divorce

[hollycat]

does a divorced woman have the right to recieve communion.this was the 2nd time around for this woman.{1rst one dead }not married in the church. now divorced. also a bunch of people went up to recieve communion at a funeral mass and i know not one of them attends mass or wants anything to do with the church.they did it for show. they were raised in the catholic faith. .what’s the right thing

 

[bpbasilphx]

If someone who is not living up to his faith, or at least trying, receives Communion unprepared, he brings judgement upon himself.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dear Hollycat:

Provided the divorced woman has not remarried without a decree of nullity, has confessed her sins and is otherwise in a state of grace, she may receive communion. Divorce in and of itself is not something that separates a person from communion ‘for life’.

Also, the others you spoke of may have indeed sought out a priest prior to the funeral, confessed, and been able to receive in good standing. One can only pray that this is so. If not, prayers are still worthwhile for them to be given God’s grace and guidance.

 

[rpp]

As was explained to me by my very orthodox priest when I got divorced, divorce does not prevent someone from receiving Holy Communion. This is true even if their most recent marriage was not proper, presuming that the person confessed the sin of an improper marriage prior to receiving.

Divorce, in and of itself, NEVER disqualifies someone from Holy Communion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Divorce, in and of itself, NEVER disqualifies someone from Holy Communion.

This is incorrect.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “**Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law” (CCC 2384). So, while there are surely victims of the mortal sin of divorce, not all those who divorce are innocent victims. In other words, there are those who deliberately commit the grave sin of divorce. So, divorce can be in and of itself a grave sin, even if not ever remarried.

Such grave sin, willfully and knowingly consented to can prevent a person from receiving Holy Communion, unless they receive sacramental absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

It isn’t JUST remarriage that is a sin, but divorce itself is a grave sin. “Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.” (CCC 2385).

I think many Catholics have so focused on the problem of remarriage that they’ve lost the sense that divorce itself is a grave sin.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

This is incorrect.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “***Divorce ***is a grave offense against the natural law” (CCC 2384). So, while there are surely victims of the mortal sin of divorce, not all those who divorce are innocent victims. In other words, there are those who deliberately commit the grave sin of divorce. So, divorce can be in and of itself a grave sin, even if not ever remarried.

Such grave sin, willfully and knowingly consented to can prevent a person from receiving Holy Communion, unless they receive sacramental absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

It isn’t JUST remarriage that is a sin, but divorce itself is a grave sin. “Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.” (CCC 2385).

I think many Catholics have so focused on the problem of remarriage that they’ve lost the sense that divorce itself is a grave sin.

You were not in the confessional with the OP’s woman. The OP was not in the confessional with this woman. Neither of you are her pastor, nor are you her confessor.

She asked if it was the right thing for the woman, as well as several people who were raised Catholic and are now not practicing to go to Communion.

The answer should be: We just don’t know. It is not up to us. Those who present themselves for the Eucharist, if they were raised Catholic, should know the requirements. The requirements are right there in the Missalette, as well. There is no gate guard in the Communion procession, asking to see if people are qualified. It’s self-policing.

And yes there are valid reasons for a person to obtain a divorce. And if those reasons are in play, then it is completely appropriate for a woman to receive Communion.

 

[Cruikshank_s]

And if those reasons are in play, then it is completely appropriate for a woman to receive Communion.

Or man mind you!

 

[thistle]

This is incorrect.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “***Divorce ***is a grave offense against the natural law” (CCC 2384). So, while there are surely victims of the mortal sin of divorce, not all those who divorce are innocent victims. In other words, there are those who deliberately commit the grave sin of divorce. So, divorce can be in and of itself a grave sin, even if not ever remarried.

Such grave sin, willfully and knowingly consented to can prevent a person from receiving Holy Communion, unless they receive sacramental absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

It isn’t JUST remarriage that is a sin, but divorce itself is a grave sin. “Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.” (CCC 2385).

I think many Catholics have so focused on the problem of remarriage that they’ve lost the sense that divorce itself is a grave sin.

Divorce is not any kind of offense for the innocent party. I think your post should have highlighted this more than you did.

CCC 2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

CCC 2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

Canon Law:

Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

Can. 1153 §1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

 

[Seatuck]

does a divorced woman have the right to recieve communion.this was the 2nd time around for this woman.{1rst one dead }not married in the church. now divorced. also a bunch of people went up to recieve communion at a funeral mass and i know not one of them attends mass or wants anything to do with the church.they did it for show. they were raised in the catholic faith. .what’s the right thing

Hollycat,
Please take this kindly as it is kindly meant. Your post comes off as very judgemental. You have no way of knowing the state of another person’s soul unless you know her/him extremely well and are in his/her confidence to the point of knowing if they go to confession and what type of education they have and their ability to understand this education and so on. So , next time you are in this type of situation give the person the benefit of the doubt . Perhaps say a prayer to God to have on all our souls and keep calling us to him.

Yes you are correct that it is grave matter when we do not attend Mass as we should, we shouldn’t take divorce lightly etc etc. You are right on target if you want to discuss those issues or lovingly apply some fraternal correction to a brother or sister. And also in most cases if a person truly understands the church and her teachings it will not be right for them to recieve communion . Just be careful on judging souls part.

 

[Christus_Rex_1]

This is incorrect.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “***Divorce ***is a grave offense against the natural law” (CCC 2384). So, while there are surely victims of the mortal sin of divorce, not all those who divorce are innocent victims. In other words, there are those who deliberately commit the grave sin of divorce. So, divorce can be in and of itself a grave sin, even if not ever remarried.

Such grave sin, willfully and knowingly consented to can prevent a person from receiving Holy Communion, unless they receive sacramental absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

It isn’t JUST remarriage that is a sin, but divorce itself is a grave sin. “Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.” (CCC 2385).

I think many Catholics have so focused on the problem of remarriage that they’ve lost the sense that divorce itself is a grave sin.

Exactly. I’m glad you posted what you did… for the reason you gave.

Until recently (1973, I think), divorce, in and of itself, used to bring about an ipso facto excommunication.

 

[thistle]

Exactly. I’m glad you posted what you did… for the reason you gave.

Until recently (1973, I think), divorce, in and of itself, used to bring about an ipso facto excommunication.

Divorce is not an issue for excommunication.

EXCOMMUNICATION

Ferendae Sententiae Excommunication:

Canon 1378: The pretended celebration of the Eucharist or of sacramental Confession
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by an interpreter

Latae Sententiae Excommunication:

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

 

[puzzleannie]

does a divorced woman have the right to recieve communion.this was the 2nd time around for this woman.{1rst one dead }not married in the church. now divorced. also a bunch of people went up to recieve communion at a funeral mass and i know not one of them attends mass or wants anything to do with the church.they did it for show. they were raised in the catholic faith. .what’s the right thing

not enough info, and post is unclear.

a divorced Catholic who has not remarried, and is otherwise in the state of grace can receive communion. It is nobody else’s business so no one should be judging her. At a funeral Mass, or wedding, or another time where there are likely to be a lot of non-Catholics present, or Catholics not in good standing, the priest should give a brief instruction on who may receive, or point to the guidelines in the missalette, but again, others should not judge because none of us knows the condition of another’s soul.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

not enough info, and post is unclear.

a divorced Catholic who has not remarried, and is otherwise in the state of grace can receive communion. It is nobody else’s business so no one should be judging her. At a funeral Mass, or wedding, or another time where there are likely to be a lot of non-Catholics present, or Catholics not in good standing, the priest should give a brief instruction on who may receive, or point to the guidelines in the missalette, but again, others should not judge because none of us knows the condition of another’s soul.

Why is it that someone can’t even mention a concern regarding the Eucharist being received unworthily without getting the boilerplate lecture on being “judgmental”?

The original post makes it clear that it is LIKELY that there were people receiving who should have been according to the Church’s rules: “a bunch of people went up to receive communion at a funeral mass and i know not one of them attends mass or wants anything to do with the church”. This should be a concern of any orthodox Catholic who witnesses such a thing - for the good of the souls of those receiving.

“He who eats the Body without discerning eats and drinks judgment unto himself.”

 

[puzzleannie]

Why is it that someone can’t even mention a concern regarding the Eucharist being received unworthily without getting the boilerplate lecture on being “judgmental”?

The original post makes it clear that it is LIKELY that there were people receiving who should have been according to the Church’s rules: “a bunch of people went up to receive communion at a funeral mass and i know not one of them attends mass or wants anything to do with the church”. This should be a concern of any orthodox Catholic who witnesses such a thing - for the good of the souls of those receiving.

in the first place it is highly unlikely that anyone attending a funeral is in a position to know whether or not all those present “attend mass regularly or have anything to do with the Church” unless they are related or well known to this person. He may know some of them but hardly all of them, and even then he has no positive knowledge that none of them has just confessed and been absolved.

To presume such knowledge is dangerous and NOT the proper concern of any Catholic, orthodox or otherwise, unless it is for the sake of a soul over whom one has a responsibility such as one’s child.

the orthodox Catholic will be much better served by concentrating on his own communion than by worrying about the state of soul of others

 

[Kenneth_Jones]

not enough info, and post is unclear.

… It is nobody else’s business so no one should be judging her. … others should not judge because none of us knows the condition of another’s soul.

Wonderfully put.

Say the Truth positively, with love in your heart. Lots of room for gentle instruction; very little room for condemnation, it seems to me.

Ken

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

in the first place it is highly unlikely that anyone attending a funeral is in a position to know whether or not all those present “attend mass regularly or have anything to do with the Church” unless they are related or well known to this person. He may know some of them but hardly all of them, and even then he has no positive knowledge that none of them has just confessed and been absolved.

To presume such knowledge is dangerous and NOT the proper concern of any Catholic, orthodox or otherwise, unless it is for the sake of a soul over whom one has a responsibility such as one’s child.

Don’t you think it’s extremely unlikely that the OP would have made such comments if they they didn’t know the people and the details? Who’s doing the presuming here?

the orthodox Catholic will be much better served by concentrating on his own communion than by worrying about the state of soul of others

Most certainly… I do not typically notice anything else immediately before, during, and after Communion. Certainly not who’s receiving and who’s not. But that doesn’t mean that someone who did happen to observe something troubling is forbidden to speak of it - especially because this is a real problem in the modern Church.

 

[bobzills]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “***Divorce ***is a grave offense against the natural law” (CCC 2384). So, while there are surely victims of the mortal sin of divorce, not all those who divorce are innocent victims. In other words, there are those who deliberately commit the grave sin of divorce. So, divorce can be in and of itself a grave sin, even if not ever remarried.

Such grave sin, willfully and knowingly consented to can prevent a person from receiving Holy Communion, unless they receive sacramental absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

It isn’t JUST remarriage that is a sin, but divorce itself is a grave sin. “Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.” (CCC 2385).

I think many Catholics have so focused on the problem of remarriage that they’ve lost the sense that divorce itself is a grave sin.

This is what I thought was true, but I guess that the teaching has been changed and now it is not a sin to get a divorce. For example, when a couple applies to the tribunal for a marriage annulment, the tribunal requires them to get a divorce before it will even look at the application. Now if it were a sin to get a divorce, this would mean that the Catholic Church tribunal authorities are complicit in something which is wrong to begin with.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

This is what I thought was true, but I guess that the teaching has been changed and now it is not a sin to get a divorce. For example, when a couple applies to the tribunal for a marriage annulment, the tribunal requires them to get a divorce before it will even look at the application. Now if it were a sin to get a divorce, this would mean that the Catholic Church tribunal authorities are complicit in something which is wrong to begin with.

It sounds like you don’t understand the difference between legal divorce and divorce in the eyes of the Church. The former is simply an obvious prerequisite for another marriage to occur.

To the Church, ‘divorce’ means the ending of a valid marriage - if the Church decides that a valid marriage did (does) exist, there will be no annulment. The annulment is a declaration that no valid marriage ever existed.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Note the quote from Our Lady to St. Birgitta in my tagline. Here’s one from Our Lord (of course these are approved!):

“The good receive my body, which was crucified and ascended into heaven, which was prefigured by the manna and by the widow’s flour. The wicked do so likewise, but, whereas for the good it leads to greater strength and consolation, for the wicked it leads to an even more just condemnation, inasmuch as they, in their unworthiness, are not afraid to approach so worthy a sacrament.”

Of course, this is exactly the same message as the passage from 1 Cor I quoted earlier.

Yet, today, anyone actually concerned with the Eucharist being profaned so will almost invariably end up with the label of “judgmental” - even when said concern is (partly) honest concern for the soul so sinning. The Church’s teaching on this is real simple - if you are not in a state of grace when receiving the Eucharist you are moving yourself farther from grace.

*"‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’" *(Matthew 22:36-40).

If only more people these days could keep the precedence of the two Great Commandments correct.

 

[bobzills]

It sounds like you don’t understand the difference between legal divorce and divorce in the eyes of the Church. The former is simply an obvious prerequisite for another marriage to occur.

To the Church, ‘divorce’ means the ending of a valid marriage - if the Church decides that a valid marriage did (does) exist, there will be no annulment. The annulment is a declaration that no valid marriage ever existed.

So there is no sin at all in anyone getting a legal divorce?