Doctrinal wars? Both sides fire over Communion for divorced, remarried

[CradleJourney]

While I find nothing wrong with this approach, do realize that there will always be some who will not go through an annulment process for any reason. I’ve known people to fight their ex-spouses on this matter. At least the ones I know know well enough not to receive if they’ve remarried. In those cases, I doubt if anything that comes out of these discussions will affect them.

Oh I realize that. Just as I realize there are many cases where the current system is the best one for the Church to use to determine whether the marriage was in fact valid or not.

I’m simply of the belief that a better job could be done to establish which cases could be “fast-tracked” and still uphold the Church’s teachings, as well as believing the Church could do a better job of assisting and supporting those going through the annulment process whether they have a simple case or a complex one. Resulting in many more people willing to go through the process.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh I realize that. Just as I realize there are many cases where the current system is the best one for the Church to use to determine whether the marriage was in fact valid or not.

I’m simply of the belief that a better job could be done to establish which cases could be “fast-tracked” and still uphold the Church’s teachings, as well as believing the Church could do a better job of assisting and supporting those going through the annulment process whether they have a simple case or a complex one. Resulting in many more people willing to go through the process.

If it’s the process that’s the problem, then you’re right. I was just pointing out that short of the church allowing polygamous relationships or the church actually divorcing people, this may not affect those who don’t believe in annulments of say, marriages with kids.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

According to Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus stated that "It was also said “Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery and whoever married a divorced woman commits adultery”. Thus, what seems strange is actually the practices of other Christian churches that allow divorce because it is very strong here that divorce and remarriage is said to be adultery.

However, what can change is how the Church treats this. It is possible but imprudent (in my opinion) to allow people who are currently living in irregular status to first receive penance but allow them to keep living in an irregular status.

Edit: About Matthew 5:31-32, other translations state that in the place where “unless the marriage is unlawful”, there is adultery, fornication or other sins. Can someone give a proper translation here?

This has to be understood in the context Jesus was speaking from, which was of Jewish traditions of that time.

I’m currently reading Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth and he touches on the parables and teachings Jesus used and explains that they must be understood in context and to use them as judgements in our own time and understanding would be in error.

Keep in mind, when Jesus says this, the Pharisees were trying to trap him into saying something against Jewish tradition. For them, marriages for the most part were pre-arranged where the bride generally had little choice over the man she was marrying.

So, when Jesus speaks of marriage in the context of it being a man and woman which God has joined, he’s speaking of holy matrimony, not one man has joined, but God.

Many marriages are what man has joined, not God. Couples go through the motions of a marriage in the Church, often to please the parents and social norms of their time, but did the couple actually confer the sacrament on each other in the context of faith ? Did they really believe that their union was being blessed by God ?

If you examine their lives after the ceremony, it’s often the case that no faith was present, but the event was a social event.

The point in all of this, which Pope Francis is asking the Bishops to examine is whether first marriages were valid, but more important, how to bring the couples in their successful 2nd marriages back into the faith.

I pray for God’s will to be done here, regardless of how it effects those of us who have been in holy marriages from the beginning.

Jim

 

[JimG]

While I find nothing wrong with this approach, do realize that there will always be some who will not go through an annulment process for any reason. I’ve known people to fight their ex-spouses on this matter. At least the ones I know know well enough not to receive if they’ve remarried. In those cases, I doubt if anything that comes out of these discussions will affect them.

Yes, that is true. In my former parish, I knew of a couple wherein the wife applied for a declaration of nullity on the grounds that her consent at the time of marriage was defective. She said that she had no idea of what a lifetime commitment entailed. Her husband disagreed, and was prepared to contest a declaration of nullity as far as he could go, saying that there was no way that she did not know what she was doing when they exchanged vows. It can be a big problem when one party says, ‘I know our marital consent was defective,’ and the other party says, ‘I know it was not defective.’

The larger question, for our own times, is, does anyone believe in what Jesus taught about marriage anymore?

 

[Vanny]

I think this is exactly what needs none. For those married with obvious possible impediments (young age, pregnancy) and those who were not part of the Church for both the prior marriage and the prior divorce, there should be a review of the case, but it should be much easier than it seems to be now. There also needs to be more staff to handle applications and actual programs / councilors to help those who wish to apply.

Currently, we have extensive preparation for the sacrament of marriage. However, that was not always the case in the past and I think a more streamlined approach to those situations would not endanger the validity of the sacrament but instead help return those trapped by a bad decision to full communion in the Church.

This is what I’m thinking-I understand and agree, really, with the Church’s position but for those of us who were never in the Catholic church when we were born, married, ect, it would be nice if the process could be streamlined, somehow. I don’t want the Church to change her teaching as I agree that it is based on what Jesus said.

 

[manualman]

It is a historical fact that second and third marriages were allowed. Popes accepted this practice for many many centuries. There are many ancient canons dealing with the issue. So I guess if you want to make that argument I suppose it’s possible that every pope for at least 600 years got it wrong. Not sure how well that jives with modern Catholic teaching.

The basis, as I already explained, is the concept of economia. I’ve also explained that the second and third marriages were considered sinful and carried escalating penances. But the penitents were allowed back to Communion after their penances were complete.

Popes can certainly get things wrong by omission. We proved that in spades by taking more than a millennia to declare slavery to be a violation of innate human dignity. Your examples are as silly as pointing to a papal mass in the 1980’s and claiming that it proves that John Paul II approved of barefoot liturgical dancers.

I’m familiar with the basic idea of Oikonomia and this seems like a gross stretch to me. As I understand it, the concept is one in which the spiritual director sometimes chooses to overlook a peripheral sin while the penitent is still struggling with more fundamental issues of Grace, sin, repentance and sanctification. The idea is not to overwhelm a new convert at first with overwhelming amounts of his sin, but to prioritize and encourage him to first recognize the joy of salvation and the fact that the gospel is GOOD news, not overwhelming bad news.

This does not mesh well with telling a man that he may live the rest of their lives apart from the woman who is actually his wife and continue to share a bed with a woman who (in Jesus’ explicit teaching) is NOT really his wife at all. I could perhaps see it if a priest chose not to fundamentally address the issue at all for a time while the convert grew strong enough in his faith to deal with that hard issue, but to explicitly give someone a penance with the idea that it is a license to perpetuate the sin in question??? That’s just not rational. It directly contradicts what Jesus said in Matthew.

 

[McCall1981]

aleteia.org/en/religion/article/cardinal-martino-synod-will-uphold-teaching-on-marriage-and-family-5888664110366720

Cardinal Martino: Synod Will Uphold Teaching on Marriage and Family

“The Church will not be able to change what it has always proclaimed,” says former head of UN mission…

A Vatican cardinal who fought some difficult battles for life and family at international UN conferences spoke with confidence that the Church will continue to uphold its perennial teaching on marriage and the family…

“Every [papacy], in itself, has its own characteristics,” he said. “But beyond outward appearances, I believe that Francis is a lot like John Paul II, in faithfulness to the Church’s teaching. For Francis, the family is fundamental too. Moreover, a Pope cannot do new things, never before heard of. It is only the style that changes, but the doctrine is what it is and the pope must proclaim it…

 

[RaphaelJ]

Well it is good to see that the Church is trying to find a way to alleviate a problem without changing the essentials. Thank you everyone for calming my fears. Our Pope may be less traditional but he is not less orthodox. Besides, if he did anything against clear teachings of Christ, then I’m afraid that there will be a schism or some division.

 

[Seraphim73]

Popes can certainly get things wrong by omission. We proved that in spades by taking more than a millennia to declare slavery to be a violation of innate human dignity. Your examples are as silly as pointing to a papal mass in the 1980’s and claiming that it proves that John Paul II approved of barefoot liturgical dancers.

You can’t compare one example of liturgical abuse to 600 years of uninterrupted practice. The idea that slavery is a violation of human dignity is a modern humanist position. It has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. In fact St Paul specifically mentions slavery and never condemns it. Jesus never condemned it. Your position is that Jesus specifically condemned divorce and that the modern Catholic practice has always been the practice of the Church. I’m simply pointing out through historical fact that is not true.

No pope thought the issue serious enough to warrant any kind of censure at all. If bishops were supposedly teaching such rank heresy you would think the pope would excommunicate them. It never happened. In fact in 1054 the bull Cardinal Humbert placed on the altar in the Hagia Sophia laying out the reasons for the excommunication did not mention a word about divorce.

I’m familiar with the basic idea of Oikonomia and this seems like a gross stretch to me. As I understand it, the concept is one in which the spiritual director sometimes chooses to overlook a peripheral sin while the penitent is still struggling with more fundamental issues of Grace, sin, repentance and sanctification. The idea is not to overwhelm a new convert at first with overwhelming amounts of his sin, but to prioritize and encourage him to first recognize the joy of salvation and the fact that the gospel is GOOD news, not overwhelming bad news.

Actually that’s not really even close to the concept of economia. Economia gives the bishop leeway in applying the canons. For example a bishop may decide to it’s beneficial to accept a Catholic convert through confession of faith instead of confirmation. It has nothing to do with what you said. No one is “overlooking sins.” A more apt analogy would be the Catholic idea of a dispensation. T

This does not mesh well with telling a man that he may live the rest of their lives apart from the woman who is actually his wife and continue to share a bed with a woman who (in Jesus’ explicit teaching) is NOT really his wife at all. I could perhaps see it if a priest chose not to fundamentally address the issue at all for a time while the convert grew strong enough in his faith to deal with that hard issue, but to explicitly give someone a penance with the idea that it is a license to perpetuate the sin in question??? That’s just not rational. It directly contradicts what Jesus said in Matthew.

That’s not what the teaching was when the Catholic Church allowed divorce and remarriage during the first millennium and that’s not the teaching of the Orthodox Church today. A second marriage was considered sinful requiring repentance (that included widowers by the way). Once the person had shown fruits of repentance they were allowed back as full communing members of the Church.

I don’t care what the upcoming synod decides. I don’t have a dog in the fight. I’m simply pointing out what the teaching and practice was during the first millennium. Take away from that whatever you want.

 

[Vanny]

If the synod can find a way to make regularizing those situations easier, then I am definitely on board with that.
.

This is what I’m hoping for

 

[Vanny]

I’m still learning as much as I can about canon laws, but being in that position as you put it much more eloquently than I can…I entered into my marriage for life in the eyes of God. Yes my husband may have been married prior, but his same church married him again because of the prior situation. Therefore I do not feel like out marriage is invalid nor am I committing a sin because I chose to grow in my faith and come to the Catholic church. It was only then, when I started the RCIA, that I found out that everything about my marriage was wrong and sinful (to put it simplistically) until there was an annulment. How was to ever know, when I have done everything “right” according to what I have been raised in Christian beliefs.

Yes see, this is the thing. I, too, like you, thought I was doing a good thing to get married.
(It is better to marry than to burn(not sure of Bible verse now)) And I stood in front of God and family and meant my vows. It wasn’t until I started studying Catholicism and got on these forums that I realized I may be living in sin!! My own churches (nor my husband’s former churches) never taught us that!

 

[Vanny]

I couldn’t afford to pay for the annulment but the diocese had an assistance program for people unable to pay. They didn’t charge me anything for the annulment. Maybe your local Catholic diocese has a similar program. Also there are lots of reasons for an annulment. Have you actually discussed your situation with a priest? You wouldn’t be received until Easter next year anyway so that may be plenty of time to get the annulment approved. You could of course attend mass until that time.

Not yet, haven’t got to that point yet.

 

[manualman]

You can’t compare one example of liturgical abuse to 600 years of uninterrupted practice. The idea that slavery is a violation of human dignity is a modern humanist position. It has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. In fact St Paul specifically mentions slavery and never condemns it. Jesus never condemned it. Your position is that Jesus specifically condemned divorce and that the modern Catholic practice has always been the practice of the Church. I’m simply pointing out through historical fact that is not true.

No pope thought the issue serious enough to warrant any kind of censure at all. If bishops were supposedly teaching such rank heresy you would think the pope would excommunicate them. It never happened. In fact in 1054 the bull Cardinal Humbert placed on the altar in the Hagia Sophia laying out the reasons for the excommunication did not mention a word about divorce.

The idea that every man is uniquely created in the image and likeness of God and loved by God enough for Him to become incarnate as a human and die on a cross to save him is most certainly in both Scripture and Tradition, not “modern humanism.” And it’s rather an embarrassment to Christianity that it took us as long as it did to recognize that this innate dignity meant that no man can ever justly “own” another man like one owns a dog.

This is a clear illustration of the fact that we, the people (including bishops) of the church), are slow learners and prone to not listening to what has been revealed to us.

The sad historical practice in many places and times of allowing divorce and remarriage in spite of the clear and explicit words of Jesus is just one example among many of the human capacity for rationalization. I’ll say it again, popes do not teach infallibly by example. The failure of a pope (or 50,000 bishops) to confront an egregious sin does not amount to an endorsement of that sin.

EO philosophy tends to dislike “western” notions like transubstantiation out of some sort of disdain for systematic theology and the reliability of human reason being able to draw true inferences from true revelation. I think this is one case of precisely why that disdain for systematic theology in favor of adulation-based honor for the practices of our forefathers is a bad policy.

My explanation for oikonomia was given to me by an EO on this board as he defended the way that EO reconciles the not uncommon use of contraception in EO communities compared to the universal opinion prior to a 100 years ago in all of Christianity. I was actually impressed by the answer and considered it a far better response than any protestant and most dissenter catholics have on the subject. Sad to hear that it’s just plain not true, but it leaves me rather confused on who to trust in regards to what EO thinking is.

 

[manualman]

EO philosophy tends to dislike “western” notions like transubstantiation out of some sort of disdain for systematic theology and the reliability of human reason being able to draw true inferences from true revelation. I think this is one case of precisely why that disdain for systematic theology in favor of adulation-based honor for the practices of our forefathers is a bad policy.

Oops, ran out of edit time and failed to put in my main comparison.

 

[ProVobis]

The idea that every man is uniquely created in the image and likeness of God and loved by God enough for Him to become incarnate as a human and die on a cross to save him is most certainly in both Scripture and Tradition, not “modern humanism.” And it’s rather an embarrassment to Christianity that it took us as long as it did to recognize that this innate dignity meant that no man can ever justly “own” another man like one owns a dog.

This is a clear illustration of the fact that we, the people (including bishops) of the church), are slow learners and prone to not listening to what has been revealed to us.

The sad historical practice in many places and times of allowing divorce and remarriage in spite of the clear and explicit words of Jesus is just one example among many of the human capacity for rationalization. I’ll say it again, popes do not teach infallibly by example. The failure of a pope (or 50,000 bishops) to confront an egregious sin does not amount to an endorsement of that sin.

I noticed you made subsequent additions but good points here. Perhaps people of the early centuries looked at remarriage as being rationalization for adultery, until it became recognized for what it was.

 

[Seraphim73]

The idea that every man is uniquely created in the image and likeness of God and loved by God enough for Him to become incarnate as a human and die on a cross to save him is most certainly in both Scripture and Tradition, not “modern humanism.” And it’s rather an embarrassment to Christianity that it took us as long as it did to recognize that this innate dignity meant that no man can ever justly “own” another man like one owns a dog.

This is a clear illustration of the fact that we, the people (including bishops) of the church), are slow learners and prone to not listening to what has been revealed to us.

The sad historical practice in many places and times of allowing divorce and remarriage in spite of the clear and explicit words of Jesus is just one example among many of the human capacity for rationalization. I’ll say it again, popes do not teach infallibly by example. The failure of a pope (or 50,000 bishops) to confront an egregious sin does not amount to an endorsement of that sin.

EO philosophy tends to dislike “western” notions like transubstantiation out of some sort of disdain for systematic theology and the reliability of human reason being able to draw true inferences from true revelation. I think this is one case of precisely why that disdain for systematic theology in favor of adulation-based honor for the practices of our forefathers is a bad policy.

My explanation for oikonomia was given to me by an EO on this board as he defended the way that EO reconciles the not uncommon use of contraception in EO communities compared to the universal opinion prior to a 100 years ago in all of Christianity. I was actually impressed by the answer and considered it a far better response than any protestant and most dissenter catholics have on the subject. Sad to hear that it’s just plain not true, but it leaves me rather confused on who to trust in regards to what EO thinking is.

Well you probably shouldn’t trust any anonymous person on the internet.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe he’s wrong, maybe you’re wrong. I could ask five Catholics to explain the filioque or purgatory and I would probably get five different answers. None of us are perfect. On the question of divorce and remarriage I’m simply more inclined to trust St Basil and St Gregory and at least 1600 years of canons and practice than I am to trust my own understanding. Of course you are more inclined to trust your bishops and that’s a good thing. I’m just simply pointing out there was a time that western bishops didn’t have nearly the issue with divorce and remarriage they have today. You think it was a case of them being mistaken, which of course is possible. I think it illustrates that the teaching has evolved into something it never was, something far more strict and unyielding than our merciful and loving God ever intended. That’s the fundamental disagreement.

The Latin west was always more strict in it’s understanding. Because of the Roman culture the Latins tended to always look at things through a legal lens. This is seen in everything from the imposition of the Latin language to ideas of retributive justice to purgatory to marriage to the merit of the saints to enumerating and classifying sins to the classification of relics. Of course there is nothing wrong with any of that but it lead to drastic differences with the Christian east that have only grown over time. Although there were tons of disagreements but generally speaking during the first millennium neither side viewed these differences, including differences on divorce and remarriage, as a church dividing issue.

Either way I’ve said I all I know to say on the subject. If we keep going we’re just going to go around and around in circles. I hope for all of your sakes that whatever the synod decides doesn’t wind up causing more division.

 

[ProVobis]

Either way I’ve said I all I know to say on the subject. If we keep going we’re just going to go around and around in circles. I hope for all of your sakes that whatever the synod decides doesn’t wind up causing more division.

As there are parallels here with the “discussions” held prior to the issuance of Humanae Vitae, there is at least a modest probability of some divisions afterwards. There are supposedly some 11 million Catholics in the U.S. alone who are divorced.

 

[manualman]

… Of course you are more inclined to trust your bishops and that’s a good thing. I’m just simply pointing out there was a time that western bishops didn’t have nearly the issue with divorce and remarriage they have today. You think it was a case of them being mistaken, which of course is possible. I think it illustrates that the teaching has evolved into something it never was, something far more strict and unyielding than our merciful and loving God ever intended. That’s the fundamental disagreement.

The Latin west was always more strict in it’s understanding. Because of the Roman culture the Latins tended to always look at things through a legal lens. This is seen in everything from the imposition of the Latin language to ideas of retributive justice to purgatory to marriage to the merit of the saints to enumerating and classifying sins to the classification of relics. Of course there is nothing wrong with any of that but it lead to drastic differences with the Christian east that have only grown over time. Although there were tons of disagreements but generally speaking during the first millennium neither side viewed these differences, including differences on divorce and remarriage, as a church dividing issue.
…

I think we can agree that each of us have chosen to trust in our respective Traditions on the subject. What I still don’t understand is what the EO think Jesus actually said in the Matthew passage. As far as I can see, the RC Tradition is compatible with what Jesus said while the EO Tradition seems to amount to a pretense that Jesus never said it. I have a hard time with that. I respect the sanctity of St. Basil too, but surely he had a rationale by which he felt his interpretation was in harmony with Christ’s teaching rather than thinking he had the power to over-rule it? What is that rationale?

I’ve been told before that y’all think we RCs are legalistic and excessively enamored to elaborate logical constructs, but it’s hardly fair to accuse us of that when we’re doing nothing more than saying that Jesus meant what he explicitly SAID!

 

[McCall1981]

Here’s an interview with Card Kasper from Vatican Insider:

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/sinodo-synod-sinodo-36384/

In the article in the OP, Card Kasper seems to imply that the Pope supports his position on communion for the remarried. But in this interview he says:

“I did not put forward any definitive solution, but with the Pope’s approval, I asked some questions and offered some ideas for potential solutions."

It seems to have shifted from implying that the Pope approves of his conclusions, to the Pope approving of his “asking questions” and “offering ideas”. If so, that would be a pretty important distinction.

 

[pnewton]

. Moreover, a Pope cannot do new things, never before heard of…

I think it would be fun to list all the new things Pope Francis has done since day one. I can think of six off hand, of which only half were style. I would bet the list would be in the double digits.

In any case, I do not think this synod deserves our concern. Even those on both extreme sides do not question any doctrine. No one is questioning, for example, the permanence of marriage or the sin of adultery. As to practice, the Church must by necessity change to match the challenges of each generation. It has always done so. That is one reason we now use the vernacular. That is why the Church switched to communion under one species (and back). There are many changes, some quite substantive, but none that contradict doctrine past or present.