A
Noted theologian says Church could allow Communion for divorced/remarried without changing doctrine
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Archbishop Muller, cited here:
cvcomment.org/2013/10/23/communion-for-the-remarried-vatican-opens-door-to-reform-via-annulments/
T
Tomdstone
Guest
There seems to be a certain amount of support in the Catholic Church for this.
C
Casilda
Guest
Oy vey
Will they considered making this retroactive?
My parents left the church because of this! My mother tried for years to obtain an annulment from her first husband because he abandoned her when she had a child? He didn’t want children. Her family helped her move to the US to start a new life. She met my dad, a Catholic back then, they waited years but no one could find her first husband back in the old country. As I see it, the church gave up on my parents and they married civilly. They remained faithful to each other until death parted them.
Could I get a retroactive blessing of their marriage? Had the church been more merciful back then they would have married in the church.
Oy vey
This is going to open a big bag of vorms!
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Not to say you’re lying, but something about your story doesn’t add up here. The participation of the other spouse is not necessary to obtain an annulment. It is certainly helpful, but not necessary.
Oy vey
Will they considered making this retroactive?
My parents left the church because of this! My mother tried for years to obtain an annulment from her first husband because he abandoned her when she had a child? He didn’t want children. Her family helped her move to the US to start a new life. She met my dad, a Catholic back then, they waited years but no one could find her first husband back in the old country. As I see it, the church gave up on my parents and they married civilly. They remained faithful to each other until death parted them.
Could I get a retroactive blessing of their marriage? Had the church been more merciful back then they would have married in the church.
Oy vey
This is going to open a big bag of vorms!
Has she tried again recently? She should look into it. If he genuinely did not want children, and expressed as much, then she shouldn’t have any issues getting an annulment since openness to children is necessary for a valid marriage to form. (At least by my understanding).
C
Corki
Guest
And again, both of these examples ignore one very important person - the original spouse. The new couple gets forgiveness and readmittance to the Sacraments, but the original spouse is left unable to remarry in the Church because an annulment was not procured. In many cases, that third party was the “innocent” one in the divorce and stayed single because the Church said the first marriage was still valid. That person STILL won’t be able to remarry, but the guy (or gal) who left and found a newer model gets a “pass” and goes on with his/her new life. 
The obedient spouse gets the short end of the stick while the disobedient one gets a fresh start.
The obedient spouse gets the short end of the stick while the disobedient one gets a fresh start.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Camel noses get under the edge of the tent in many ways…
C
Casilda
Guest
There were witnesses, but the church staff insisted on obtaining her first husbands testimony and he couldn’t be found. She tried for about a dozen years to find out if he was dead or alive.
I am not lying. Both my parents are dead now. Why doesn’t anyone ever believe the substandard practices of some parish staff. I have had problems in my own diocese. My parents had trouble getting my sister and me baptized, because they were not ‘members’ of the church. My aunt managed to find a priest to baptize me when I was almost one year old. She was my godmother. She was one of the witnesses who knew my mom’s first husband and was happy to see my mom married to a good Catholic man and that he was helping her raise her abandoned son. My half-brother adored my dad.
I would like to retroactively have their marriage blessed.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The Church is leading more these days towards a more merciful reflection of Gods relationship with men and a more merciful attitude between men in the order of justice also.And again, both of these examples ignore one very important person - the original spouse. The new couple gets forgiveness and readmittance to the Sacraments, but the original spouse is left unable to remarry in the Church because an annulment was not procured. In many cases, that third party was the “innocent” one in the divorce and stayed single because the Church said the first marriage was still valid. That person STILL won’t be able to remarry, but the guy (or gal) who left and found a newer model gets a “pass” and goes on with his/her new life.
I was just reading about a group of people in Nebraska whose family members had been killed by people on death row. The sentence of course will now be downgraded to life in prison. It’s very hard for them. It doesn’t feel fair. That has to be addressed with compassion but in the end, it can’t influence the theological development in either the ecclesial or moral teachings of the Church. What seems like an undeserved pass for some and an undeserved rejection of others… is always going to be part of life and of the soul. I remember when my first was stillborn 26 years ago which was actually before the Church had formally reformulated its teaching regarding the fate of unbaptised infants… I was blessed to have the assurance of my uncle who is a Priest that the Church allows me to believe my baby was with Jesus. I can only think how awful it must have been for my ancestors who did not have the freedom to believe that at such a tragic time.
We have to believe that the Church is guiding us faithfully home and that her theological work has a greater role for us and those faithful to come after us, than what we want for ourselves.
C
Corki
Guest
What does that have to do with divorced and remarried Catholics?
The Church can and should show mercy but not at the expense of the innocent. In the example I gave, the wife stayed single for over 20 years. The Church said her marriage was valid and so she abided by that decision. Her ex and his new (younger) wife married outside of the Church and eventually came around to a point of returning to the practice of the faith. They are all good people. But why should the man who cheated on his wife, married outside of the Chuch and all but abandoned his first family be the recipient of “mercy” while his wife can never remarry (unless he dies)? How is that merciful or just? I would have a very hard time accepting that.
J
JimG
Guest
I am not familiar with tribunal procedures. I presume that they have changed over the past sixty years or so. In the past it may have been more difficult to have a favorable decision as to nullity.
With the changes in society since the 1960’s and before, it seems to be very difficult for many people even to form a proper idea of marital consent. I can understand that there could be cases which were denied due to lack of evidence that might be granted now.
The one case I am familiar with is that of my aunt, whose first husband simply abandoned her after a short time. Her application for a decree of nullity was denied, but this was in an era of very few annulments—or divorces, for that matter.
She did in fact remarry, but it did not become an obstacle to her with the Church. She still attended Mass weekly, was active in the parish, and knew the pastor well. She did not receive communion. That was not particularly uncommon, either. I once asked her why she did not pursue an appeal, especially after the rules seemed to have been broadened somewhat. But she just said that she accepted the tribunal’s decision.
If the process is changed to favor a more ‘merciful’ outcome, I think it would be a mistake not to formally declare the original marriage null. It would simply be a contradiction to recognize a second marriage without declaring the first one null. One can’t be validly married to two persons at once. And if one is in an invalid union, then one should refrain from communion until it is regularized.
With the changes in society since the 1960’s and before, it seems to be very difficult for many people even to form a proper idea of marital consent. I can understand that there could be cases which were denied due to lack of evidence that might be granted now.
The one case I am familiar with is that of my aunt, whose first husband simply abandoned her after a short time. Her application for a decree of nullity was denied, but this was in an era of very few annulments—or divorces, for that matter.
She did in fact remarry, but it did not become an obstacle to her with the Church. She still attended Mass weekly, was active in the parish, and knew the pastor well. She did not receive communion. That was not particularly uncommon, either. I once asked her why she did not pursue an appeal, especially after the rules seemed to have been broadened somewhat. But she just said that she accepted the tribunal’s decision.
If the process is changed to favor a more ‘merciful’ outcome, I think it would be a mistake not to formally declare the original marriage null. It would simply be a contradiction to recognize a second marriage without declaring the first one null. One can’t be validly married to two persons at once. And if one is in an invalid union, then one should refrain from communion until it is regularized.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
But there must be loads of other scenarios where the abandoned spouse has fallen in love again and married. Wouldn’t it be fair too that that spouse was given the opportunity to live the faith inside a loving marriage? It seems like you’ve locked on to one scenario that doesn’t reflect the wider reality that is being addressed theologically. Many of those in the second scenario who did nothing wrong, are condemned to lifelong exclusion from the sacraments or lifelong forced singleness. The issue can’t be addressed like a political sides thing.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
If marriage is indissoluble, how is it fair to give someone the opportunity to marry again?
C
Corki
Guest
It’s not just one scenario. In the past few parishes where I have attended, the person who left (or cheated, or was abusive, etc) is usually the one that gets remarried and eventually pursues an annulment not the abandoned one. The innocent spouse is much more likely to try for an annulment first rather than remarrying first. Another common scenario is a never married Catholic who wants to marry a divorcee but can’t. But even if it was only 1/4 of the cases, how can the Church only be merciful to one of the spouses and ignore the other? That spouse who remained single can now try to remarry herself (at a much older age) and then go and try to get “mercy” but wouldn’t that be the sin of presumption? It seems like the Church is saying that marriage is permanent for one spouse but not for the other. If there is a theological explanation for this, it hasn’t been presented yet.
O
OraLabora
Guest
What prevents the original (presumably jilted) spouse from seeking an annulment even though the ex- wouldn’t have to?And again, both of these examples ignore one very important person - the original spouse. The new couple gets forgiveness and readmittance to the Sacraments, but the original spouse is left unable to remarry in the Church because an annulment was not procured. In many cases, that third party was the “innocent” one in the divorce and stayed single because the Church said the first marriage was still valid. That person STILL won’t be able to remarry, but the guy (or gal) who left and found a newer model gets a “pass” and goes on with his/her new life.
In any case I think everything I’ve read so far is that these things would be taken on a case-by-case basis. Someone dumping their spouse for a “newer model” wouldn’t get as easy a pass as the “older model” who was dumped but has since started a new life with someone else.
At this point it is all moot because nothing official has come out of the process. Perhaps we can trust in the Church and her leaders to do the right thing, no matter what they decide for or against communion for the remarried.
B
Brendan
Guest
I saw nothing in the article as to why this would theologically so, unless this is reference to a Petrine Privilege case.
If so, it would have been nice if they had mentioned that.
C
Colorad007
Guest
That doesn’t really make a lot of sense, I’m afraid. The "marriage"you’re talking about isn’t a marriage at all if the original marriage is deemed valid.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Presumably the jilted spouse already tried some years ago, but was told by the Church the marriage was valid. How can the Church reverse what theyve already declared as a valid marriage?
Meanwhile the guilty spouse who re-married in opposition to Church teaching, comes around now that the Church is offering mercy in abundance, and he’s perfectly fine in the eyes of God all of a sudden with the wave of a hand.
Im with Corki on that one. Not just or merciful to the innocent spouse.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
True theoretically, but in Africa, there are Catholic families where the husband has 2 wives.
C
Corki
Guest
I actually know two women in this situation. One had filed for an annulment but was denied. The other never filed. After she met with the priest, she said she couldn’t, in good conscience, come up with any grounds that her marriage was invalid. After a long marriage, her husband simply decided he wanted something different. Mid-life crisis, I guess. But she just didn’t have anything to go on to pursue a tribunal case.
Some people seem to think that all or most marriages can be found invalid if the annulment process is pursued. But that’s not really the case. There are lots of remarried people whose first marriages are really valid. Sure, some marriages break up due to a defect in the original attempt but other break up due to nothing more than sin (adultery, unfaithfulness, abandonment) which isn’t by itself grounds for annulment.
- Status