Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[otjm]

What percentage of Roman Catholic marriages are valid? the Pope said that according to Cardinal Quarracino, it is only 50%. Would it be better to marry in the Orthodox Church where a much greater percentage of marriages are valid?
zenit.org/articles/francis-press-conference-on-return-flight-from-brazil-part-2/

it would not surprise me in the least if it were 50% or more. Given the extremely poor catechesis starting in the early 70’s - if not before - and no real clean up of that until the early 90’s - and that only gradually, we have last two generations.

Additionally, several years ago, Cara did a survey of Mass attendance by age group. The highest attendance was those over 50; the 18 to 29 was the lowest (which compares to catechesis, coupled with parents who were not well catechized). If you don’t know your faith, it is not too likely you will follow it.

Somewhat related to that was another CARA study, concerning decrees of nullity. 7% of divorced Catholics had received a decree; and 8% had not, but had at least started the process (so, they may have had an interview with a priest and not pursued it further, all the way to presenting the case and not been granted one). That leaves 85% of divorced Catholics who have not even started the process.

There were no notes as to how many of the 85% may have remarried without one - meaning, for the largest part, that they likely no longer attend Mass, or may ahve left the Church entirely.

The other side of the coin: less than 30% have divorced.

As to Orthodox I cannot say, as I have no knowledge of either their catechesis or process.

 

[otjm]

Well, the situation with divorce alone can be traumatic, so I can certainly understand that a spouse might react strongly to a decree of nullity.

However, what would a spouse thinks who discovers his or her marriage has been covertly declared null in the mere word of the other participant with no evidence by an untrained priest?

That is a good question.

I don’t know how many divorced people you know; some percentage are not going to even know it occurred as they have no contact with the ex. Others may have contact, but have no knowledge of whether the spouse, who is now remarried, goes to church or not. And then there will be some who knows the ex goes to church, but not whether or not they receive Communion, or have made some resolution concerning the marriage. So it is entirely possible in many circumstances, that the spouse will not know if the ex has even discussed the matter with a priest, let alone come to any conclusion.

And as to your comment about untrained priests - I am not exactly sure where you are coming up with that. I doubt there are a whole lot of priests who would qualify as “untrained” if they have been around for any length of time. Priests seem to be the person who starts the process with a divorced person, so they need some training in the canonical elements of validity/lack of validity; some (though few) may be Canon lawyers; some may actually work in a tribunal; so your “untrained priest” covers a whole lot of ground that doesn’t exactly fit the mold of someone out there, ordained but completely naive and totally removed from the tribunal process.

The shortage of priests has left us with an occasional individual who may have somewhere between 2 to 5 years post ordination before he is a pastor’ but there are priests pastoring who have 40 years post ordination. I kind of doubt they would be considered “untrained”. And with the younger priests I know, they rely on assistance from senior priests. It is not exactly like they are out in the tulies 50 miles from the nearest grocery store, let alone another parish. Well, maybe some parts of Montanan and Wyoming…

 

[EleanorArr]

It’s Interesting that taking a vow, living with a spouse for 20 years, and having children doesn’t necessarily mean you were married, but if on the other hand you divorce and remarry you are objectively without doubt committing adultery. What’s good for the goose!

What’s more bizarre or interesting depending on one’s view, is that if one murders one’s spouse, and later (presumably during prison visits) gets into another relationship and marries again, one may at once receive Holy Communion (assuming the murder and any other sins are properly confessed, of course) - but divorcing that spouse instead, perhaps because of the threat of violence, does not ipso facto allow one on remarriage to take Communion…

For some reason the old adage that ‘however many marriages end in divorce, all the others end in death’ keeps coming to mind…

 

[St_Francis]

That is a good question.

I don’t know how many divorced people you know; some percentage are not going to even know it occurred as they have no contact with the ex. Others may have contact, but have no knowledge of whether the spouse, who is now remarried, goes to church or not. And then there will be some who knows the ex goes to church, but not whether or not they receive Communion, or have made some resolution concerning the marriage. So it is entirely possible in many circumstances, that the spouse will not know if the ex has even discussed the matter with a priest, let alone come to any conclusion.

That was a rhetorical question. Or were you suggesting that an investigation not be undertaken if the result might upset someone?

And as to your comment about untrained priests - I am not exactly sure where you are coming up with that. I doubt there are a whole lot of priests who would qualify as “untrained” if they have been around for any length of time. Priests seem to be the person who starts the process with a divorced person, so they need some training in the canonical elements of validity/lack of validity; some (though few) may be Canon lawyers; some may actually work in a tribunal; so your “untrained priest” covers a whole lot of ground that doesn’t exactly fit the mold of someone out there, ordained but completely naive and totally removed from the tribunal process.

The shortage of priests has left us with an occasional individual who may have somewhere between 2 to 5 years post ordination before he is a pastor’ but there are priests pastoring who have 40 years post ordination. I kind of doubt they would be considered “untrained”. And with the younger priests I know, they rely on assistance from senior priests. It is not exactly like they are out in the tulies 50 miles from the nearest grocery store, let alone another parish. Well, maybe some parts of Montanan and Wyoming…

In addition to untrained priests, there are the issues of lack of evidence and a single witness. Have you ever spoken to a spouse who was getting a divorce and then later the wife? The two sides can sound completely opposite.

The lack of training is the least of these factors.

 

[roseofshannon]

Here is the “Pastoral guidance” that was given to my Dad:

My Dad had affairs and left my Mom after more than 40 years of marriage.

He lives on a golf course and she lives in a mobile home…you do the math. (He told her she wouldn’t get a dime!)

My Mom applied for an annulment but it was denied.

After seeing my Dad and his girlfriend (the one he met in an “anointed moment”, not the earlier one which was “sent by God”) frequently at daily Mass, his pastor told them that since they are clearly in love he would marry them.

So the pastor performed a “Catholic wedding” for them at morning mass–without an annulment.

My Dad has been a leader in the Church for many, many years and has photos of himself kissing Pope JPII’s ring and standing with Cardinal Ratzinger which he loves to share.

He leads a Catholic Men’s Bible Study, in his parish, gives retreats and brings communion to the sick.

As the patriarch of our family with many grandchildren, he is bringing scandal to my kids as well as many others.

I have written to him imploring him to please repent before it is too late. He is now 80 and has cancer. He responds that I am judging him and haven’t forgiven him.

I shared with him what the Catechism says, that no repentance means no mercy:

136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

I tell him that I love him, forgive him, and I don’t want any harm to come to him. I want to be in Heaven with him!

I don’t think this new development from Pope Francis will help very much.

Please friends, if you see this say a prayer for my Dad that he might have the grace to repent before he dies, and also for the priest that “married” them.

Also pray for our Dear Pope Francis, the Bishops and all the priests.

 

[St_Francis]

There are several issues with black-and-white moralism. One can be a fear that somehow, left on their own, people will make bad choices; they want an authority to tell them exactly what to do/not do; they can then effectively turn over the responsibility for their choices to the authority. Which is another way of saying that some people are still in a very immature status of emotional growth; they have a very child-like position of expecting the authority to make their decisions simple and easy.

Another issue can be seen in the elder brother. His response to the father is that he “did exactly what the father expected of him”, and he never received any reward for following the law exactly. In that, he had company with the Pharisees, whom Christ constantly berated for seeing only the letter of the law, and never its intent nor its fullness.

Does it really appear to you that these are the only possibilities to explain why some people value the role and rule of law?

 

[roseofshannon]

Interestingly enough, my Dad was a guest of Bishop Cordes at the Pre-Synod in Rome back in the late 70’s where they were debating this same topic. I recently saw a quote from the good Bishop, (Now Cardinal) about it:

German Cardinal Paul Cordes, the retired head of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum,” knows for a fact how long some church leaders and theologians have been seeking a possible penitential process or other procedure that would allow the divorced and remarried to receive Communion without an annulment or that promise of sexual abstinence.

In the 1970s, he was appointed secretary of a task force set up by the bishops of Germany, Switzerland and Austria to find what he described as a “loophole of mercy.” The experience, he wrote, proved that even “theological and canonical acrobatics” cannot defend giving those couples Communion while effectively teaching that marriage is indissoluble."

Sadly, I believe this is evidence that my Dad’s conscience was indeed fully formed on the matter.

 

[irenaeus1]

1. the pope is not teaching - this is not aimed at pew sitters; it is aimed at bishops, and hose ordained who serve under him. The title itself says “exhortation”.

The exhortation is addressed to bishops, priests, deacons, Christian married couples, and to the entire lay faithful. You seemed to have missed the title page.

I woud suggest you get out your copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read what it has to say about conscience, and culpability for sin. You see in black and white; the CCC is a tad bit more nuanced. And the Pope is not saying that is outside the CCC.

You need to read Post #473 by asd72 as well as others who have posted that culpability is not the issue here, but rather the objective state of sin, which the CCC also states in regards to divorced and remarried couples.

 

[Pulvis]

How long before the “spirit of A.L.” takes hold?

 

[Emperor_Markus]

When it comes to church annulments, I think we need to make them as difficult to procure as possible. I believe divorce is only acceptable in the case of abuse, desertion, or adultery.

 

[EleanorArr]

Please friends, if you see this say a prayer for my Dad that he might have the grace to repent before he dies, and also for the priest that “married” them.

Also pray for our Dear Pope Francis, the Bishops and all the priests.

In my prayers, roseofshannon. God bless you.

 

[JimG]

Well, the situation with divorce alone can be traumatic, so I can certainly understand that a spouse might react strongly to a decree of nullity.

However, what would a spouse thinks who discovers his or her marriage has been covertly declared null in the mere word of the other participant with no evidence by an untrained priest?

Indeed, I think a spouse would react more strongly to a decree of nullity than even the divorce which likely preceded it. I have known several couples who were married for 20 or 30 years, with grown children, when one of the parties but not the other, decided the marriage was null from the beginning and sought a decree of nullity—successfully.

The other party was often quite bitter about it. Here was a spouse who had professed vows of permanence and fidelity till death, in front of God, the priest, and a church full of people, who had gone through marriage prep together, been found ready to be married, and made solemn vows. And now the partner was saying, “but I didn’t really mean it. I didn’t know what I was doing.”

It’s hard to try to prove that a spouse meant what he or she said 30 years ago when he denies it now. How can anyone be sure their marriage vows mean anything? Is it so hard to take vows and mean them? To make a binding promise and keep it? It seems easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a mortgage. A mortgage company is not going to credit your state of mind when you signed the mortgage.

 

[Yeoman]

I can’t agree with the suggestion that there is nothing new here that I’m seeing in some quarters. There is, but not clearly, or not in a clear fashion, which is noted above. That is the problem, or I fear it will become one.

What the Pope seems to be suggesting is that in this current confused age there are some, including some in the pews, whose marriages are irregular but because the regularity of marriage in general in our society is now so messed up, they may not know it. And I’m sure that’s true. The bad job of religious education in the 1970s and the widespread adoption and acceptance of no fault divorce, and even the somewhat general assumption (which would appear not to be inaccurate) that nearly anyone seeking an annulment will receive one) no doubt has led some Catholics to think these matters are relatively minor. Indeed, at least one returning Catholic I know told me that he and his fiance did not intend to wait for her annulment to come through before they were civilly married, given their ages, which seems to presuppose that there is both an inevitability to their coming through and no problem with ignoring the Church on this issue. So, I suspect, the Pope is acknowledging that some may be truly ignorant of the sinful nature of their arrangements.

Even if that’s true, however, his statements also seem to suggest that such person’s should approach their Priest and seek advice from him. It’s hard not to see how, in that situation, the Priest would not be obligated to advice such persons on the Church’s ancient position and advise them to start down the proper road to address it, rather than essentially sanctioning it. But maybe what he means is that in some rare circumstances the situation is so confused that the sinful conduct may be doubtful and we should err on the side of the doubt.

Be that as it may, to even attempt to determine what is meant we have to engage in such speculation that the end result is to almost inevitably concede that this text, without clarification, is going to result in an assumption by many that “the Pope said this is okay if I believe it is”, with some assuming that being Priests. And so marriage will be weakened. Indeed, even though I respect the Pope, I feel that my Catholic marriage has been weakened in its meaning a bit by this, as the Pope is suggesting that what I’ve always believed, that a Catholic marriage may not be dissolved without a declaration of nullity and remarriage ignoring that is sinful, isn’t quite true, even if he didn’t quite mean that. This may be a popular decision amongst some who found that a hard thing to live up to, but we’ve never been a religion whose lessons were designed to accommodate man, but rather to convey the message of God.

I wonder if this is another area where Pope Francis might not quite understand the nature of things in the northern hemisphere of the Western World where the social pressure is towards “anything you want to do is okay” and people accommodate their religious beliefs to their personal ones. Indeed, more and more I hope that our next Pope (and no, I’m not wishing for a short reign here) is chosen, he’ll be either from the vibrant and growing African Church or the vibrant but embattled American one. Strong clarity of belief and tradition is what has kept us strong, and weakening that does not help us. If the age does not comport to our beliefs, that’s no reason to weaken them or risk weakening them.

I hope we see some clarification on this statement.

 

[roseofshannon]

It seems easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a mortgage. A mortgage company is not going to credit your state of mind when you signed the mortgage.

 

[roseofshannon]

I can’t agree with the suggestion that there is nothing new here that I’m seeing in some quarters. There is, but not clearly, or not in a clear fashion, which is noted above. That is the problem, or I fear it will become one.

What the Pope seems to be suggesting is that in this current confused age there are some, including some in the pews, whose marriages are irregular but because the regularity of marriage in general in our society is now so messed up, they may not know it. And I’m sure that’s true. The bad job of religious education in the 1970s and the widespread adoption and acceptance of no fault divorce, and even the somewhat general assumption (which would appear not to be inaccurate) that nearly anyone seeking an annulment will receive one) no doubt has led some Catholics to think these matters are relatively minor. Indeed, at least one returning Catholic I know told me that he and his fiance did not intend to wait for her annulment to come through before they were civilly married, given their ages, which seems to presuppose that there is both an inevitability to their coming through and no problem with ignoring the Church on this issue. So, I suspect, the Pope is acknowledging that some may be truly ignorant of the sinful nature of their arrangements.

Even if that’s true, however, his statements also seem to suggest that such person’s should approach their Priest and seek advice from him. It’s hard not to see how, in that situation, the Priest would not be obligated to advice such persons on the Church’s ancient position and advise them to start down the proper road to address it, rather than essentially sanctioning it. But maybe what he means is that in some rare circumstances the situation is so confused that the sinful conduct may be doubtful and we should err on the side of the doubt.

Be that as it may, to even attempt to determine what is meant we have to engage in such speculation that the end result is to almost inevitably concede that this text, without clarification, is going to result in an assumption by many that “the Pope said this is okay if I believe it is”, with some assuming that being Priests. And so marriage will be weakened. Indeed, even though I respect the Pope, I feel that my Catholic marriage has been weakened in its meaning a bit by this, as the Pope is suggesting that what I’ve always believed, that a Catholic marriage may not be dissolved without a declaration of nullity and remarriage ignoring that is sinful, isn’t quite true, even if he didn’t quite mean that. This may be a popular decision amongst some who found that a hard thing to live up to, but we’ve never been a religion whose lessons were designed to accommodate man, but rather to convey the message of God.

I wonder if this is another area where Pope Francis might not quite understand the nature of things in the northern hemisphere of the Western World where the social pressure is towards “anything you want to do is okay” and people accommodate their religious beliefs to their personal ones. Indeed, more and more I hope that our next Pope (and no, I’m not wishing for a short reign here) is chosen, he’ll be either from the vibrant and growing African Church or the vibrant but embattled American one. Strong clarity of belief and tradition is what has kept us strong, and weakening that does not help us. If the age does not comport to our beliefs, that’s no reason to weaken them or risk weakening them.

I hope we see some clarification on this statement.

Well put. Here is an example of how even though so much of AL was focused on reaffirming the permanence of marriage the “wiggle room” is the takeaway focus:

Top Five | Amoris Laetitia “The Joy of Love”
youtube.com/watch?v=KJtv611PlHI

Love seems to be defined only as acceptance and not as sacrifice, which is the highest form of love.

 

[Pug]

What’s more bizarre or interesting depending on one’s view, is that if one murders one’s spouse, and later (presumably during prison visits) gets into another relationship and marries again, one may at once receive Holy Communion (assuming the murder and any other sins are properly confessed, of course) - but divorcing that spouse instead, perhaps because of the threat of violence, does not ipso facto allow one on remarriage to take Communion…

For some reason the old adage that ‘however many marriages end in divorce, all the others end in death’ keeps coming to mind…

The situation for the murderous spouse will only turn out well for them if they murder their spouse without having a replacement spouse in mind, so that it is later on, after the murder that they pick a new person and decide to marry. Canon law is sometimes smarter than one might expect. Canon law does not allow a person to remarry if they killed their former spouse to clear the way for the paramour. (Yes, you can get a dispensation, but the Holy See probably won’t give it to you).

 

[pnewton]

Separation may prove harmful to children involved, but to be together without relations being too difficult cannot be a reason to sanction adultery. .

No one said anything about sanctioning adultery. What the Holy Father is speaking of is approaching adultery in these situations as we would any other sin, not pretending it is not a sin. In the Church, other sinners receive communion. With remarriage, as with homosexuality, there is a tendancy for those who are** not** in this situation to forget that they too have sin that they keep doing. It is easier to preach against mercy when one is not in need of that particular mercy.

I wonder how many here criticizing the Holy Father’s letter are in one of the situations he speaks of.

 

[pnewton]

Except that the IF is forbidden in cases of D&R, so not a route at all.

Then let us put aside that term and deal with the Pope Francis understanding and method of addressing these irregular marriages which meet no single category.

 

[St_Francis]

Then let us put aside that term and deal with the Pope Francis understanding and method of addressing these irregular marriages which meet no single category.

I was unable to find any information about this in the document, any determinative criteria. So I really can’t say much about a comment he put in a footnote.

 

[St_Francis]

No one said anything about sanctioning adultery. What the Holy Father is speaking of is approaching adultery in these situations as we would any other sin, not pretending it is not a sin. In the Church, other sinners receive communion. With remarriage, as with homosexuality, there is a tendancy for those who are** not** in this situation to forget that they too have sin that they keep doing. It is easier to preach against mercy when one is not in need of that particular mercy.

I wonder how many here criticizing the Holy Father’s letter are in one of the situations he speaks of.

The difference between Jack’s continually slipping back into his sin and D&R Joe’s situation is that Joe does not have a firm purpose of amendment.

Each time Joe and the woman the law regards as his 2nd wife engage in sexual activity, it is presumed to be a new sin.

So say Jack has a mistress: he goes to Confession and says, I have been unfaithful to my wife. The priest (ought to) asks if he plans to stop. If Jack says no, then his sin is not absolved and he cannot receive the Eucharist.

Joe goes into the Confessional and tells the priest about his situation. The priest (ought to) asks if Joe plans to stop, Joe says no, and the result is the same for Joe ad for Jack.

So what is the problem? The problem seems to be that some priests and bishops want Joe to be able to commit what is presumed by the Church to be a sin, *and still *be able to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, Who died in agony for us.

The Church provides a fair and proper means of sorting out Joe’s marital situation. It is is appropriately open and logical. The IFS is closed, and relies solely on the description by the person who will benefit from the process!

And in fact, sometimes the person who wants to receive is the legal spouse of the divorced person relating what has been related to him or her.