How can divorced people receive the Eucharist?

[John_Lucas]

The Catechism states that divorce per se is a grave sin (CCC 2384).

I have a book by an orthodox Catholic author who published Q & A’s he has received and answered over the years. On the question of divorce, he acknowledges that “it could be a grave sin for one party to break the bond of matrimony through divorce.” However, in the next sentence, he states categorically that “divorced persons are still in good standing in the Church and can receive the sacraments provided that they do not attempt remarriage.” Since a grave (i. e., mortal) sin causes loss of sanctifying grace, how could the person receive the sacrament of the Eucharist?

The CCC acknowledges exceptions for just reasons (danger, abandonment, innocent victim, protection of inheritance), but if these conditions are not met, then reception of communion is not permitted. More importantly, the person must make a sincere confession and attempt reconciliation with the former spouse to return to a state of grace. Is this not correct?

 

[Sir_Knight]

“sin causes loss of sanctifying grace, how could the person receive the sacrament of the Eucharist”

because their sin can be forgiven via sacramental confession but if they remarry and STAY remarried with an annulment from the church then they are CONTINUING to live in sin.

 

[Aaron_I]

I think part of it is that they receive a CIVIL divorce. The marriage is not dissolved, and is still very much intact. The marriage only ends if it never existed as declared by an annulment.

 

[Katie1723]

I was told when I got my civil divorce that as long as I did not remarry, I could receive Holy Communion. If I chose to remarry, that would necessitate an annulment.
~ Kathy ~

 

[bauerice]

Katie1723:

I was told when I got my civil divorce that as long as I did not remarry, I could receive Holy Communion. If I chose to remarry, that would necessitate an annulment.

~ Kathy ~

That is correct.

 

[theMutant]

Katie1723:

I was told when I got my civil divorce that as long as I did not remarry, I could receive Holy Communion. If I chose to remarry, that would necessitate an annulment.

          ~ Kathy ~

If you have not already done so, I would recommend discussing this with your Confessor, pastor, or bishop. In general, as was stated in the first post, divorce (dissolution of the civil contract) is only allowed for “just causes.” This is allowed to protect you and your children (if any) in civil law. It is about your civil rights.

In regard to choosing to remarry, this is a more tricky area. As long as you are married (in the Church), you cannot pursue a relationship with another. Therefore, if you find yourself wanting to do so, you should get an annulment first. As long as you are sacramentally bound to your husband, you must “forsake all others.” My point is that, if someone is seeking an annulment because they want to marry someone else, then they have already involved themselves in a relationship which they vowed to God they would not do. This would involve them in a serious sin - potentially mortal if they realized it and pursued the relationship anyway.

I hope this helps.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

theMutant:

If you have not already done so, I would recommend discussing this with your Confessor, pastor, or bishop. In general, as was stated in the first post, divorce (dissolution of the civil contract) is only allowed for “just causes.” This is allowed to protect you and your children (if any) in civil law. It is about your civil rights.

In regard to choosing to remarry, this is a more tricky area. As long as you are married (in the Church), you cannot pursue a relationship with another. Therefore, if you find yourself wanting to do so, you should get an annulment first. As long as you are sacramentally bound to your husband, you must “forsake all others.” My point is that, if someone is seeking an annulment because they want to marry someone else, then they have already involved themselves in a relationship which they vowed to God they would not do. This would involve them in a serious sin - potentially mortal if they realized it and pursued the relationship anyway.

I hope this helps.

Actually, whether your wedding took place in the Catholic Church, or not… as long as the bride and groom are each baptized Christians (that is, baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”), it is the bride and the groom that perform the role as minister of the Sacrament. The priest’s role at the wedding is as a representative of the entire Body of Christ (the Church).

By the way, someone may choose to pursue a nullity of marriage (“annulment”) even if they are NOT already involved with “someone else” that they (in your words) have already involved themselves in a relationship which they vowed to God they would not do.

An annulment addresses the state that both the bride and groom were in at the very time that they made their marriage vows. Therefore, any subsequent “someone else” is NOT relevant to the state of freedom necessary for that bride/or/groom to make their sacred vow of matrimony.

Hope this helps.

 

[Brendan]

A permanent seperation ( civil divorce) outside of certain just reasons requires the consent of one’s bishop.

If one does not obtain the consent of one’s bishop, that incurrs the sin of disobedience (mortal).

That sin may be absolved in Sacramental Confession. It would be up to the confessor to determine of the realtionship should be re-persused.

If the civilly divorced person has either just cause, consent of the bishop or has been absolved of the sin of disobedience, that person may recieve the Eucharist; provided they are not romantically involved with another person.

 

[theMutant]

Veronica Anne:

Actually, whether your wedding took place in the Catholic Church, or not…

Thanks for posting the clarification. I meant to type “in the eyes of the Church” but my mind must have slipped.

 

[theMutant]

Veronica Anne:

By the way, someone may choose to pursue a nullity of marriage (“annulment”) even if they are NOT already involved with “someone else” that they (in your words) have already involved themselves in a relationship which they vowed to God they would not do.

An annulment addresses the state that both the bride and groom were in at the very time that they made their marriage vows. Therefore, any subsequent “someone else” is NOT relevant to the state of freedom necessary for that bride/or/groom to make their sacred vow of matrimony.

Maybe I was not clear on this point. I did not say that the “someone else” is the determining factor for their state of freedom to marry. I did not intend to say that someone may only seek an annulment if they want to pursue a relationship with someone else. They can seek an annulment at any point after civil divorce or separation. (I’d have to check to be sure, but I’m pretty sure that Canon Law requires the civil divorce or separation first.)

I was merely trying to point out that, until one gets a declaration of annulment, he must assume that his previous marriage is valid. If his previous marriage is assumed to be valid, he cannot pursue a new relationship because doing so would violate the Sacramental covenant. If he is not free to marry, then he is also not free to enter into a new relationsip. Therefore, if someone who is divorced from a person who is still living is interested in pursuing a new relationship, he must get an annulment before doing so. Waiting until he wants to marry the new person is not only too late, it can be the cause of greater pain if the first marriage is declared valid and he must break off the relationship.

This was my point in making the clarification. Katie1723 says that she was told she did not need to seek an annulment unless she wanted to remarry. That is, in my opinion, not quite correct. She is free to receive communion as long as her divorce/separation is consistent with the teaching of the Church. It is true that she cannot remarry unless her first marriage is declared null. It is also true that, until such a declaration is made, she must assume that her marriage is valid and she must not enter into a new relationship that would violate the Sacramental covenant. If she were to seek an annulment because she wanted to marry someone else, then she would have already entered into such a relationship.

 

[otm]

Brendan:

A permanent seperation ( civil divorce) outside of certain just reasons requires the consent of one’s bishop.

Not quite correct; in many, if not all states, there is a provision for a permanent eparation which is not a divorce. You are calling a civil divorce a permanenet separation; it may be effectively in the eyes of the Church a permanent separation. But civilly they are two different things.

Brendan:

If one does not obtain the consent of one’s bishop, that incurrs the sin of disobedience (mortal).

It may be objectively sinful, but as most people have no knowledge of Canon law, they lack the essential element of a mortal sin - knowledge.

Brendan:

That sin may be absolved in Sacramental Confession. It would be up to the confessor to determine of the realtionship should be re-persused.

If the civilly divorced person has either just cause, consent of the bishop or has been absolved of the sin of disobedience, that person may recieve the Eucharist; provided they are not romantically involved with another person.

You missed one: that is where the spouse did not have just cause, consent of the bishop or absolution (not needed in this circumstance), and that is where the other party filed for divorce in a no-fault state; the innocent party is not allowed to contest (that is, request that it not be granted) the divorce. Since they didn’t file, and are the innocent party, they have nothing to request of the bishop, and since they did not file, they have no sin to confess. Just cause is irrelevant, as they are not the filing party.

 

[Rebecca_New]

When in doubt, go to confession and ask the Priest if you need to do something differently.

 

[Ruthie]

“Katie1723 says that she was told she did not need to seek an annulment unless she wanted to remarry.”

You may be reading between the lines, here. There’s a difference between “I want to marry Bob,” and “I want to marry again, someday.”

I think it is wise to seek an anullment if you know you want to marry again, because it will prevent the sin of “courting” while you are still married in the Church’s eyes.

And nobody has brought up my situation! I’m a new convert, who made a mistake marraige as a teenager, got divorced at 21, then remarried 8 years ago. We are living “as brother and sister” until my “mistake” is declared null.

 

[John_Lucas]

The comments on my original post, while interesting and somewhat informative, have gone very far afield. I’d like to bring us back to my original proposition. The essence of my post was that, according to CCC 2384, divorce alone is an objective mortal sin and remarriage is not a necessary concomitant.

The fact that this sin, and almost every other sin, can be forgiven avoids the consideration that a “firm purpose of amendment” is required for absolution; therefore a diligent confessor would explicitly advise the penitent to earnestly seek reconciliation with the separated spouse.

When I quoted the orthodox author-priest, it was to illustrate that even a knowledgeable and sincere cleric can misconstrue these sometimes complex moral teachings. The local priest may not even have read the pertinent paragraphs in the Catechism. In fact, since the Catechism was published in the early 1990’s, I’ve never heard any local priest or bishop mention the existence of this invaluable document.

And whether or not the person receives the Eucharist, isn’t the crux (pun intended) of the matter his or her salvation?

 

[theMutant]

“Katie1723 says that she was told she did not need to seek an annulment unless she wanted to remarry.”

You may be reading between the lines, here. There’s a difference between “I want to marry Bob,” and “I want to marry again, someday.”

Excellent point. I did assume in my posts above that the desire to marry was not a general intention but a specific one. I completely agree.

 

[otm]

John Lucas:

The comments on my original post, while interesting and somewhat informative, have gone very far afield. I’d like to bring us back to my original proposition. The essence of my post was that, according to CCC 2384, divorce alone is an objective mortal sin and remarriage is not a necessary concomitant.

The fact that this sin, and almost every other sin, can be forgiven avoids the consideration that a “firm purpose of amendment” is required for absolution; therefore a diligent confessor would explicitly advise the penitent to earnestly seek reconciliation with the separated spouse.

When I quoted the orthodox author-priest, it was to illustrate that even a knowledgeable and sincere cleric can misconstrue these sometimes complex moral teachings. The local priest may not even have read the pertinent paragraphs in the Catechism. In fact, since the Catechism was published in the early 1990’s, I’ve never heard any local priest or bishop mention the existence of this invaluable document.

And whether or not the person receives the Eucharist, isn’t the crux (pun intended) of the matter his or her salvation?

I don’t have the Catechism at hand, but one needs to be careful in understanding what it says about sin.

each divorce, while looking pretty much like the next one and the previous one, is unique as it is to the couple involved. Obtaining a divorce may not be objectively a sin; one is not required, for example, to live with the threat of great physical, mental, or emotional harm to oneself or to the children by an abusive spouse. What constitutes permissable grounds for one spouse to file agaisnt the other must be judged from the specifics of the case.

One who, without a valid and legitimate reason, files for divorce against the other may indeed be committing grave sin, assuming proper knowledge and intent.

The grave sin, however, may not be of the one filing, but of the one who is the “defendant” in the case, given the circumstances of the abusve spouse. Therefore, if the innocent party is the one filing for and obtaining the divorce, they would not be barred from Communion; and the abusive spouse, who has established a track record of abuse over a period of time, may have no possiblity of reconcilliation due to that track record; the divorce then, in the eyes of the Church takes the form of a permanent separation, subject to a review by the tribunal as to nullity.

Note: I realize that there is a process by which one can request the Church’s permission to a permanent separation; and I suspect that there is not on in 10,000 Catholics who are even aware of the process or the need for it.