I can't receive sacraments because of my husband

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Therese,

From what other posters are saying, it sounds like you were probably doomed when you got married 21 years ago without getting the annulment first.

Maybe it’s not legally relevant to the case, but I wonder what the effects of going to his ex-wife after all these years has on her? Is there a basic presumption that it would not be detrimental to her unless proven otherwise? Like I said, it probably doesn’t matter.

Perhaps the archbishop is correct in going by canon law, but that brings up an ironic twist, especially considering some things I learned in other threads. That is, if he is holding you bound, it is because he chooses to, not because the Word of God “requires” him to. If the Church teaches that her authority comes from the incident where Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven, then if the Church wishes to release you, then you will be released in heaven and you will not be committing adultery. (That assumes, I guess, that from the time she releases you from your shackles to the time you get married into the Church you do live as brother and sister, as another poster suggested.)

Just in case someone thinks what I’m suggesting will devalue Christ’s teachings or God’s commands, I might observe that the Church is (granted she has a right to be) quite selective about which laws and commands she holds bound. For example, in this case she is apparently holding you bound to the commandment against adultery as explained by Christ’s teachings on divorce. What about the commandment against killing? When was the last time someone was held bound in a way that confession could not cure, for being angry with his brother? What about abortion? Abortion supposedly carries the penalty of automatic excommunication, but even a parish priest can waive that penalty and grant forgiveness based on mitigating circumstances.

My point is that it is the Church’s non-infallible decision to hold you bound, in your particular case, whether she justifies it with lots of legaleze or not. Since I have only heard your side of the story, I cannot say whether I agree with her in your particular case. Perhaps the archbishop thinks that you or your husband are being obstinate and uncooperative – I don’t know. What I do know is this: the Church, by her own interpretation of Christ’s teachings, cannot say she is “bound” to hold you bound. It his her decision, made by human beings according to their own wishes. If I’m wrong, then much of what I’ve learned on this forum about Church authority is nonsense or has completely gone over my head.

Alan

The Church has no authority to unbind any sacrament. The Church can investigate and find a sacrament never took place, but they can’t undue anything.

If a marriage is vaild, it is valid. The Church has no authority to undue any marriage.

 

[fix]

ricatholic:

Go up to communion and receive Jesus, if He doesn’t want to help you, you will feel a burning sensation in your throut and you will then collapse on the ground and the host will eject itself from your body.

However, if you feel fine afterwards and start to treat the least like they might be Him, then you will know that what he said about believing in Him is true.

Peace

That is a lie. Please do not lead others to sin. Do you know what Christ said would happend to those who lead others to sin?

 

[rfk]

AlanFromWichita:

Perhaps the archbishop is correct in going by canon law, … if he is holding you bound, it is because he chooses to, not because the Word of God “requires” him to.

Ding, wrong answer. It is open and shut that someone who is in an invalid marriage is not supposed to take the Eucharist. If they are not contrite, i.e., willing to cease their sin, they cannot make a valid confession and should thus not attempt an invalid confession. The full Magisterium of the Church is clear on this – it isn’t a “personal” decision of the Bishop. Because the Church is so clear on marriage and annullments, I don’t believe you would find even the most heterodox and liberal of Bishop’s telling someone to receive the Eucharist while in an invalid mariiage.

In case of imminent death, she could repent and receive the Sacrament of the Sick, last confession and take Holy Communion.

AlanFromWichita:

My point is that it is the Church’s non-infallible decision to hold you bound, in your particular case,

However, the Bishop has full authority to hold her bound, and she has the duty of religious assent. There is no “wiggle room” here.

ricatholic:

Go up to communion and receive Jesus, if He doesn’t want to help you, you will feel a burning sensation in your throut and you will then collapse on the ground and the host will eject itself from your body.

I can’t believe you would make such a trashy and wrong-headed recommendation. Bad enough that she is in a state of sin from her choice to enter an invalid marriage. Why would you tell her to compound that by the grave sin of direct disobedience to her Bishop as well as the grave sin of unworthy reception of the Eucharist.

To vatoco6, although my tone is harsh to the others for irresponsible advice, please understand that no harshness of tone is meant for you. I feel truly sorry that you are in such a painful circumstance. That fact that you put yourself there when you made the decision to enter an invalid marriage doesn’t ease the painfulness of the situation.

There are only three points I can offer. First, I agree with the advice to pray, pray pray. Second, please do not leave the Church over this. As people have mentioned, it is the crosses and suffering that we willingly accept and bear that become our path to holiness. Third, part of the vocation of marriage includes accepting responsibility for our spouses. I believe it is my job to do everything possible to help my wife get to heaven. Similarly, it is her job to help me to salvation. This viewpoint necessarily means that we need to sacrifice for each other. So let your husband know that he needs to do this sacrifice for you, because it will help your salvation. His sacrifice will also have the wonderful secondary effect of helping to lead him towards holiness and reconnection with the Church.

 

[tuopaolo]

If you abstain from sexual relations with your husband until he receives an annulment for his first marriage and intend to, should an annulment not be received, continue to abstain from sexual relations with him then you can receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion. So even if an annulment application is rejected, if you live as brother and sister, you can still receive Communion. Living as brother and sister may be a hard thing to do but sometimes what God asks us to do is hard. But we can ask God for the grace to do what is right and pleasing to Him.

I’m not sure, but I think you yourself can ask the Church to declare your husband’s first marriage null against his wishes. I would ask a priest or canon lawyer or your diocese’s tribunal about this.

In any case, keep on practicing your Catholic faith as much as you are able to practice it. Graces are available at Mass not only through reception of Holy Communion but also through all the prayers and rites and from the Sacrifice.

God bless and Mary keep.

 

[JimG]

Carol Marie gave good advice in post #14. Sometimes God can solve problems that we can’t.

It sounds as though your husbands prior marriage may not have met the requirements for validity, and thus could be declared null. But if the person whose marriage it is, refuses to seek an annulment, that makes it very difficult. Speak with your priest to see if it is possible to begin an annulment process without the consent of either party to the marriage. If not, all you can do is continue to pray.

I had an aunt whose brief teenage marriage was denied a decree of nullity. She had since been married for years to a very kind-hearted man. She continued to go to Mass every Sunday, not receiving communion, until finally his advancing age and deteriorating health prevented further marital relations. At that point she was able to receive confession and communion.

But it would sure be helpful if your husband would agree to at least seek the annulment. The Church has no authority to simply declare a marriage null without investigating the circumstances.

JimG

 

[ricatholic]

rfk:

Ding, wrong answer. It is open and shut that someone who is in an invalid marriage is not supposed to take the Eucharist. If they are not contrite, i.e., willing to cease their sin, they cannot make a valid confession and should thus not attempt an invalid confession. The full Magisterium of the Church is clear on this – it isn’t a “personal” decision of the Bishop. Because the Church is so clear on marriage and annullments, I don’t believe you would find even the most heterodox and liberal of Bishop’s telling someone to receive the Eucharist while in an invalid mariiage.

In case of imminent death, she could repent and receive the Sacrament of the Sick, last confession and take Holy Communion.

However, the Bishop has full authority to hold her bound, and she has the duty of religious assent. There is no “wiggle room” here.

I can’t believe you would make such a trashy and wrong-headed recommendation. Bad enough that she is in a state of sin from her choice to enter an invalid marriage. Why would you tell her to compound that by the grave sin of direct disobedience to her Bishop as well as the grave sin of unworthy reception of the Eucharist.

To vatoco6, although my tone is harsh to the others for irresponsible advice, please understand that no harshness of tone is meant for you. I feel truly sorry that you are in such a painful circumstance. That fact that you put yourself there when you made the decision to enter an invalid marriage doesn’t ease the painfulness of the situation.

There are only three points I can offer. First, I agree with the advice to pray, pray pray. Second, please do not leave the Church over this. As people have mentioned, it is the crosses and suffering that we willingly accept and bear that become our path to holiness. Third, part of the vocation of marriage includes accepting responsibility for our spouses. I believe it is my job to do everything possible to help my wife get to heaven. Similarly, it is her job to help me to salvation. This viewpoint necessarily means that we need to sacrifice for each other. So let your husband know that he needs to do this sacrifice for you, because it will help your salvation. His sacrifice will also have the wonderful secondary effect of helping to lead him towards holiness and reconnection with the Church.

If the church applied the same standards to the hierarchy regarding distribution of the Eucharist that they have applied to receiving it, I might agree with the premise of your arguement. But since that was not the case, I would suggest that the church’s views on the worthiness of reception are not really based on sound principles, since if they were they would be applied to all similar situations .

The church standards on worthiness to receive Jesus in the context of adultery are nonsense. They are not grounded in reality and reject the concepts of forgiveness , but more importantly they reject the examples of the way Jesus shared His graces.

Who are we to say that Jesus will not help anybody who has even the slightest belief in Him? Who are we as catholics of any status to say that the least should not be fed when they are hungry for spiritual nourishment? But I guess it is Ok to reject the body of what Jesus taught to latch on to a few things that Paul wrote. And if we are to say we are faithfull catholics we must agree that if the church says Paul overides Jesus, then we must go with the flow.

Peace

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ricatholic:

If the church applied the same standards to the hierarchy regarding distribution of the Eucharist that they have applied to receiving it, I might agree with the premise of your arguement.

And there we have it, your agenda.

You are against the Church.

 

[Patrick]

There is only one previous post that hits the real issue head on. The fact you can’t receive communion isn’t the problem, it’s only a symptom. You can’t receive communion because you are sinning. Focus on the problem. There is more than one solution. The one you have already considered is to have your husband get an annulment. That is the best one - no doubt. Your second solution - have someone change the decision and let you receive communion is a bad one because it leaves you in the state of sinning. The second valid solution is to live as brother and sister as you should be doing to avoid sin. Then embrace your catholicity and receive communion. The strength and grace you will gain will help you through.

God bless you.

Patrick

 

[reoman]

Right on…it’s not difficult to see through the agenda of ricatholic…hope this individual doesn’t infect others on this site with untruths and false information. Back to the original requester…it’s not the archbishop having a problem, it’s her husband. Where is his compassion for his heartbroken wife?

 

[ricatholic]

Patrick:

There is only one previous post that hits the real issue head on. The fact you can’t receive communion isn’t the problem, it’s only a symptom. You can’t receive communion because you are sinning. Focus on the problem. There is more than one solution. The one you have already considered is to have your husband get an annulment. That is the best one - no doubt. Your second solution - have someone change the decision and let you receive communion is a bad one because it leaves you in the state of sinning. The second valid solution is to live as brother and sister as you should be doing to avoid sin. Then embrace your catholicity and receive communion. The strength and grace you will gain will help you through.

God bless you.

Patrick

To believe that a person who is in another marriage, whether the church recognises it or not sins by completing the new marriage is stupid.

Which bond does Jesus want us to break? The first or the second or third or fourth or whatever it may be?

In this case it is doubly stupid because the women, if we assume the facts are correct is being held responsible for the sins of her spouse. Absent the actions of her husband, she is not in sin. Jesus said we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers and that should also apply to this case.

But in any case witholding, Jesus from anybody is selfish and contradicts what Jesus taught, so it is basically a moot point anyway if we use what Jesus taught as a standard. Now Paul has other stories and other standards and if we give priority to what Paul taught, the church’s policies regarding communion make sense.

Peace

 

[JimG]

It is Jesus’ words about divorce and adultery that the Church relies upon in its teachings about marriage, not Paul’s. It was Jesus who said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her.” The Church simply takes his word seriously.

Forgiveness is always possible. But forgiveness always presupposes that one intends to give up the sin.

When one is already in a valid marriage, any subsequent attempted marriage constitues adultery, according to Jesus’ own teaching. If the original marriage was of such a frivolous nature as not to constitute a marriage at all, that fact must be demonstrated so that the marriage may be recognized as null.

It’s not so hard to understand, just difficult to accept, given that the world’s view of marriage is often so different from Jesus’s and the Church’s.

JimG

 

[rfk]

ricatholic:

I would suggest that the church’s views on the worthiness of reception are not really based on sound principles, …
The church standards on worthiness to receive Jesus in the context of adultery are nonsense.

Bottom line, you reject clear Church teaching and you reject clear Church authority. As a heretic, your credibility on any issue ranks at zero, so just go away.

From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[ricatholic]

JimG:

It is Jesus’ words about divorce and adultery that the Church relies upon in its teachings about marriage, not Paul’s. It was Jesus who said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her.” The Church simply takes his word seriously.

Forgiveness is always possible. But forgiveness always presupposes that one intends to give up the sin.

When one is already in a valid marriage, any subsequent attempted marriage constitues adultery, according to Jesus’ own teaching. If the original marriage was of such a frivolous nature as not to constitute a marriage at all, that fact must be demonstrated so that the marriage may be recognized as null.

It’s not so hard to understand, just difficult to accept, given that the world’s view of marriage is often so different from Jesus’s and the Church’s.

JimG

Please read what you quoted, this women divorced no one yet she can’t receive Jesus.

And the church’s views on marriage have changed, it is no longer the chattell marriage of the OT or middle ages. And with the lack of forgiveness shown it only makes Jesus’ message a farce.

And this is not even to speak to the validity of the annulment process which can say that a marriage of 25 years and 6 children and numerous fights and reconciliations and could never have “really” happened.

Jesus was not only wise, He was practical. Sin is about intent and if people are truelly having sex to complete a second marriage than their intent is not to commit adultery.

But it really isn’t about intent or intent to continue sinning for the church or else it would apply to other situations of moral seriousness involving sex as well.

Peace

 

[Brad]

ricatholic:

To believe that a person who is in another marriage, whether the church recognises it or not sins by completing the new marriage is stupid.

Which bond does Jesus want us to break? The first or the second or third or fourth or whatever it may be?

In this case it is doubly stupid because the women, if we assume the facts are correct is being held responsible for the sins of her spouse. Absent the actions of her husband, she is not in sin. Jesus said we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers and that should also apply to this case.

But in any case witholding, Jesus from anybody is selfish and contradicts what Jesus taught, so it is basically a moot point anyway if we use what Jesus taught as a standard. Now Paul has other stories and other standards and if we give priority to what Paul taught, the church’s policies regarding communion make sense.

Peace

Sin is the issue here. Hey, nobody’s judging - we all do it - we all need confession, we all need God’s grace to rescue us from sin. However, one thing we can never, ever do is say sin is ok.

In this situation, the much bigger issue is sin, not the embarrassment of not receiving Jesus Christ as Mass. Believe you me, we all need to look a little harder at ourselves before we receive almighty God Himself, who poured out His blood for us, in the Eucharist. It’s not just people in this situation - it’s all of us that sin during the week, don’t go to confession, and still receive the Body of Christ.

We cannot say sin is ok. The incredible number of divorces, couples with so many annulments granted, has misdirected the thoughts of so many. We are trying to get through the system rather than conform our lives to Jesus Christ.

Marriage is intended to be permanent. There are many reasons for this. It is because we look at it so temporarily that we move to saying all these different kinds of relationships are ok for raising children. We must obey Jesus Christ and not try to find a priest or Biship that will squeak us by. That puts us on the wrong path - a path that could put our soul in jeopardy.

This woman’s committment to the Church at any cost (living as brother and sister until this is resolved) may be jus what the husband needs to ultimately convert to Jesus and enter His Church. God has plans that we cannot imagine. Never give up on Him. He will set us free if we rely on Him.

 

[fix]

Who are we to say that Jesus will not help anybody who has even the slightest belief in Him

We have no authority. The Church has the authority. The Pope and bishops in union with him have the authority. Thet were annointed by Christ, you were not.

Your views are just that, your private views. They are objectively incorrect because they conflict with the objective truth.

 

[fix]

ricatholic:

To believe that a person who is in another marriage, whether the church recognises it or not sins by completing the new marriage is stupid.

No, to sin and say it is not sin is stupid, or rather, demonic.

Which bond does Jesus want us to break? The first or the second or third or fourth or whatever it may be?

He breaks no bond. That is the point. Once married, always married, until death.

In this case it is doubly stupid because the women, if we assume the facts are correct is being held responsible for the sins of her spouse. Absent the actions of her husband, she is not in sin. Jesus said we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers and that should also apply to this case.

Nonsense. She is not responsible for her husband’s sins. Stop spinning.

 

[fix]

ricatholic:

Please read what you quoted, this women divorced no one yet she can’t receive Jesus.

And the church’s views on marriage have changed, it is no longer the chattell marriage of the OT or middle ages. And with the lack of forgiveness shown it only makes Jesus’ message a farce.

And this is not even to speak to the validity of the annulment process which can say that a marriage of 25 years and 6 children and numerous fights and reconciliations and could never have “really” happened.

Jesus was not only wise, He was practical. Sin is about intent and if people are truelly having sex to complete a second marriage than their intent is not to commit adultery.

But it really isn’t about intent or intent to continue sinning for the church or else it would apply to other situations of moral seriousness involving sex as well.

Peace

In your world, how many times may one marry and divorce?

 

[ricatholic]

fix:

We have no authority. The Church has the authority. The Pope and bishops in union with him have the authority. Thet were annointed by Christ, you were not.

Your views are just that, your private views. They are objectively incorrect because they conflict with the objective truth.

Actually they are not objectively incorrect. They may be in contrast to what the church teaches, but hey, the church has never been objective.

And if the church(institutional) wanted to be truelly objective, it would know that what it originally acknowledged as being the church by Jesus (the congregation) we would have been a higher priority in the execution of the church’s policies and actions.

Peace

 

[fix]

ricatholic:

Actually they are not objectively incorrect. They may be in contrast to what the church teaches, but hey, the church has never been objective.

And if the church(institutional) wanted to be truelly objective, it would know that what it originally acknowledged as being the church by Jesus (the congregation) we would have been a higher priority in the execution of the church’s policies and actions.

Peace

You obviously hold heretical views. The Church has the fullness of truth. She teaches and is custodian of all that Christ has revealed to us. That is objective truth. You reject that.

I asked you before if you are a Catholic? Are you?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The issue here is sexual activity outside of the marital union is a sin.

One can not enter into a vaild marriage unless they are free to do so. One of the criteria to do so is that one is no currently married.

Now this woman’s husband was previously married. The Church errs on the side of the marriage so without a decree of nullity, this first marriage is looked at as vaild. Even with a civil divorce, a civil divorce has nothing to do with a sacramental marriage.

Now if this man goes though the process of an annulment and it is determined that his marriage (first one) is vaild then this current marriage can not be vaild and they will continue to sin.

This woman made the mistake of marring a man who was not free to marry. It is her fault to. She is sinning by living as a married couple outside of the bonds of a sacramental marriage.

This is the constant Teaching of the Catholic Church.

The focus of this thread as steered by the the title is misleading. This issue has nothing to do with the “husband” and everything to do with the woman living in sin.