"Filial correction"

[LittleBee1]

Thank you!!! I can’t tell you how horrible it was to have to say in front of a judge that I agreed to the divorce. They act like you can say NO, but you can’t. They make it sound like you want it.

 

[Pug]

Yes, those legal things where you have to say something that doesn’t feel like it is “you” or true can really be hard. I so sorry about the divorce! It must have been awful and you still have to live with it every day. You are not alone and you can ask people here to pray for you.

 

[BlackFriar]

You should have nothing to worry about. If your marriage is valid and it was your husband who left and divorced you civilly, then your sacramental marriage remains intact and you incur no guilt. However, should you enter into a new relationship with another man while your husband still lives, then you would be culpable of the same sin as him, since in God’s eyes the two of you are still husband and wife, though I trust that this isn’t a problem, given your complaints about your husband’s “girlfriends” in another thread.

That being said, in your case it is possible that no sacramental marriage actually exists. What leads me to this conclusion is your post from that other thread, in which you state:

My husband presented himself as a believer, even at one time considered a vocation - but it was a lie. He turned out to be atheist.

Canon law stipulates that if a Catholic wishes to marry a non-Catholic, baptized or not, permission must first be obtained from the local ordinary. See canon 1806:

A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the conditions mentioned in cann. 1125 and 1126 have been fulfilled.

And 1124:

Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

If your non-Catholic husband passed himself off as a Catholic, and because of this deception you did not seek out the requisite permission, then the “marriage” would simply have never taken place. Now, we do not have all the particulars of your situation at our disposal, and this is a conversation that you should have with your priest and not with strangers on the internet, but at the very least there are manifestly anomalous elements which suffice to arouse suspicion, and demand close examination by the competent authorities. If they deem that there was no sacramental marriage, you would then be free to “remarry” (it would actually be your first marriage) if you so wished.
[/quote]

I suggest it is unwise for online amateurs to attempt to give advice to cases we only have the sparsest information about and which is easily misunderstood with a first pass understanding.

The contributor is best to speak with her PP or ring the local Diocesan tribunal staff if she has real doubts about her present situation.

 

[BlackFriar]

Hence the disclaimer:

Now, we do not have all the particulars of your situation at our disposal, and this is a conversation that you should have with your priest and not with strangers on the internet, but at the very least there are manifestly anomalous elements which suffice to arouse suspicion, and demand close examination by the competent authorities.
[/quote]

I dont think that was in your post I quoted.

 

[mythbuster1]

People are confused by the Pope, and you hope the Pope does nothing to dispel the confusion? Should not the watchman make his statements clear, lest the people fail to heed warnings of imminent danger?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I didn’t see anything unclear about what the Pope said and I think his critics are trying to “get” him on technicalities. Ymmv. I like the Pope and I think a little room for bishops to interpret is good.

 

[Wandile]

No matter where we stand on this issue, let us pray to God the Holy Spirit for the The Church, The pope and ourselves to receive the necessary grace to hold the true faith all the days of our lives.

 

[pnewton]

Should not the watchman make his statements clear,

Begging the question.

The Holy Father has said that we have to address people as individuals and not categories. Yet he keeps getting criticized for not clarifying what happens in these same categories. It is not the message that is unclear as it is the stubbornness of the opposition.

 

[Ghosty1981]

He is being criticized for publishing a work that has led to radically different general applications and guidelines.

He is also being criticized for possibly supporting general principles that are themselves contrary to Catholic Tradition.

The problem is not that his teaching is big on generalities and light on specifics, it is that his generalities are leading to radically divergent guidelines and possibly breaking with teachings that have been established as Doctrinal norms and not mere discipline and praxis.

 

[pnewton]

possibly supporting general principles that are themselves contrary to Catholic Tradition.

Just to be clear, contrary to tradition does not by necessity mean contrary to doctrine. Also I disagree that we are seeing a break from doctrine. In fact, I think that is the essence of what is happening. People see what he is doing as contrary to doctrine, and using the opinion that it is contrary to doctrine to criticize him for contradicting doctrine. It is a circle.

In the end, I think we will see some doctrinal clarifications, as was suggested by St. John Paul when he referred to the communion issue as a practice.

 

[Ghosty1981]

No, but according to past rulings this is a matter of doctrine and not merely traditional praxis. The most explicit declaration to this effect comes from the earlier cited Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts, which stated in 2000 (referring to Canon 915):

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.

What has been published by the Pope that explains how the Maltese interpretation of AL (to use one example) can get around this authoritative understanding of Canon 915? If the Pope’s writings are to be understood as falling in line with this understanding, then isn’t the Maltese interpretation and implementation of AL ruled out? On the other hand, if the Maltese interpretation and understanding is correct, then how are we to understand the previous rulings on Canon 915 which are quite explicit that the prohibitions on Communion for the divorced and remarried derive from Divine Law and not ecclesial tradition and praxis?

These are not questions to be used to beat up the Pope, but they are legitimate and reasonable given both the text of AL and the implementation of it by certain Bishops.

In the end, I think we will see some doctrinal clarifications, as was suggested by St. John Paul when he referred to the communion issue as a practice.

We have had over 30 years of clarification of St. John Paul II’s words, during his Pontificate even. Both the CDF and the PCLT have weighed in. If those understandings and rulings are now to be disregarded then I think we need a clear cut explanation and case presented. A footnote combined with interviews and private letters doesn’t seem to be a fitting way to present such a change.

 

[pnewton]

No, but according to past rulings this is a matter of doctrine and not merely traditional praxis. The most explicit declaration to this effect comes from the earlier cited Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts, which stated in 2000 (referring to Canon 915):

The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.

Being a matter of doctrine is not the same as being doctrine, just like a practice may be “founded in doctrine” as St. John Paul said and is not doctrine. For example, when the Church started have the Eucharist under just one species that was a practice that was founded in the doctrine that the Body and Blood of Christ was contained under one species. No change could be made though that would oppose the doctrine of the Church. Yet a change was made and that change too was founded in doctrine.

This is how grammar works.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Again, I will point to the fact that the Church held that ecclesial law “cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.” It said this while directly responding to those who made arguments like the one’s some interpreters of AL make today. This was the interpretation given during St. John Paul II’s Pontificate, citing his own writings on the matter.

If the argument is that the application of Canon 915 is a “practice” that can be altered, then previous definitive statements made by the highest authorities in the Church should be addressed. The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts certainly seemed to argue contrary to your assertion. It remains to be seen whether or not the previous understanding can be overcome and revised, but the sticky issue at present is that there has been no attempt to actually address this matter directly. The Pope has not addressed it, and neither have those that put forward interpretations that go against previous rulings on the application of Canon 915.

One doesn’t have to believe that the Pope is teaching heresy to say that he hasn’t done the legwork to explain the apparent changes that some see coming from AL; he hasn’t even spoken directly about whether or not AL is meant to change Church practice, though I would argue that it is evident that his intent was indeed to set changes in motion. It is also quite evident that among those in the highest authority in the Church there are vastly different and contradictory understandings of how AL is to be understood in the light of previous definitive teachings. Whether or not any of these interpretations are heretical is not something I’m qualified to address, but I am able to see that AL has given rise to contradictory interpretations and implementations, and not with regard to specific cases but rather general principles and guidelines.

If we are to assume continuity in Church teaching unless there is clear reason to change or develop, then the Maltese guidelines are clearly in error. If we are to understand that there has been a change or development, then more work is needed than a simple footnote and radio silence. This goes beyond our feelings about the current Pope and his performance, and cuts to our very understanding of Magisterial authority. If previous rulings by the CDF and PCLT are to be put aside, it would seem that they deserve more respect than simply ignoring them without answer. This would, in my view, give such bodies too little authority and respect.

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying that there is no answer to the previous rulings on Canon 915. I am simply saying that a) an explanation of such a major break with definitive rulings is warranted, and needed, in order to preserve respect for Magisterial authority, and b) those that are asking for such clarification and direct answers should not be brushed aside, as their questions have merit regardless of their personal dispositions towards the Pope.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I’ll try to help this discussion be more productive. Do you have any proposals or understandings that would mitigate the apparently firm and definitive rulings by the CDF and the PCLT and allow for a looser application of Canon 915? I mean aside from appealing to the earlier word usage of JPII, which were understood by the CDF and PCLT when they made their rulings during his Pontificate.

I’m genuinely curious because in all of these discussions over the past year and more I have never once seen this particular issue addressed by those that support the view that changes in Communion practices are both possible and green-lighted by AL. Maybe you don’t believe that such changes are indeed possible and warranted, but you seem to have given some thought to the problem of Canon 915 and the decisions that have been made regarding its application.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BlackFriar]

If you believe FI has changed doctrine rather than a discipline standing since ancient times…then why do you not level the same charge against JPII who gave the abstaining remarried access to Communion?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

…Amen :angel:t3:…

 

[pnewton]

I’ll try to help this discussion be more productive. Do you have any proposals or understandings that would mitigate the apparently firm and definitive rulings by the CDF and the PCLT and allow for a looser application of Canon 915?

I think the key question here is what exactly is doctrine, at least the doctrine that applies here? The inherent nature of divorce and remarriage is a doctrine, that is, a valid marriage remains forever. This is what the Church teaches. Also, anything outside that valid marriage is adultery.

There is also a doctrine based in 1 Corinthians one can not receive communion “unworthily,” which has been defined as being in an objective state of mortal sin, sort of. More specific, of having a prior marriage without an annulment, and being in another sexually active marriage. I see two possibilities that might be addressed. The first is based on the nature of the annulment that does not actually annul a marriage, but rather determines if a marriage was valid. The Church may let a pastor explore this further after an annulment proceeding has decided for the validity of the former marriage. There are several scenarios, while rare, that might cause a faulty finding while the party in the marriage knows it was not valid.

Second, it might be that the Church decides to allow those who are in an objective state of grave sin, while not incurring the guilt of actual mortal sin to receive communion. It is not objective sin that severs the relationship with God, but the actual state of rejecting God in the commission of mortal sin. We have the example of the Patriarchs and King David, who maintained this friendship with God despite multiple marriages. Why? There was not yet a full understanding of marriage that these had to follow. And yet the objective state would have been the same.

There are a lot of arguments against this, but so far, all I have seen have either been from prudence or tradition, not doctrine.

 

[Ghosty1981]

If you believe FI has changed doctrine rather than a discipline standing since ancient times…then why do you not level the same charge against JPII who gave the abstaining remarried access to Communion?

I believe you are referring to FC, not FI, and I’ll continue based on that assumption.

I don’t have any reason to believe that FC changed doctrine as opposed to long standing discipline. In fact, it isn’t even clear to me just how much it changed discipline. I have read that this was a matter of debate in the 1970s, and that the CDF addressed the U.S. Bishops:

On April 11, 1973, the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Franjo Seper, warned the U.S. bishops against new moves that would undermine church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. At the same time, he urged pastors to bring divorced and remarried Catholics back to the sacraments by “applying the approved practice of the church in the internal forum.”

Instead of accepting this as a green light, the Americans asked for further clarification on what were “approved practices.”

On March 21, 1975, Archbishop Jerome Hamer, OP, secretary of the CDF, responded “[T]his phrase must be understood in the context of traditional moral theology. These couples may be allowed to receive the sacraments on two conditions, that they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles and that they receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal.”

Contrary to your claims that, prior to JPII’s writings, divorced and remarried Catholics were universally barred from Communion, here we have the CDF giving conditions for the reception of the Sacraments if they “live according to the demands of Christian moral principles”. It appears that St. John Paul II was laying out more clearly and explicitly what had been taught previously.

I haven’t read studies the matter in great detail, so I don’t know when this “living according to the demands of Christian moral principles” exception came into practice, but it clearly predates the Pontificate of John Paul II at the very least; claims that St. John Paul II started a major change in moral theology in the matter of divorce and remarriage don’t appear to stand up to scrutiny. Later rulings by the CDF and other Magisterial bodies continued to allow for this exception, as explained in more explicit detail by St. John Paul II, and also ruled out the very exceptions we are now discussing and seeing implemented in some places.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

The first is based on the nature of the annulment that does not actually annul a marriage, but rather determines if a marriage was valid. The Church may let a pastor explore this further after an annulment proceeding has decided for the validity of the former marriage. There are several scenarios, while rare, that might cause a faulty finding while the party in the marriage knows it was not valid.

I agree with this approach whole-heartedly. It would be an added burden for the Pastor, but I can certainly see how a marriage tribunal could arrive and an erroneous conclusion, especially in places where the tribunal system is lacking in resources. Having been through an annulment myself, I know what it is like to wait for a third party to reach the conclusion that I know to be objectively true. My case was very simple and the outcome was all but certain, but it was still an odd realization that this body of strangers was judging a matter that they knew with less certainty than I did.

In reality there was a time before marriage tribunals, and such decisions had to be made by local Pastors and Bishops. Tribunals seem to have been developed to provide more fairness to the proceedings, so that those with influence couldn’t bully and cajole their way to a favorable ruling. With that in mind, marriage tribunals are meant to assist those in such situations, not hamper their spiritual life, so I can see how some changes in how these cases are handled would be appropriate.

Second, it might be that the Church decides to allow those who are in an objective state of grave sin, while not incurring the guilt of actual mortal sin to receive communion. It is not objective sin that severs the relationship with God, but the actual state of rejecting God in the commission of mortal sin. We have the example of the Patriarchs and King David, who maintained this friendship with God despite multiple marriages. Why? There was not yet a full understanding of marriage that these had to follow. And yet the objective state would have been the same.

I’m hesitant on this approach only because those more competent, and with actual authority, have repeatedly ruled this out. This has been brought up repeatedly throughout history, and has been rejected every time. I’m curious to see how it would be handled now, if we ever see the matter actually addressed directly by the competent authorities.

Thanks for the response. Peace and God bless!

 

[pnewton]

I’m hesitant on this approach only because those more competent, and with actual authority, have repeatedly ruled this out.

I guess that is the point. Some very competent people have ruled it out. Some very competent people have not. This might end up being defined, one way or another. The last Family Synod kind of kicked this can down the road.