P
ProVobis
Guest
In a culture that glamorizes divorces and remarriages and frowns on living alone, you may be right.
- Status
C
commenter
Guest
The correct word isn’t “rigid”, but stable. If we toss out Christ’s teaching on marriage, who’s to say they can’t toss out the Sermon on the Mount? That’s been accused of being rigid, too. People are still attracted to Mother Theresa. She not only upheld the Sermon on the Mount, but many other things too, including Christian teaching on the male priesthood, contraception, and, yes, Marriage. Her religious order has grown while the ones in the LCWR are heading towards extinction.
As marriage vows keep weakening in Western societies, the biggest losers are children. The Church’s stand on marriage, and abortion, and other things is “evangelistic”; people respect churches that stand for something. In the long run, they don’t respect churches that worship opinion polls.
M
McCall1981
Guest
Very well said
T
TRH1292
Guest
B
Brendan
Guest
The Church allows for such circumstances. When it would be harmful for the kids for the couple to separate, they can return to the full Sacramental life of the Church by practicing continence.
The Church must follow Christ. it can do nothing less. If people leave over hard teachings, well, Christ Himself dealt with that in John 6. Christ Himself gave hard teachings, and those are the teachings that the Church has not choice but to adhere to.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am sympathetic to the plight of the divorced and remarried. I understand the reasoning behind refusing communion, yet it must be hard to be in the only situation that the Church considers a “state”. I mean, it is not like all rich are denied communion because of the temptation of greed. It is not like I am forever refused communion because I am in a state of using filthy language that I can not seem to break 100%. I would bet that there is not a soul here that has had to re-confess a particularly difficult sin multiple times.
Yes, Jesus spoke on the sin of adultery as it relates to re-marriage. He spoke of the sin of denying Him, yet he sat at table with the Great Denier, Peter. The Holy Father is concerned with this topic and is asking for (name removed by moderator)ut across the world from the clergy. I am hopeful that some clarification will come and some pastoral alternative will be found.
Yes, Jesus spoke on the sin of adultery as it relates to re-marriage. He spoke of the sin of denying Him, yet he sat at table with the Great Denier, Peter. The Holy Father is concerned with this topic and is asking for (name removed by moderator)ut across the world from the clergy. I am hopeful that some clarification will come and some pastoral alternative will be found.
C
commenter
Guest
In a way, being Catholic is being in a “state”. It’s tempting to join one of those non-conversion religions, where you can pick and choose which dogmas and morals appeal to you, which can change as needed.
I know disabled persons who will probably never marry, or hold a job, walk, or see. The burden they carry, in their “state” is far heavier than marriage irregularity.
If your language is a serious sin, you should certainly refrain from Communion.
Regarding souls here who have “had to re-confess…”, you are wrong. Check out certain other forums.
I compare divorce/remarriage to continuing to smoke. It is sad that smokers have to feel tension, hearing from friends, doctors, TV, and others, that smoking is bad. If the world suddenly stopped all restrictions on smoking, all criticism of the habit by anyone, it might be argued that this - letting people smoke now without discouraging them - is being “compassionate” and “pastoral”.
But continuing to smoke would still be harmful. The same thing is true of divorce/remarriage. It would still be harmful - to the people involved - if the Church turned silent on this. Not only Catholic, but all Orthodox, Protestant and Jewish tradition reinforces this.
The doctor or friend who says “You might as well keep smoking” would seem more compassionate than the “rigid” one who keeps encouraging you to quit - or to leave an adulterous relationship. But the real compassionate one is the one who tells you to make the change that will heal you. I don’t want a Church that wants to appear compassionate. I need a Church that is compassionate enough to call me to change.
I know disabled persons who will probably never marry, or hold a job, walk, or see. The burden they carry, in their “state” is far heavier than marriage irregularity.
If your language is a serious sin, you should certainly refrain from Communion.
Regarding souls here who have “had to re-confess…”, you are wrong. Check out certain other forums.
I compare divorce/remarriage to continuing to smoke. It is sad that smokers have to feel tension, hearing from friends, doctors, TV, and others, that smoking is bad. If the world suddenly stopped all restrictions on smoking, all criticism of the habit by anyone, it might be argued that this - letting people smoke now without discouraging them - is being “compassionate” and “pastoral”.
But continuing to smoke would still be harmful. The same thing is true of divorce/remarriage. It would still be harmful - to the people involved - if the Church turned silent on this. Not only Catholic, but all Orthodox, Protestant and Jewish tradition reinforces this.
The doctor or friend who says “You might as well keep smoking” would seem more compassionate than the “rigid” one who keeps encouraging you to quit - or to leave an adulterous relationship. But the real compassionate one is the one who tells you to make the change that will heal you. I don’t want a Church that wants to appear compassionate. I need a Church that is compassionate enough to call me to change.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Even the Church cannot be sure of that at any given time before the possible granting of an annulment.
P
pnewton
Guest
If I am wrong, then so is St. Paul who spoke of this very problem. We (people) sometimes do the things we hate to do. I have never heard anyone being able to receive absolution once and never repeating a sin and I have been here a long time. There is a reasonable and good discussion on this topic here.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=841940
M
McCall1981
Guest
Now this is just bizarre 
According to this article, the German Bishops assent to the fact that the indissoluability of marriage is a “non-negotiable” for the Catholic Church, but they still want to give communion to people who re-marry.
This just gets weirder and weirder…
lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/german-bishops-will-defy-vatican-on-divorced-remarried-receiving-communion
According to this article, the German Bishops assent to the fact that the indissoluability of marriage is a “non-negotiable” for the Catholic Church, but they still want to give communion to people who re-marry.
This just gets weirder and weirder…
lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/german-bishops-will-defy-vatican-on-divorced-remarried-receiving-communion
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
The difference between the examples you provide and the case of a divorced/re-married individual is that the former are not persistent sins. And divorce/re-marriage is not necessarily the only sin that is a persistent “state.” For example, premarital cohabitation is a persistent sin. Other examples could be made.
So long as a divorced/remarried person makes no move to rectify their situation (i.e. by ceasing conjugal relations with their new “spouse”), they are deliberately persisting in sin. That’s all there is to it. And, in fact, if they take it to confession and strive to live as brother and sister, they are permitted to return to communion. The Church does not ask anything of divorced/re-married individuals than it does of single Catholics or Catholics with SSA: abstinence and chastity.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am sure that is the very question that will be examined.
A couple in an irregular marriage can live as brother and sister. So, what does this mean? No sex. Is there any other requirement? I haven’t heard of any. Since sex is an act, and not something one is constantly doing, is it necessary to view it as a persistent state?
That is similar to what I was thinking, with the understanding that this may take a while to achieve perfectly.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Yes but temptation is not itself a sin. Presuming to not be married to someone you are (presumptively) married to while also presumptively pretending to be married to someone you are not married to is sinful, doubly in that case. You could be said to be lying twice, perhaps.
You are not in a state of using filthy language. Use of filthy words and phrases are instances, not stretches of time, so to speak.
A woman who pretends to be a priest is living in a sinful “state,” and this seems to be somewhat analogous here. Her “state” of sinfulness does not end until she stops pretending to be a priest. Period. Now, if there can be a pastoral help with this, it might be in better catechesis on why the priesthood is reserved by God to men alone. And there are some other pastoral helps I can think of. But until a “woman priest” stops pretending to be a priest, she is in a perpetually sinful state, and it is public, which is a factor in its perpetual-ness.
Similarly, marriage is a public, perpetual thing. You aren’t married here and there, this moment and not the next, at 12:36 PM but not 12:37 PM, when you’re awake but not when you’re asleep, etc. You’re married in perpetuity (but not forever), unless the Sacrament/natural institution is ended normally (by which I chiefly mean the death of a spouse). And you are presumed to be married, because we have to presume it, until a certain degree of no-it-didn’t-really-happen-because-blah-blah-blah/nullity is come to by the competent person(s).
This perpetuity, by which I mean not subject to an on-off-on-off pattern (and I distinguish perpetuity from indissolubility here) is just, shall we say, a natural (by which I mean flowing from its substance, so maybe you can say “substantial”) aspect of some actions/doings/experiences of humans, and God for that matter. It is not supernatural (because only God is supernatural) but it is of divine precondition, let’s say, and it’s not something we can change, no matter how hard we want and try.
This is just a logical thing to me, really. Now, how we translate the sacramental, dogmatic, doctrinal realities–which afaik none of them can be changed–into pastoral action that does not contradict these realities (because Catholics, even clerics, much less the Pope have the authority to contravene these things) is the difficulty, and I can agree that this can, may, and probably needs to happen. And that will be a great challenge. For it we should pray.
ps: please disregard my atrocious style and grammar, i just wrote an essay for class and don’t care anymore…
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
No, pnewton (third question)! I think we agree.
Once people stop acting as though they are married, then the perpetual state itself ends. They can still sin by having sex, and it can be expected that they probably will mess up, but in such a case this is not a state of sin but an instance of an instantaneous (if we can contrast that with perpetual) sin. I think this is pretty much what the Church teaches are the logical sequelae of Her teaching on marriage.
NOTE to all: in this and my last post I use the terms instantaneous, perpetual, etc., in a certain way and yes, I made them up and no, I don’t know if they are official and yes, I know there are probably more appropriate terms and no, I don’t know them, and no, I don’t know where to find them, and no, I will not summarily enroll in my nearest dogmatic theology program just to learn them. I think my ideas are right. However, I know my theological language is that of a 4th grader. Theology classes in a few years…
P
ProVobis
Guest
It’s like that old joke. An elderly couple goes to bed. The man puts his hand over hers and they go to sleep. The next night he tries the same, and she replies “Not tonight. I have a headache.”
Is it really about sex or adulterous behavior? I’m not sure I can answer that.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Why do you see a doctrinal contradiction?Now this is just bizarre
According to this article, the German Bishops assent to the fact that the indissoluability of marriage is a “non-negotiable” for the Catholic Church, but they still want to give communion to people who re-marry.
This just gets weirder and weirder…
lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/german-bishops-will-defy-vatican-on-divorced-remarried-receiving-communion
M
McCall1981
Guest
Good news here.
It seems that Archbp Muller did indeed consult with Pope Francis before he issued his statement reaffirming the Church’s teaching on communion for the remarried:
incaelo.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/muller-freiburg-proposal-on-communion-for-remarried-to-be-withdrawn-and-revised/
Here is his letter in response to Archbishop Zollitsch:
"Your Excellency!
Honourable Lord Archbishop!
With the Document Prot. N. 2922/13, of 8 October 2013, the Apostolic Nuncio has communicated the draft of the guidelines for the pastoral care of separated, divorced and civilly remarried people in the Archdiocese of Freiburg, as well as your newsletter to the members of the German Bishops’ Conference prior to the publication of this letter, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A careful reading of the draft text reveals that it does contain very correct and important pastoral teachings, but is unclear in its terminology and does not correspond with Church teaching in two points:
“Remarried divorced people themselves stand in the way of their access to the Eucharist”
This position of the Magisterium is well-founded. Remarried divorcees stand in the way of their access to the Eucharist, insofar as their state of life is an objective contradiction to the relationship of love between Christ and the Church, which is made visible and present in the Eucharist (doctrinal reason). If these people were allowed to receive the Eucharist this would cause confusion among the faithful about the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage (pastoral reason).
The affected faithful are to be offered support, but it must be avoided that “confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage” (Sacramentum Caritatis, N. 29).
Due to the aforementioned discrepancies, the draft text is to be withdrawn and revised, so that no pastoral directions are sanctioned which are in opposition to Church teaching. Because the tekst has raised questions not only in Germany, but in many parts of the world as well, and has led to uncertainties in a delicate pastoral issue, I felt obliged to inform Pope Francis about it.
“Going paths which fully agree with the doctrine of the faith of the Church”
After consultation with the Holy Father, an article from my hand was published in L’Osservatore Romano on 23 October 2013, which sumarises the binding teaching of the Church on these questions. This contribution was also published in the weekly edition of the Vatican newspaper.
Since a number of bishops have turned to me and a working group of the German Bishops’ Conference is dealing with the topic, I would like to inform you that I will send a copy of this letter to all the diocesan bishops of Germany. Hoping that on this delicate issue we are going pastoral paths, which are in full agreement with the doctrine of the faith of the Church, I remain with heartfelt greeting and blessings in the Lord.
Yours,
Gerhard L. Müller
Prefect"
It seems that Archbp Muller did indeed consult with Pope Francis before he issued his statement reaffirming the Church’s teaching on communion for the remarried:
incaelo.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/muller-freiburg-proposal-on-communion-for-remarried-to-be-withdrawn-and-revised/
Here is his letter in response to Archbishop Zollitsch:
"Your Excellency!
Honourable Lord Archbishop!
With the Document Prot. N. 2922/13, of 8 October 2013, the Apostolic Nuncio has communicated the draft of the guidelines for the pastoral care of separated, divorced and civilly remarried people in the Archdiocese of Freiburg, as well as your newsletter to the members of the German Bishops’ Conference prior to the publication of this letter, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A careful reading of the draft text reveals that it does contain very correct and important pastoral teachings, but is unclear in its terminology and does not correspond with Church teaching in two points:
“Remarried divorced people themselves stand in the way of their access to the Eucharist”
- Regarding the reception of the sacraments by divorced and remarried faithful the proposal from the bishops of the Oberrhein area is recommended anew as a pastoral direction: after a process of discussion with the parish priests, people concerned can either reach the conclusion to participate much in the life of the Church, but to deliberately refrain from receiving the Sacraments, while others can in their concrete situations achieve a “responsibly reached decision of conscience” and be able to receive the Sacraments of Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick, and this decision is “to be respected” by the priest and the community.
This position of the Magisterium is well-founded. Remarried divorcees stand in the way of their access to the Eucharist, insofar as their state of life is an objective contradiction to the relationship of love between Christ and the Church, which is made visible and present in the Eucharist (doctrinal reason). If these people were allowed to receive the Eucharist this would cause confusion among the faithful about the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage (pastoral reason).
- In addition to this a prayer service is suggested for divorced faithful who enter into a new civil marriage. Although it is explicitly stated that this is not some “semi-marriage” and the ceremony should be simple. but it would still be a sort of “Rite” with an entrance, reading from the Word of God, blessing and giving of a candle, prayer and conclusion.
The affected faithful are to be offered support, but it must be avoided that “confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage” (Sacramentum Caritatis, N. 29).
Due to the aforementioned discrepancies, the draft text is to be withdrawn and revised, so that no pastoral directions are sanctioned which are in opposition to Church teaching. Because the tekst has raised questions not only in Germany, but in many parts of the world as well, and has led to uncertainties in a delicate pastoral issue, I felt obliged to inform Pope Francis about it.
“Going paths which fully agree with the doctrine of the faith of the Church”
After consultation with the Holy Father, an article from my hand was published in L’Osservatore Romano on 23 October 2013, which sumarises the binding teaching of the Church on these questions. This contribution was also published in the weekly edition of the Vatican newspaper.
Since a number of bishops have turned to me and a working group of the German Bishops’ Conference is dealing with the topic, I would like to inform you that I will send a copy of this letter to all the diocesan bishops of Germany. Hoping that on this delicate issue we are going pastoral paths, which are in full agreement with the doctrine of the faith of the Church, I remain with heartfelt greeting and blessings in the Lord.
Yours,
Gerhard L. Müller
Prefect"
- Status