Holy Communion & Divorce

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael2457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you keep saying people can take communion at home???
What are you talking about?
Nobody’s talking about the sick or homebound
 
I believe this is the same poster who in a different thread suggested one could buy crackers at the store and make their own Communion any time. Doesn’t work for Catholics.
 
Thank You for clearing my confusion up. I now understand. So, for example an adulterous man who has been divorced by his wife for his adultery, is still classed as married by the Church. So should he attempt to marry another person, or cohabitate then the relationship is adulterous and thus he cannot take communion.

I now see the Issue with the Church, and divorced people seeking communion, as even though the divorce was not through there own doing, but due to the husband’s doing, that means the Church classes them as still married, and thus should they wish to marry or cohabitate, then they cannot take Communion, but if they stay Chaste they can take communion.
 
I’d clear up the language a bit. it is not that “the Church classes them as still married”.

The Church respects marriage. She holds marriage in such high regard that, as long as two persons have no impediment, she considers their marriage valid until proven otherwise. Marriage is a lifetime commitment, not just until he cheats or she falls out of love.
 
THANK YOU, everyone, for your answers, really appreciated. I am a Catholic convert and new to all these issues, so really appreciated everyone.

Next. I am not at all questioning the Churches authority and reasoning on this Divorce/Communion issue, and I am in agreement with them.

However, I do feel some sympathy with divorcees who have been married to a partner and feel they cannot be married to them anymore (especially due to adultery, violence, abuse etc), and divorced them. But in order to keep receiving communion, they must stay Chaste/single for the rest of their lives (unless an annulment is granted). They, therefore, cannot move on and start another life with someone else without forsaking communion. Its like they are being punished twice.

It seems both the one doing wrong and the divorcee both suffer the same consequences (cannot re-marry, cohabitate and receive communion) when the bad one doing wrong is to blame in the first place for the divorce. Especially where Violence, Abuse & Adultery is the reason for the divorce.

By the way, out of Interest how is Pope Francis planning to solve this issue for divorcees who want to re-marry and want to take communion? Also for those that may have remarried civilly and want to take communion. ? As it seems to be a bit of an issue at the moment in Catholic Circles.Thank You
 
There are “ways” in place. Some people don’t like the ways (living as brother and sister for example), but, that does not mean there is no path.
 
In cases of violence, abuse or adultery, there are frequently grounds for annulment so the person might be able to marry again in the Church, although it’s not guaranteed. I have a friend going through this process now.
 
When I first started reading the Bible as an unbaptized heathen teen attending evangelical youth groups, I understood even then that divorce and remarriage was effectively a state of perpetual adultery, although Catholic teaching was the furthest thing from my mind. It surprised me as I got older that more and more Christians just seemed to accept it, and even encouraged me to seek remarriage after my first marriage ended through my own fault and decision. I have an annulment now, but still think I would feel uneasy about entering a marriage.
 
Thank God for the Blood indeed. That is why I would rather not trample it underfoot (Heb. 10:29).
 
MY somewhat BUT limited understanding of the Issue here and the RCC Teaching.

I don’t think that the civil marriage as articulated by you would be recognized as a “valid marriage” by the RC Church and an impediment to a LICIT second Catholic Sacramental marriage. [Assuming that the atheist did not marry an Informed, Baptized Baptized Christian… which might complicate things?
 
Kristaok identifies herself as a Word of Faith Christian. (Wiki identifies that group as going with the Prosperity Gospel). I gave her a link to an article in the CA Library which explained Communion but either she hasn’t read it, hasn’t understood it if read, or doesn’t wish to accept it. But just knowing she isn’t a Catholic makes her posts less puzzling. Still wrong. . .but less puzzling.
 
It is not the “committing of divorce and sexual relations” which bars one; it is the “commiting sexual relations” which does.

There are two parties in a divorce; the plaintiff and the respondent. either or both may be the cause of the divorce (not the filing of the paperwork, but the reason the paperwork was filed). that matter can be resolved in Reconciliation.

And the sexual relations, while a mortal sin, is not what bars from Communion (presuming one goes to Reconciliation and has a firm purpose of amendment). What bars from Communion and cannot be resolved in Reconciliation (with an exception) is attempting to marry while the first marriage is still presumed valid.

And the exception is if the couple live as brother and wife.

One can get a divorce and then commit adultery, without attempting a second marriage.
 
Hereiam said:
Please correct me, someone, if I am wrong. But Divorcees are not prohibited from receiving the Eucharist. Adulterers are.
Click to expand...
Correct. A divorcee only needs to go to confession before receiving the Eurcharist. An adulterer must stop committing adultery before receiving the Eucharist.
A divorcee is not committing adultery unless the marriage resulting in the civil action of divorce was a sacramental marriage AND they are cohabitation, or married outside the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Am I wrong? Apologies if I am.
Click to expand...
The better way to look at this is to follow this rule: one must be living (or at least trying to live) in a state of chastity to receive communion. You can’t have unchaste sex every Friday night and Saturday morning, then go to confession and receive communion on Saturday night - knowing full well that you plan to have unchaste sex again.

Marriage & divorce really have nothing to do with it. It’s all about chastity.

I pray this helps.
 
Last edited:
Since you are a new convert, a bit of further information: a decree of nullity (a declaration that there was no marriage the first time, due to an impediment or defective consent) is based on the status of the parties as of the day of the wedding.

Thus, later violence, abuse or adultery is not grounds for a decree of nullity, as they occur after the wedding day.

They may, however, be evidence of a defective consent; but it will be the defective consent, not the adultery, etc. which is the grounds for a decision that the marriage was null (did not exist).

As to remarriage, the Church teaching that the first is presumed valid until shown otherwise is still in place. The reference you make to Pope Francis has to do with a footnote, which is on the face of it ambiguous, and it may be some time off in the future before that is all straightened out.
 
otjm said:
a decree of nullity (a declaration that there was no marriage the first time
Click to expand...
To be clear, the decree of nullity really declares that there was no Sacrament of Marriage. The Church acknowledges that a legal marriage took place, which is why the children are NOT considered illegitimate.
 
One writer of a book about annulments refers to that as "there had been a church wedding ceremony, but the marriage was invalid.

The church makes no comments about the legal (State law) issue of an invalid marriage, but recognizes such matters as valid births; hence the issue about children being illegitimate doesn’t exist. The legitimacy of children is a matter of State law.

Having worked with a number of people, both returning Catholics and those wishing to join the church, I have found that speaking with them about the validity of their marriage tends to produce very strong and unhelpful reactions; so I refer to it as an issue of sacramentality. I have been roundly and fulsomely corrected in these forums for such, and my answer back is that I hope to heaven the individuals desiring to speak in juridical terms never have the opportunity to speak to someone who actually is struggling with the issue.
 
otjm said:
One writer of a book about annulments refers to that as "there had been a church wedding ceremony, but the marriage was invalid.

The church makes no comments about the legal (State law) issue of an invalid marriage, but recognizes such matters as valid births; hence the issue about children being illegitimate doesn’t exist. The legitimacy of children is a matter of State law.

Having worked with a number of people, both returning Catholics and those wishing to join the church, I have found that speaking with them about the validity of their marriage tends to produce very strong and unhelpful reactions; so I refer to it as an issue of sacramentality. I have been roundly and fulsomely corrected in these forums for such, and my answer back is that I hope to heaven the individuals desiring to speak in juridical terms never have the opportunity to speak to someone who actually is struggling with the issue.
Click to expand...
I agree. I find it much better to talk about the Sacarment of Marriage being invalid vs the marriage being invalid.

Regardless of what is technically correct from legal point of view. People grasp tht much better.
 
I tend to explain it in a similar way. I say the Church is NOT saying they never had a relationship. Clearly they had a conjugal life, they may have had children, etc. But all they had was a legal contract under the law of the land. There was something fundamentally missing that meant their marriage, in God’s eyes, was not valid.

For the record, I am married to a man who is divorced from his first wife (her decision and not due to abuse or adultery on his part) and received a declaration of nullity. I have a 13-year-old stepdaughter from his first marriage. She knows what is required for a valid marriage and understands that her birth was not illegitimate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top