Divorced people are not "outside" the church

[maltmom]

It must be a harrowing process, and I will pray for you.

Thank you. The process can be rather overwhelming at times.

 

[AnneTeresa]

We’re being asked to do as he does. He neither blows off the law, nor does he quote it at every turn. He goes down the middle of the aisle, which is to encourage people to do the best they can given their situation. He does so without quoting laws to people and without dismissing the law either. His approach is a pastoral one. We the faithful seem to have a very difficult time being pastoral. We’re either legalists or we’re relativists. Neither is good.

Those who are too lax, need to become more orthodox and those who are to legalistic need to become more pastoral. It’s all about finding that middle ground.

Yet, I feel that some, not all, posters here are resistant to the Holy Father’s middle ground. It makes no sense to me, given the fact that the man knows what he’s doing and is very reliable in his knowledge and fidelity to the faith and to morals. What’s the resistance about?

Amen. Thank you SO much for posting this and starting this thread. I KNEW that there had to be something beyond the “quoting laws” I’ve seen so often here at CAF.

 

[JReducation]

Interesting! So if I understand this correctly and say a RC marries a Anglican in an Anglican church, it’s not valid. If it is not valid then no mortal sin has been commited. If the RC is divorced but not annulled there is no sin committed and Holy Communion can be received. Would you please clarify what you are saying?

Let’s begin from the end. The Roman Catholic is still married, even if he has a decree of divorce. Unless he can prove that the marriage was invalid, he remains married, In which case, the person with whom he is living is not his spouse, regardless of where they were married. This second marriage is invalid for two reasons, Most importantly, it’s invalid because a married person cannot marry again. Second, it’s invalid, because a Catholic cannot marry outside of his faith.

Now, let’s get to the matter of sin. Any person who is married commits adultery when he or she has sexual intercourse with someone who is not the spouse. Regardless of divorce or not. The second person is not his spouse. He has a spouse. Objectively, the person is culpable of adultery. Adultery is a violation of the marriage vows and a violation of justice that is due to one’s spouse.

Let’s look at the last point. The Church does not annul marriages. Annulment is simply a legal decree, which says that there never was a valid marriage. It appeared to be a married, but it was not. The Church does not have the power to take a valid marriage and make it invalid. The marriage is or is not valid. An annulment is simply a statement that says, “There was never a marriage.”

Some people seem to think that an annulment is a “Catholic divorce.” It is not. In fact, before you even submit your petition for a decree of nullity, you must go through the civil system and get a divorce. The Church has no divine or civil authority to grant a divorce or to undo a marriage. Undoing a marriage would be like trying to undo the consecration the host at mass. Once it’s done, it’s done. There is no out until one of the two dies. Again, a decree of annulment simply says that it was never done or that it never happened, because one of the conditions necessary for a valid marriage was not met.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[sasg]

The Church has no divine or civil authority to grant a divorce or to undo a marriage. Undoing a marriage would be like trying to undo the consecration the host at mass. Once it’s done, it’s done. There is no out until one of the two dies. Again, a decree of annulment simply says that it was never done or that it never happened, because one of the conditions necessary for a valid marriage was not met.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I do want to clarify for those who are confused–the above is true only for sacramental marriages that have been consummated, i.e. where both parties are baptized (neither party has to be Catholic, only validly baptized) and where the marriage has been consummated.

The Church absolutely does have the power to dissolve non-sacramental marriages–that is to say, marriages that are valid but “non ratus” because one or both parties is not Catholic; this is referred to as the Petrine and Pauline Privileges. It also has the power to dissolve sacramental marriages that are not consummated.

As an example, suppose a Catholic marries a Buddhist, and the marriage is valid because the Catholic has obtained the proper dispensation from the Bishop. If the marriage falls apart (civil divorce), and the Catholic wishes to marry another Christian, the Catholic party can petition for the Church to dissolve the previous marriage. This is not an annulment, because a valid marriage existed; rather, this is a dissolution of a valid marriage. Being unmarried, the Catholic would then be free to marry his or her new Christian spouse.

However, if the Buddhist person accepted baptism before the marriage is dissolved–any valid baptism, Catholic or otherwise–the marriage would become by that fact a sacrament. Even if the couple had a civil divorce and never saw each other again, they would still have a sacramental marriage. However, if that marriage is not consummated, the Church still has the authority to dissolve the sacramental marriage, and both parties would be free to enter another sacramental marriage with another Christian. If instead the marriage is consummated after the Buddhist party receives baptism, the marriage may not be dissolved by any power, except death.

The sources for all of these claims are in the quotes from the CIC I posed in my previous posts. Hopefully this clears up any remaining confusion.

 

[Dirt]

And then there is always this solution :
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/germania-germany-alemania-15820/

“he wait is over. It is now time for action: this is what the more than 150 priests and deacons of the Archdiocese of Freiburg, in Germany (161 at the time this article was written) must have thought, as they issued an open declaration on the internet, stating that they regularly administered communion to divorced couples who had remarried.”

Pray for the Holy Father as He attempts to keep the ship from splitting apart.

 

[eamonnroma]

I just went through a similar (self) excommunication because of being widowed and marring a single/never divorced non practicing Catholic, but *in a Protestant church. *After 23 years my wife finally did marry me again in a Catholic church. *That made me “worthy” to be in the communion line.

Apparently, divorced Catholics don’t have any chance at all for getting back in communion with the Pope and United Bishops? * Having lived it, all I can say is, "do what you have to do, and keep quiet about it.

According to the Catholic Church (although not the Orthodox Churches) the ministers of matrimony are the spouses themselves , it is a sacrament of love between two people - the priest or deacon are there as a witness for the Church.

The essential part of a marriage is the twp persons giving their consent - this is known as the correct form.

Your marriage of 23 years ago was therefore valid but illicit or not regular.

The Canon Law of the Church recognises this fact and has a provision to regularise the marriage and make it therefore licit. Canon 1161 provides for Radical Sanation of the wedding. The effect of this is to make the marriage considered as licit from the actual date of the marriage. This procedure is possible even if the other partner knows nothing about it or refuses to give their consent.

All you need to do is to apply to your parish priest who will give you a form to fill in, which is a petetion to have your marriage regularised. This goes to the bishop, it is accepted and your marriage is recognised from its original date.

You need not have waited 23 years to receive Holy Communion. In fact it was incorrect to marry for a ‘second’ time in Church as the correct form of the marriage was already there.
Rather than have a ‘second marriage’ you should have been advised of the above.

 

[eamonnroma]

I just went through a similar (self) excommunication because of being widowed and marring a single/never divorced non practicing Catholic, but *in a Protestant church. *After 23 years my wife finally did marry me again in a Catholic church. *That made me “worthy” to be in the communion line.

Apparently, divorced Catholics don’t have any chance at all for getting back in communion with the Pope and United Bishops? * Having lived it, all I can say is, "do what you have to do, and keep quiet about it.

Let’s begin from the end. The Roman Catholic is still married, even if he has a decree of divorce. Unless he can prove that the marriage was invalid, he remains married, In which case, the person with whom he is living is not his spouse, regardless of where they were married. This second marriage is invalid for two reasons, Most importantly, it’s invalid because a married person cannot marry again. Second, it’s invalid, because a Catholic cannot marry outside of his faith.

Now, let’s get to the matter of sin. Any person who is married commits adultery when he or she has sexual intercourse with someone who is not the spouse. Regardless of divorce or not. The second person is not his spouse. He has a spouse. Objectively, the person is culpable of adultery. Adultery is a violation of the marriage vows and a violation of justice that is due to one’s spouse.

Let’s look at the last point. The Church does not annul marriages. Annulment is simply a legal decree, which says that there never was a valid marriage. It appeared to be a married, but it was not. The Church does not have the power to take a valid marriage and make it invalid. The marriage is or is not valid. An annulment is simply a statement that says, “There was never a marriage.”

Some people seem to think that an annulment is a “Catholic divorce.” It is not. In fact, before you even submit your petition for a decree of nullity, you must go through the civil system and get a divorce. The Church has no divine or civil authority to grant a divorce or to undo a marriage. Undoing a marriage would be like trying to undo the consecration the host at mass. Once it’s done, it’s done. There is no out until one of the two dies. Again, a decree of annulment simply says that it was never done or that it never happened, because one of the conditions necessary for a valid marriage was not met.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I am sorry to have to contradict you but Catholics absolutely can marriage outside of their Faith’ as long as the required dispensations are sought. I suggest you take a look at canon law, the canons regarding marriage.

 

[Elizium23]

According to the Catholic Church (although not the Orthodox Churches) the ministers of matrimony are the spouses themselves , it is a sacrament of love between two people - the priest or deacon are there as a witness for the Church.

The essential part of a marriage is the twp persons giving their consent - this is known as the correct form.

Your marriage of 23 years ago was therefore valid but illicit or not regular.

The Canon Law of the Church recognises this fact and has a provision to regularise the marriage and make it therefore licit. Canon 1161 provides for Radical Sanation of the wedding. The effect of this is to make the marriage considered as licit from the actual date of the marriage. This procedure is possible even if the other partner knows nothing about it or refuses to give their consent.

All you need to do is to apply to your parish priest who will give you a form to fill in, which is a petetion to have your marriage regularised. This goes to the bishop, it is accepted and your marriage is recognised from its original date.

You need not have waited 23 years to receive Holy Communion. In fact it was incorrect to marry for a ‘second’ time in Church as the correct form of the marriage was already there.
Rather than have a ‘second marriage’ you should have been advised of the above.

Incorrect. A marriage contracted by a Catholic lacking proper form and dispensation thereof is invalid, not merely illicit. Convalidation is the proper route for invalid marriages. Radical sanation may be used when the other party is unwilling, but it too applies to an invalid marriage. I am not aware of any situation that makes a marriage “valid, but illicit”.

If you actually bother to read Canon 1161, you will see that it speaks of validity and validation, not liceity.

The “proper form” needed for Catholics to marry validly is not merely expression of consent. Catholics are bound to marry in a Catholic ceremony, unless permission is given to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony. If permission is obtained then the couple are in good standing with a valid bond. If permission is not obtained, and a Catholic marries before a Justice of the Peace, or a Hindu priest, or a Lutheran minister, that is known as lack of form, and constitutes an invalid marriage.

It only takes one Catholic in the couple for these laws to take effect. Permission must also be granted for a mixed marriage or disparity of cult. Thus, if I wanted to marry a Baptist in a Baptist ceremony, I would require two permissions for validity: permission to marry a non-Catholic, plus permission to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony.

 

[JReducation]

I am sorry to have to contradict you but Catholics absolutely can marriage outside of their Faith’ as long as the required dispensations are sought. I suggest you take a look at canon law, the canons regarding marriage.

Those are exceptions, not the norm. Only the Church can authorize those exceptions. The rule in pastoral care is that you must always respond with the norm, never with the exception. This is something that you learn in your first pastoral internship. You must never bring up the exception as an answer. You save the exception and you make use of it when the norm is no longer possible.

What you’re doing is the opposite of what is allowed in good pastoral care. When we do this, we create a mess. Look at what happened with female altar servers, CITH and EMHC. The exceptions were put out there as a choice. Now we have all kinds of infighting that could have been avoided.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[johndoe100]

Hello Lorrie,

My prayers are for people in your situation, basically because I also was widowed and married outside the church. After 23 years my new wife finally married me in church again. (had our marriage blessed). During a Cathloic Funeral the priest will sometimes offer the Eucharist to everyone present, so check for funeral Mass at nearby parishes. That really helped me while I was locked out.

 

[EvelynEVF]

This confuses me. If the Eucharist is so little a thing that one can defy the Church and sneak around to receive It and not worry about one’s soul as a consequence, then why is it such a big deal to receive It?

I spent about three years unable to receive, but being at Mass more than once per week, and it was terribly painful, but I couldn’t imagine demanding Jesus on my own terms. If I really believe what I believe about the Eucharist, stealing Jesus would be like flying a kite with a key on it in a thunderstorm.

 

[ringil]

“For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?” It is interesting that two verses later we see the phrase “adulterous and sinful generation”. Anyway, I guess I’m done here. I love the pope, and I pray for him daily. In regard to divorced and re-married people there needs to be both charity and truth. [charity] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6)

Peter, and his successors were given the keys to bind and loose sin so I will humbly trust in the Holy Father. Much more simple than to second guess his statements.

 

[JReducation]

Peter, and his successors were given the keys to bind and loose sin so I will humbly trust in the Holy Father. Much more simple than to second guess his statements.

This is always good advice. The Holy Father has never given us reason to doubt his knowledge and his comprehension of theology and human nature. It would be foolhardy to try to compete with him, unless we can prove that we have a track record as good as his own.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dom_Passeri]

Peter, and his successors were given the keys to bind and loose sin so I will humbly trust in the Holy Father. Much more simple than to second guess his statements.

I didn’t second guess anything, in case that’s what you’re insinuating…

 

[johndoe100]

This confuses me. If the Eucharist is so little a thing that one can defy the Church and sneak around to receive It and not worry about one’s soul as a consequence, then why is it such a big deal to receive It?

I spent about three years unable to receive, but being at Mass more than once per week, and it was terribly painful, but I couldn’t imagine demanding Jesus on my own terms. If I really believe what I believe about the Eucharist, stealing Jesus would be like flying a kite with a key on it in a thunderstorm.

The Council of Trent
13th Session - Page 75

Says: *“Conscious to himself” in regards of receiving the Eucharist. *That session ended with something like, “it shall stand forever until Jesus comes.” **

That is pretty much in line with (1 Corinthians 11:28) “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of this bread and drink of the cup”

The Protestant Bibles use the word, “let” twice in that verse. “,and so let eat of this bread and drink this cup”