marriage and the other sacraments, of the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

I very much agree with punishing that, yet why does a rapist or murderer not get some sort of serious punishment as well?

Rapists and murderers get jail, usually - even if they have repented and stopped sinning. But if a rapist or murderer were continuing in their rapes and murders, they, too, would be forbidden to receive Holy Communion until their situation is rectified, and they stop doing that.

The reason a couple living in an invalid marriage can’t receive Holy Communion is because they have not stopped committing their sin - they are continuing to live together as if they were husband and wife, even though they cannot be married to each other at the present time, for whatever reason.

 

[seekdatruth]

I’ve heard the “you’re still in a state of mortal sin as long as you stay married” argument before, and it still doesn’t make sense to me. Just because a person is held up for administrative or financial reasons, but a priest is aware that the person is repentant and wishes to amend things, does that make the person any less repentant? I mean it’s understandable if someone refuses to do anything about their situation, but that’s not what I’m at here. I’ve heard of things like radical sanation and “living as brother and sister”, but my priest doesn’t buy it. He wants full cooperation from the dh and doesn’t want anything to do with us until we’ve paid for a class (the date of which the next one will be is undetermined at this time) and in a town where family are all LDS and against my religion, we are supposed to provide suitable Catholic “marriage sponsors”. I’m supposed to just “make friends” when everyone is like, “Who are you? I’m not related to you. I didn’t grow up with you. Why should I talk to you?”

Further, convalidation is more or less an official acknowledgment that an existing marriage is indeed valid, so therefore it becomes sort of a back-dated issue, am I right? Even if that’s not the case, does God not know of our validity and repentance until a priest is satisfied? I think that hinges a bit too much on our own power and self-importance, not God’s.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve heard the “you’re still in a state of mortal sin as long as you stay married” argument before, and it still doesn’t make sense to me. Just because a person is held up for administrative or financial reasons, but a priest is aware that the person is repentant and wishes to amend things, does that make the person any less repentant? I mean it’s understandable if someone refuses to do anything about their situation, but that’s not what I’m at here.

So, you’ve moved out and are living the life of a married person whose spouse is absent? (ie: no dating, no smoochy phone calls, etc.) Your “spouse,” by the way, is the first person that you ever married in your life; not the person you invalidly attempted to marry while still under your vow to God of “until death us do part” with the first person. (HINT: if neither of you from the first marriage is dead, and you have not yet received a Declaration of Nullity, you are both still bound by God to that vow.)

Further, convalidation is more or less an official acknowledgment that an existing marriage is indeed valid, so therefore it becomes sort of a back-dated issue, am I right?

This is one of those pastoral provisions that makes absolutely no moral or theological sense, but helps people to “save face.”

Once you have determined that your marriage (the first one) did not actually exist, and you have received a Declaration of Nullity proving so, then (and only then), the priest can look at the second marriage and decide that it is valid (convalidation).

Even if that’s not the case, does God not know of our validity and repentance until a priest is satisfied? I think that hinges a bit too much on our own power and self-importance, not God’s.

I think it’s important to ascertain what, exactly, it is that you are repenting of. The first marriage? (God does not require you to repent of your first marriage.) The divorce? (Repenting of the divorce would involve going back to your first spouse and repairing the damage done to that marriage.) The second marriage? (Repenting of the second marriage would involve returning to the single life, and not attempting to seek out any romantic relationships, until a Declaration of Nullity has been received for the first marriage.)

 

[seekdatruth]

So, you’ve moved out and are living the life of a married person whose spouse is absent? (ie: no dating, no smoochy phone calls, etc.) Your “spouse,” by the way, is the first person that you ever married in your life; not the person you invalidly attempted to marry while still under your vow to God of “until death us do part” with the first person. (HINT: if neither of you from the first marriage is dead, and you have not yet received a Declaration of Nullity, you are both still bound by God to that vow.)

This is one of those pastoral provisions that makes absolutely no moral or theological sense, but helps people to “save face.”

Once you have determined that your marriage (the first one) did not actually exist, and you have received a Declaration of Nullity proving so, then (and only then), the priest can look at the second marriage and decide that it is valid (convalidation).

I think it’s important to ascertain what, exactly, it is that you are repenting of. The first marriage? (God does not require you to repent of your first marriage.) The divorce? (Repenting of the divorce would involve going back to your first spouse and repairing the damage done to that marriage.) The second marriage? (Repenting of the second marriage would involve returning to the single life, and not attempting to seek out any romantic relationships, until a Declaration of Nullity has been received for the first marriage.)

Who is talking about first marriages here? Not me. I’m talking about a marriage that took place when I was not active in the Catholic church, that was performed by a protestant minister. Just because it was not performed by a Catholic priest makes it “invalid” in my case.

 

[seekdatruth]

Anyone?

 

[NCSue]

Who is talking about first marriages here? Not me. I’m talking about a marriage that took place when I was not active in the Catholic church, that was performed by a protestant minister. Just because it was not performed by a Catholic priest makes it “invalid” in my case.

My husband and I married as Protestants and later converted to the Catholic faith. Our marriage has been recognized as valid. I don’t understand the difference between our situation and yours.

 

[jmcrae]

Who is talking about first marriages here? Not me. I’m talking about a marriage that took place when I was not active in the Catholic church, that was performed by a protestant minister. Just because it was not performed by a Catholic priest makes it “invalid” in my case.

If the Tribunal has already ruled in your case, then simply take the documentation to your priest, and ask to be married to your fiance(e).

If you have attempted to marry your fiance(e) outside of the Catholic Church, then this “marriage” is also invalid, for exactly the same reason that the first one was - lack of form - which means that you are not yet married to him or her, from the POV of the Church.

(Non-catholics are dispensed from the requirements of form, which is why their marriages are always considered valid, regardless of form.)

You, as a Catholic, cannot live with your fiance(e) until after the Catholic wedding. If you are in a living-together situation at the present time, then you cannot receive the Sacraments, because of the on-going living-together situation.

 

[bilop]

My husband and I married as Protestants and later converted to the Catholic faith. Our marriage has been recognized as valid. I don’t understand the difference between our situation and yours.

You were not bound by the rules of the Catholic Church when you married. As Protestants, the Church considers your Protestant marriage valid.

The OP was a Catholic who didn’t marry in the Church, though required to do so (or get a dispensation). She is not married in the eyes of the Church. Until she is, living as husband and wife is sinful and prevents receipt of the Sacraments.

God Bless

 

[maryjk]

Who is talking about first marriages here? Not me. I’m talking about a marriage that took place when I was not active in the Catholic church, that was performed by a protestant minister. Just because it was not performed by a Catholic priest makes it “invalid” in my case.

Could it be that one of you is Catholic, got married, but not in the Church? The clue was, “not active in the Catholic church.”

And the Priest is telling you that you need to attend classes before your convalidation? And maybe these classes haven’t yet been scheduled and before they are scheduled, you need a Catholic couple to sponsor you?

Just trying to get the story down.

 

[seekdatruth]

If the Tribunal has already ruled in your case, then simply take the documentation to your priest, and ask to be married to your fiance(e).

If you have attempted to marry your fiance(e) outside of the Catholic Church, then this “marriage” is also invalid, for exactly the same reason that the first one was - lack of form - which means that you are not yet married to him or her, from the POV of the Church.

(Non-catholics are dispensed from the requirements of form, which is why their marriages are always considered valid, regardless of form.)

You, as a Catholic, cannot live with your fiance(e) until after the Catholic wedding. If you are in a living-together situation at the present time, then you cannot receive the Sacraments, because of the on-going living-together situation.

YOu do a lot of assuming about my current living situation. Please stop.

 

[seekdatruth]

Could it be that one of you is Catholic, got married, but not in the Church? The clue was, “not active in the Catholic church.”

And the Priest is telling you that you need to attend classes before your convalidation? And maybe these classes haven’t yet been scheduled and before they are scheduled, you need a Catholic couple to sponsor you?

Just trying to get the story down.

:clapping:
Thanks for paying attention, Mary! Yes, you are correct, only the classes are not scheduled according to anyone in specific’s need, just when the parish feels *they *are ready to set up a class. The class is $50 and the marriage ceremony is $150. I also must promise to have my children baptized ASAP to the tune of another $200. We are poor right now, and would feel like I am taking money I could use to take care of our household expenses just so that i can go back to communion. Besides, it’s just the principle of the matter: It all hinges on payment and scheduling, and I just think it’s wrong, whether I can easily wait and pay or not.

 

[jmcrae]

YOu do a lot of assuming about my current living situation. Please stop.

I am saying “if,” and I am basing my responses on the information given.

If you’re living alone, then there’s no problem, is there?

 

[bilop]

:clapping:
Thanks for paying attention, Mary! Yes, you are correct, only the classes are not scheduled according to anyone in specific’s need, just when the parish feels *they *are ready to set up a class. The class is $50 and the marriage ceremony is $150. I also must promise to have my children baptized ASAP to the tune of another $200. We are poor right now, and would feel like I am taking money I could use to take care of our household expenses just so that i can go back to communion. Besides, it’s just the principle of the matter: It all hinges on payment and scheduling, and I just think it’s wrong, whether I can easily wait and pay or not.

If you cannot pay, the parish will waive the fee. Sacraments can not be denied due to inability to pay.

As to your post about your “living situation”, if you are living as a single person, you can just go to confession and start receiving communion immediately.

God Bless

 

[seekdatruth]

I am saying “if,” and I am basing my responses on the information given.

If you’re living alone, then there’s no problem, is there?

Well if my priest wasn’t making the same assumptions as you are, then yes, there would be no problem. As it stands though, it makes no difference in his eyes, whether I “live in sin” or he is indeed across the country.
I have provided all the evidence necessary to prove my marriage valid, yet I must pay fees first.

 

[seekdatruth]

I need to move to a new parish I guess.