Holy Communion & Divorce

[Gorgias]

otjm:

a decree of nullity (a declaration that there was no marriage the first time

To be clear, the decree of nullity really declares that there was no Sacrament of Marriage.

To be clear, that’s not what a decree of nullity states; rather, it states that there was no marriage that was valid (from the Church’s perspective). As you state, this does not speak at all to the legality of the civil aspects of the marriage.

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.

There might be other ways to explain it, perhaps. In my experience, attempting to “dumb down” explanations can lead to later misunderstandings.

I have been roundly and fulsomely corrected in these forums for such

Well… to be fair, you are saying something that’s not exactly true.

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.

Perhaps you might hope that those who speak with folks who are struggling might explain things in ways that are both pastorally sensitive and accurate.

Am I just fulsomely correcting you for the sake of being pedantic? I don’t think so. After all, there are potentially negative consequences in describing this in terms of ‘sacramentality’ rather than of ‘validity’. Now, when discussing this among Catholics, you’re probably safe. But… what if the person wants to marry someone who had been married previously to an unbaptized person?

The person with whom you were genuinely being pastoral would then sit there and tnink, “hey! @otjm told me that it’s a matter of sacramentality! Well, then, there’s no problem! After all, their ex wasn’t baptized, so their marriage couldn’t possibly be sacramental! Cool – we can go get married right away!”

And then, when they go to his parish, they decide their pastor is ‘mean’, ‘uncharitable’, and ‘unpastoral’ – after all, he wants that first marriage to be declared null! How dare he! Doesn’t he know that it’s sacramentality that’s important?

On the other hand, if you’d explain that it was validity (in the eyes of the Church, not the State) that’s in play, that misunderstanding wouldn’t occur.

So, please… don’t dumb it down simply for the sake of making it more approachable. Please? Those who are struggling with it will thank you for both your pastoral nature and your accurate descriptions (as will those who work with these folks after you talk with them)…

 

[TheLittleLady]

Natural marriages (where one or both parties have not been baptized) are also considered valid until proven otherwise. All sacramental marriages are valid, but, not all valid marriages are sacramental.

In the case of the unbaptized, the natural marriage may be dissolved for the “favor of the Faith”.

These things are not as cut and dry as “if the marriage was not Sacramental it is invalid”. This is why the best thing to do is find the Tribunal Advocate for your parish and speak to them. The Advocate and the Priest are more often than not different people.

 

[otjm]

After I don’t know how may trips around the barn I have made (I am 71), but it has included practicing law, I have a fair amount of experience in working with people whose emotions tend towards a very ragged edge. I also have been involved with both RCIA and Catholics Returning Home and have had multiple exposures to people in irregular marriages. So it is not as if I am a neophyte to the topic.

I also have seen what happens when the first serious discussion concerning the irregular marriage comes up, and someone decides to say “Well, you are in an invalid marriage”, or “Well, it looks like the first marriage might be invalid”. Not everyone goes into a nuclear meltdown, but I have observed more than two or three do so. One instance comes to mind often, of the couple who while in meltdown got up and moved quickly out of the room, and back to the Episcopal church from whence they had come.

I am usually the person who has the first conversation with the couple. Once they have had enough explained to them, they then go to our deacon, who will undoubtedly use the term “validity” in all its variations. However, they have not been hit while on the ragged edge; we don’t have explosions and anger, and your concerns for them further into the process do not arise.

As to someone who was not baptized, it is fairly easy to speak of the whole matter as a difference between covenant and contract, without saying “the marriage was invalid”; and again, further down the line they will be working with the deacon.

I appreciate your comments, but I will stand most vigorously on my position that most people have a very different understanding from what the Church holds as to validity of a marriage, and in speaking with someone who has not yet dealt with the issues,

The only two impediments I have dealt with in regards to the Church have been disparity of cult and prior bond; the rest have been issues of consent. And I can manage to speak honestly and openly without saying to them this or the prior marriage may be invalid.

I have never had anyone go off on the tangent you describe. I have, however, had repeated experiences of people confusing validity as per the Church with validity of the State’s view of what constitutes a marriage. The results have never been pretty; and have often caused far more emotional upheaval than necessary in the process of getting the individual(s) to start the process of preparing for a tribunal.

As far as matters being “dumbed down”, one needs to start with people where they are; not where you or I are. And the greater majority of people have little real knowledge of what the Church teaches about matters of marriage and dissolution of marriage. Using terms they associate with entirely different matters is a good way to start off wrong. I would never suggest that an advocate or my deacon not use the term “valid”, or “invalid”. But I would suggest that well meaning and topically literate individuals realize that if they go off spouting terms which the hearer is not familiar with, the hearer may simply walk away - too often, from the Church.

 

[BlackFriar]

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

I don’t believe it is this simple.
Its also about public worthiness and actual sexual activity may be irrelevant.

Not all those in 2nd marriages may abstain and receive Communion.
Certain specific conditions must be respected for this to be possible.

 

[Gorgias]

After I don’t know how may trips around the barn I have made (I am 71), but it has included practicing law, I have a fair amount of experience in working with people whose emotions tend towards a very ragged edge.

Somehow, I get the feeling that you presume that it’s my first rodeo, or that I don’t have experience in this area.

My experience also runs toward dealing with people who have been told things that are almost what the Catholic Church teaches, and dealing with the fallout when they’re informed that what they think is true is really not so. It isn’t pretty, let me assure you. I get accused of being uncharitable and not pastoral, and of being factually incorrect (after all, the nice lawyer I spoke to assured me that it was about sacramentality! clearly, you’re the one who’s misinformed!)

it is not as if I am a neophyte to the topic.

Nor am I.

I also have seen what happens when the first serious discussion concerning the irregular marriage comes up, and someone decides to say “Well, you are in an invalid marriage”

That’s why it’s important to be both factually accurate and pastorally sensitive.

the couple who while in meltdown got up and moved quickly out of the room, and back to the Episcopal church from whence they had come.

The answer to “how to avoid meltdown” comes down to a prudential judgment. I’m merely witnessing to you that, down the line, it can backfire to misrepresent what’s really in play. I’m not suggesting, as you seem to be thinking, that we merely shrug and bluntly say “sorry… invalid!”. Rather, a middle road – that respects both the truth and personal feelings – is a good approach.

your concerns for them further into the process do not arise.

Thank goodness I’m mistaken! I must be making up the situations I’ve described from personal experience!

I will stand most vigorously on my position that most people have a very different understanding from what the Church holds as to validity of a marriage

Agreed.

I have never had anyone go off on the tangent you describe.

I have. It’s ugly.

As far as matters being “dumbed down”, one needs to start with people where they are

Indeed. Yet, does that necessarily mean that we tell them something that’s only mostly true?

But I would suggest that well meaning and topically literate individuals realize that if they go off spouting terms which the hearer is not familiar with, the hearer may simply walk away

Agreed. Yet, I’m not asking you simply to “spout terms”; we both know that this approach is likely to fail.

The example you provide – that of non-Catholic Christians approaching the Church – is one that is subtly different that what I mentioned. (After all, in that situation, the stumbling block is usually that the Church is making demands of those who are Christians but not Catholics. You know this, I’m sure, but you’re seemingly conflating that case with that of those who are unbaptized. )