Divorce and remariage and communion

[latingirl]

This is what someone threw at me:

"As for other hot-button topics, the pope not surprisingly says divorced and remarried Catholics must learn to live with the fact that they cannot receive communion.

so a remarried woman or man can not take communion even after they repent because they are living in adultery, so they can not repent unless they repent every day I guessso get a divorce from the second husband."

I don’t really know the teachings on divorce, remarraige and communion. Can someone help me?

 

[1ke]

Divorce does not end a valid marriage.

Therefore someone who divorces their spouse and attempts to marry another person commits adultery. Adultery is a mortal sin. A person in a state of mortal sin cannot approach the Eucharist. A person cannot receive absolution for a sin they do not intend to stop committing.

You can read the relevant document concerning Communion by divorced and “remarried” Catholics at the Vatican website, here;

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

This does not apply, of course, to Catholics who obtain a decree of nullity showing their first attempt at marriage was not valid.

 

[mdgspencer]

Such a person should speak with the parish priest to look at their the situation.
Divorce in itself does not prevent someone from going to communion. If someone’s marriage is annuled by the Church, they are in good standing with the Church if they married someone else.
It may be possible to get an annulment from the Church. The first marriage may not be valid in the eyes of the Church for one reason or another.
If the first marriage cannot be annulled by the Church, the couple may have to live as brother or sister if they stay living together, for example for the good of their children.
Bad things can happen. I recall seeing this one on the news. The woman’s first husband was declared legally dead after being missing for years. After she married a second man, her first husband showed up. What are they to do? It wasn’r anybody’s fault. It is the same situation as a Catholic woman marrying a second man.

 

[latingirl]

The person who asked this question is not Catholic and is rather bitter towards Catholicism (who isnt right? LOL). Thank you for getting me out of a confusing situation (at least for now)

 

[latingirl]

Jesus did say in Matthew’s Gospel that adultery was probable cause for divorce. My friend believed that the Catholic church does not forgive divorce on these grounds, what do I tell her?

 

[1ke]

Jesus did say in Matthew’s Gospel that adultery was probable cause for divorce. My friend believed that the Catholic church does not forgive divorce on these grounds, what do I tell her?

(a) That is not what Matthew’s gospel says.

(b) The Church does not prohibit physical separation when necessary (i.e. even divorce). Such as person may not remarry.

 

[joandarc2008]

In a Protestant Translation of Mt 5:31-5:32 where the Catholic translation says (except where the marriage is unlawful) most Protestant versions read except where one spouse has committed adultery. The Greek word is porneia. The translation of porneia is to be unlawful. Most Protestant translations - changed this slightly to make amends for historical changes after the Reformation.

 

[latingirl]

Can someone tell me why the Protestants held diffrent teachings on divorce other than those in the Bible? For example in alot of Protestant churches, it is perfectly okay to divore and then remarry.

Can this be the cause of my friend being so suspicious of the Catholic teachings?

 

[joandarc2008]

Can someone tell me why the Protestants held diffrent teachings on divorce other than those in the Bible? For example in alot of Protestant churches, it is perfectly okay to divore and then remarry.

Can this be the cause of my friend being so suspicious of the Catholic teachings?

I don’t think it is up to us to really guess at any one persons intentions however I will say this - Bl Cardinal Newman said once that to know history was to become Catholic.

Many Protestants do not know their history well and simply look at the anullment process as a CAtholic divorce.

1. The anullment process is not a Catholic divorce it is finding of validity or non-validity at time of Sacrament.
2. During the Reformation there were certain Patriarchs within the monarchies that wanted to remarry after divorce because their wives had not given male heirs etc - hence they left the Church and formed their own version of it. (Henry VIII and the Anglican Church.) Others felt that the decree of nullity process was too legalistic and could be bought and should be done away with - however nothing was put in place of it. Others would not believe in granting divorce at all.

So really your answer depends on the denomination of Protestantism. BTW - I would say today that the High Anglicans are closer to Catholics than Protestants but that is IMO.

There are many reasons Protestants don’t agree with the Catholic Church most are easily explained through apologetics - and most come from a lack of understanding.

This is a really brief overview - maybe if you could share which denomination that would be helpful

 

[latingirl]

I find that the people who object most to Catholic teachings in general are Evangelical or Baptist. I used to be Evangelical and I know there is very little understanding of who and what Catholicism is. However when I encourage my Protestant friends to study history they usually say , "I read about the early “Fathers” and they were not Catholic or they say “I don’t need to know history because all I need to know is in the Bible”

Needless to say, I never think a person is done learning and that there is planty to know about Christianity besides what’s in Scripture…for instance what happened after the apostles died.

My Baptist friend thinks that whereas God can forgive someone for divorce and remairrage, the Catholic church cannot… As if they are contradicting God somehow. I just don’t get the mindset and I was raised Protrestant!

 

[Bookcat]

Divorce does not end a valid marriage.

Therefore someone who divorces their spouse and attempts to marry another person commits adultery. Adultery is a mortal sin. A person in a state of mortal sin cannot approach the Eucharist. A person cannot receive absolution for a sin they do not intend to stop committing.

You can read the relevant document concerning Communion by divorced and “remarried” Catholics at the Vatican website, here;

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

This does not apply, of course, to Catholics who obtain a decree of nullity showing their first attempt at marriage was not valid.

 

[FAB]

This is what someone threw at me:

"As for other hot-button topics, the pope not surprisingly says divorced and remarried Catholics must learn to live with the fact that they cannot receive communion.

so a remarried woman or man can not take communion even after they repent because they are living in adultery, so they can not repent unless they repent every day I guessso get a divorce from the second husband."

I don’t really know the teachings on divorce, remarraige and communion. Can someone help me?

An earlier poster gave the correct teaching for the Church. since you are catholic and you entered a sacramental marrage, 1st one with another baptised christian even if from another faith, then divorce, and remarry, without first going through the process of an annulment and having the first marriage nulified, then you are considered to be living in sin and committing adultary. You cannot recieve any sacraments except for the sick and that is if your are dying. daily repentance would have no bearing since you do not intend to change.
Your solution is to go through the annulment process, all parishes can assist you with it. Even though it sounds like a great task, once finished, you can convalidate your marriage and recieve the Eucarist, as well as the rest of the sacraments.

 

[joandarc2008]

Pope Benedict XVI also had some great comments in Light of the World:

One thing we can do is inquire more precisely into the question of the validity of marriages. Up to now, canon law has taken for granted that someone who contracts a marriage knows what marriage is. Assuming the existence of this knowledge, the marriage is then valid ad indissoluble. But in the present confusion of opinions, in today’s completely new situation, what people “know” is that divorce is supposedly normal. So we have to deal with the question of how to recognize validity and where healing is possible. This will always remain a struggle. But that is no reason not to maintain the standard or to capitulate. That would not raise the moral level of society. Preserving this difficult teaching as a standard by which people can continue to measure themselves is a necessary task to prevent further disasters. (pg 144)