Does Divorce Disqualify a "Godparent"?

[BlackFriar]

Also you are wrong if you say that divorced Catholics remarried without an annulment may receive Communion. In a state of mortal sin you may not receive Communion.

Not sure what you are on about.
Irregular Catholics by that reason alone are not in a state of mortal sin and without sanctifying grace. Nor is it necessarily different if they are also sexually active.
Pope Francis has clearly stated this in AL and its also standard Moral Theology.
Nothing more to say.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness can correct me if I am wrong but I have the feeling he is saying that if Catholics have divorced and remarried without an annulment then they would be in a state of mortal sin and living in a state of mortal sin with no intention to repent such people would not be living a life befitting the role of a Godparent… Also you are wrong if you say that divorced Catholics remarried without an annulment may receive Communion. In a state of mortal sin you may not receive Communion.

That is what I am saying. However, according to AL, BlackFriar is correct.

Pope Francis has issued a pastoral guide for those who have found themselves in an irregular relationships which are deemed, by their conscience and pastor (which may or may not be God’s will), better to remain in than leave, and so received into the grace of Holy Communion.

In the situation of the OP’s proposed candidate, this Catholic would be expected to remain single, unless His Marriage of 17 yrs was found to be an invalid Sacrament by the Tribunal.

 

[tseleehw]

I will pipe in and say that divorce and remarriage DOES disqualify one from becoming a godparent in my diocese. Each prospective godparent in my diocese has to have a form signed by his/her pastor indicating several things, one of the states clearly: If married, his/her marriage is valid in the Catholic Church. So at least where I am, being divorced and remarried without an annulment would prohibit one from acting as a godparent.

In my experience, the part of Can. 874 that states: “must be a catholic who has been confirmed and has received the blessed Eucharist, and who lives a life of faith which befits the role to be undertaken” is interpreted by most dioceses to include the condition that prospective godparents must be in a valid marriage if they are married. Yes, there may be some dioceses that have a looser interpretation of the Canon, but many (and I would probably say most) will not allow someone in an invalid marriage to be a godparent.

 

[thistle]

Not sure what you are on about.

Irregular Catholics by that reason alone are not in a state of mortal sin and without sanctifying grace. Nor is it necessarily different if they are also sexually active.

Pope Francis has clearly stated this in AL and its also standard Moral Theology.

Nothing more to say.

A Catholic who has civilly divorced and remarried without an annulment is in a state of mortal sin because they have committed adultery. AL does not say they may receive Communion. I have asked a few priests about this and they all said if such a Catholic approached them based on AL and asked if they could receive Communion the priests said they would tell they are not permitted to receive. The only way such Catholics could receive Communion is if they lived a life of continence.

 

[rcwitness]

BlackFriar:

Not sure what you are on about.

Irregular Catholics by that reason alone are not in a state of mortal sin and without sanctifying grace. Nor is it necessarily different if they are also sexually active.

Pope Francis has clearly stated this in AL and its also standard Moral Theology.

Nothing more to say.

A Catholic who has civilly divorced and remarried without an annulment is in a state of mortal sin because they have committed adultery. AL does not say they may receive Communion. I have asked a few priests about this and they all said if such a Catholic approached them based on AL and asked if they could receive Communion the priests said they would tell they are not permitted to receive. The only way such Catholics could receive Communion is if they lived a life of continence.

While I definitely lean towards that practice, AL, according to Pope Francis, does in fact allow for Pastors to decide themselves to administer Communion to specific cases of unlawfully remarried Cats.

This basically ends up to be a matter of what a particular priest feels is right. Some will, and some will not.

 

[BlackFriar]

I have asked a few priests about this and they all said if such a Catholic approached them based on AL and asked if they could receive Communion the priests said they would tell they are not permitted to receive.

Well the views of two priests in one of the most conservative Dioceses on the planet settles the matter completely then .

A Catholic who has civilly divorced and remarried without an annulment is in a state of mortal sin because they have committed adultery.

Please provide even a CCC statement that supports this error please Thistle?

My source for observing you have got some wires seriously crossed is the following:
“It is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”

This comes from a priest in Rome, only one admittedly, but he is respected by many Catholics.

Do you respect and accept his words above?

 

[rcwitness]

thistle:

I have asked a few priests about this and they all said if such a Catholic approached them based on AL and asked if they could receive Communion the priests said they would tell they are not permitted to receive.

Well the views of two priests in one of the most conservative Dioceses on the planet settles the matter completely then .

A Catholic who has civilly divorced and remarried without an annulment is in a state of mortal sin because they have committed adultery.

Please provide even a CCC statement that supports this error please Thistle?

My source for observing you have got some wires seriously crossed is the following:
“It is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”

This comes from a priest in Rome, only one admittedly, but he is respected by many Catholics.

Do you respect and accept his words above?

I certainly respect most all priest’s words stated in public. Accepting them as a rule of faith is perhaps a different story.

My only concern about the matter is how and who determines this state. For example, we implement a tribunal to determine the validity of their Marriage Sacrament, so why not do the same for these “irregular” situations? Why not provide a way to assess these situations and give an official approval to receive Communion in a worthy manner, as apposed to a single parish pastor?

I have personally witnessed abuses of priestly guidance in matters of the faith, and heard many other accounts. A tribunal would greatly reduce abuses and disagreements over what constitutes a couple in these situations to return to the Sacrament.

One priest may decide the couple should stop their sexual relations, while another might say its ok to continue. There should be a way to receive an official Church affirmation that they should return to Communion.

 

[rcwitness]

Btw, to the OP…

Has your friend expressed to you his intentions to honor his vows despite his wife filing civil divorce?

Trust me, I know we make mistakes!!! And we have Reconciliation for our failures! But what are his intentions, and where is his hope?

 

[BlackFriar]

The question only Thistle can answer.

 

[thistle]

First point. I accept the views of the priests I approached on this matter.

I have a vested interest. My wife and I are both Catholics. I was previously married and had a divorce. I could not get an annulment. The only way we are both allowed to receive Communion is because we agreed to live a life of continence. I brought this up with all the priests I recently spoke to because your interpretation of AM would mean my wife and I could return to a normal married life. None of these priests agreed with your view and told me my wife and I had to continue the life of continence.

Second point.

CCC 2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.

 

[BlackFriar]

In other words you cannot provide a theological defence of any sort for your wild and erroneous personal assertion that those in irregular marriages are in mortal sin and so without grace.

And you are unable to agree with your own Pope who couldn’t be clearer in my quote above in denying exactly what you opined.

I am at a complete loss to understand why you believe you speak the Church’s mind on this point when it is so patent you do not.

You clearly have difficulty expressing Church teaching using correct terminology and perhaps its time to recognise your limitations in this area.

 

[rcwitness]

There comes the spirit…

In one moment you demand we obey every guidance of our pastors, and the next you harshly criticize someone for taking there counsel. You want it your way in both ways.

I see the conflict of interest in this matter. And i can see where the fault of some couples in some situations can be so minimal that its possibly more wrong to disrupt the path they’ve created!

But there is also the principal that a first Marriage still exists, and as Pope St. John Paul II expressed, no situation changes. Sacrifice is required!

However, I believe you take a tone of disrespect with Thistle when harshly critisizing someone who has sought counsel, has resolved to do the right thing, and has been instructed that AL cannot overturn what it attempts to.

I am not taking an extreme position, but you certainly do, and I dont see its justification. There are mixed stances on this issue even at Vatican, if Im not mistaken. And when Pope St JPII and Benedict XVI have made specific judgments about the lack of specific situations giving grounds for exceptions, it is reasonable to question the authority of AL’ s proposition.

 

[BlackFriar]

When you have a Magisterial or CCC quote that contradicts Pope Francis’s quote above come back and we can discuss further.

it is reasonable to question the authority of AL’ s proposition.

Not on CAF it isn’t.
By all means admit you are confused…but going that extra step of publicly questioning the authority of Pope Francis’s clearly articulated view on mortal sin and irregular marriages is a step too far I suggest. Even Card Burke does not have the temerity to do so.

 

[rcwitness]

So should Thistle reject the guidance of several priests he was counseled by?

 

[poche]

The divorce itself should not disqualify him from being a godparent.

 

[thistle]

CCC 2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.

This is the Church teaching:

CCC 2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.

Blackfriar is the one ignoring the Church teaching.

He also seems to ignore the fact that AMORIS LAETITIA is a post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation. An Exhortation does not have the ability to change Church teaching de fide. The CCC teaching on adultery is de fide.

 

[rcwitness]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...9980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html#_ftn2

Epikeia and aequitas canonica exist in the sphere of human and purely ecclesiastical norms of great significance, but cannot be applied to those norms over which the Church has no discretionary authority. The indissoluble nature of marriage is one of these norms which goes back to Christ Himself and is thus identified as a norm of divine law. The Church cannot sanction pastoral practices - for example, sacramental pastoral practices - which contradict the clear instruction of the Lord.

In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.[2]

 

[rcwitness]

CCC #1650

Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

 

[BlackFriar]

If what he was told contradicts the above statements then obviously he needs to confirm matters.

But, like your own case, what happens 95% of the time is that lay Catholics don’t really understand how the principles have been applied to their own case and accordingly misunderstand the theological “baby talk” given them by their priest to explain their conclusion.

A further problematic is when they consequently try to theologise in the reverse direction from their misunderstanding of their own case back to everybody else’s situation - which situation they cannot possibly know the details of which may mean a different conclusion in Malta than in Poland - especially when Church discipline changes over time .

Thistle (and others who may not abstain) is exactly the worthy Godparent I am fighting for. Such persons are not disqualified by the “rule” quoted. Accurate application of such a rule requires a prudential judgement - one that really only can be made by the PP who knows the Godparent as I have explained.

 

[BlackFriar]

Blackfriar is the one ignoring the Church teaching.

He also seems to ignore the fact that AMORIS LAETITIA is a post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation. An Exhortation does not have the ability to change Church teaching de fide. The CCC teaching on adultery is de fide.

Thistle you have swum out beyond your depth, its time to humbly recognise that and swim back to shore. Your CCC quote does not mention the phrase “mortal sin” does it?

If you were correct then you have essentially said publicly that Pope Francis is in gross error on a moral matter. I think the chances of that compared to you, an obviously theologically untrained layman being mistaken in at least his words, is next to zero. Don’t you?

Lets remind you of what Pope Francis said again:

“It is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”

Yes if you determine with your priest that you would be mortally sinning by not abstaining then you have to follow your conscience in that matter. If others discern otherwise with guidance from their priest when he goes in to the unique facts of the situation then they may well be failing in the 5th without mortally sinning. Who are you to judge their state of grace or not?