Pope Francis: Divorced Catholics who remarry are not 'excommunicated.'

[Ender]

That is the understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas. Though his theology has been very influential in the Church, his understanding it is not necessarily the Church’s understanding.

Given that St. Thomas is the greatest theologian in church history it would seem prudent to accept what he said as true unless there was a specific reason to reject it, rather than to reject it on the possibility that it may not be correct.

Several recent Pope’s have preferred the writings of St. Augustine.

I really doubt that any pope would make such a suggestion. Besides, this makes it seem as if the two great doctors were at odds with one another, which is quite doubtful.

And there are many differences between the two theologians.

I’m sure they had minor differences, but I seriously doubt that those differences were either common or great.

Here is a quote from St. Augustine concerning Matthew 7.1:

“Concerning those things then, that are known to God, unknown to us, we judge our neighbors at our peril. Of this the Lord has said, *Judge not.” –Sermon 202 de Tempore, St. Augustine

There is nothing here that conflicts with what St. Thomas said. What Augustine says here is that we may not judge things unknown to us, which is not only what Aquinas said but he specifically cited Augustine in making his point.*In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. *

What I actually said in my comment #214 is as follows:

“That divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment are in the state of mortal sin as the result of their first marriage is a presumption. Matthew 7.1 tells us that Christ said we should not judge others lest we be so judged.”

I cannot see how my comment disagrees with what, in fact, St. Augustine said about Matthew 7.1. To “presume” means to assume for a fact what is “unknown to us”. But surely, whether a person in this situation is in moral sin or not is known to God and not by us.

You make too much of the fact that without direct observation we cannot know that adultery is occurring, and too little of the fact that their outward behavior implies it.* Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives - such as, for example, the upbringing of the children - “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio*, n. 84),* and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. **Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. ***(Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)
The point being made here is that people living in irregular unions are naturally presumed to be living immorally. Their immoral situation is manifest so even if their behavior is in fact moral, as it is unknown (occult), they would not be permitted to publicly receive communion because of scandal. If I deliberately create the impression that I am behaving immorally it is not a rash judgment to assume that my behavior is in fact immoral.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

You make too much of the fact that without direct observation we cannot know that adultery is occurring, and too little of the fact that their outward behavior implies it.

Ender

And that is not a judgment that scandalizes them?

 

[Thomas_White]

Given that St. Thomas is the greatest theologian in church history it would seem prudent to accept what he said as true unless there was a specific reason to reject it, rather than to reject it on the possibility that it may not be correct.
I really doubt that any pope would make such a suggestion. Besides, this makes it seem as if the two great doctors were at odds with one another, which is quite doubtful.
I’m sure they had minor differences, but I seriously doubt that those differences were either common or great.
There is nothing here that conflicts with what St. Thomas said. What Augustine says here is that we may not judge things unknown to us, which is not only what Aquinas said but he specifically cited Augustine in making his point.In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states.
You make too much of the fact that without direct observation we cannot know that adultery is occurring, and too little of the fact that their outward behavior implies it.* Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives - such as, for example, the upbringing of the children - “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio*, n. 84),* and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. **Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. ***(Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)
The point being made here is that people living in irregular unions are naturally presumed to be living immorally. Their immoral situation is manifest so even if their behavior is in fact moral, as it is unknown (occult), they would not be permitted to publicly receive communion because of scandal. If I deliberately create the impression that I am behaving immorally it is not a rash judgment to assume that my behavior is in fact immoral.

Ender

In reply, I might cite the works of Immanuel Kant for an explanation of knowledge, but then he was a philosopher. But, then again, as a major philosopher, he was very likely familiar with Summa Theologica and would have known philosophy differs from doctrine. I guess I could mention Rene Descartes, but I’d better not for a document is about to be cited in which his philosophy does not receive so good a review. So, I will try Shakespeare.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are drempt of in your philosophy.”
–Hamlet, Act I, Scene V

Okay, that backfired. So I will cite instead paragraphs 106-108 of Laudato Si. But, alas, I am using my iPad, and it just won’t copy and paste. I guess I could mention that the cultural paradigm has not yet resolved everything, but that really is getting too complex. Nevertheless, there is a difference between matter-of-fact and Importance. A.N. Whitehead explains this in Modes of Thought. It concerns the necessity of an adequate sketch of generality for an understanding of the matter-of-fact. Very briefly, what this means could be said that to understand mere facts a broader context is necessary if they are to be given meaning. It is, in its largest sense, the difference between science and religion and of reason and faith.

There is more than one reason I might not care to continue discussion of complex issues on any forum. In light of that, please excuse if my replies are themselves becoming too complex for some. But this is necessary if I am to continue to reply in good faith to yours. I am only trying.

Peace.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Not possible.

One is not held responsible for the actions of their parents, according to the principles of ecumenism, among other things.

I love how eager we are to disregard others’ personal experiences.

 

[Tomdstone]

One is not held responsible for the actions of their parents, according to the principles of ecumenism, among other things.

I thought that all humankind, being the children of Adam and Eve, were receptors of original sin, due to the sinful actions of their parents, Adam and Eve. The children of Adam and Eve did not commit original sin but it was passed on to them because of something their parents, Adam and Eve, did wrong?

 

[Thomas_White]

If my neighbor lives alone but is frequently seen dating women it would be a rash judgment to assume they are having sex.

Ender

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first known use of the word “rash” was in 1509. This was well before the time of either St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine. As I explained in comment #255, St. Augustine also included the words “envious” and “detractive” as examples in his discussion of the phrase Judge not of Matthew 7.1. I explained that the Latin root of the word “rash” means “to hurt, injure”. Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas wrote their works in Latin.

One common definition of “rash” is that it is the result of contact with something that causes an injury (to the skin). If the Latin word translated as “rash” is used as an adjective along with the noun “judgment”, it is only properly understood in Matthew 7.1 as meaning something that causes an injury. That it means “hasty” or “hurried without due consideration” would not provide the proper contex of its usage (not to again note that the word “rash” does not even have a known use prior to 1509).That the word has several definitions strongly suggests those definitions are etymologically related.

A “rash” judgment is a judgment that would cause injury, and one who would judge rashly would do well to first take the beam out of their own eye.

 

[Ender]

I am quite sure that judging that one’s neighbor is committing adultery, though unknown to us and a presumption, would be to judge in peril as provided in Matthew 7.1.

It is not all presumptions that are prohibited, but only those that are unwarranted.*He becomes guilty… of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor *(CCC 2477)Clearly one may make assumptions about another person’s behavior if there is “sufficient foundation” for that judgment. Aquinas addressed this point as it pertains to scandal.*Hence the Apostle says (1 Thessalonians 5:22): “From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.” Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something done “less rightly,” so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil. *(ST II-II 43, 1-2)
Ender

 

[Ender]

I explained that the Latin root of the word “rash” means “to hurt, injure”.

That meaning comports with the way St. Thomas used the word - whatever the Latin word was that he used - and with the way the church uses the term today. In examining the same question where he explained the meaning of Mt 7:1 viz. “In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment…”, he goes on to say:…unless we have evident indications of a person’s wickedness, we ought to deem him good, by interpreting for the best whatever is doubtful about him…He who interprets doubtful matters for the best, may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former."

A “rash” judgment is a judgment that would cause injury…

This is not the full extent of the word’s meaning, but it is surely part of it.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

That meaning comports with the way St. Thomas used the word - whatever the Latin word was that he used - and with the way the church uses the term today. In examining the same question where he explained the meaning of Mt 7:1 viz. “In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment…”, he goes on to say:…unless we have evident indications of a person’s wickedness, we ought to deem him good, by interpreting for the best whatever is doubtful about him…He who interprets doubtful matters for the best, may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former."
This is not the full extent of the word’s meaning, but it is surely part of it.

Ender

In the question of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received an annullment, the presumption of adultery is in error if there are not “evident indications” of it. I am sorry if I failed to make this clear, but it was meant to be the point of my original comment. If this was unclear the fault was mine, but it was what I meant. There is also more that also requires clarification, I believe.

The question of judgment when adultery is known for a fact (i.e., with “evident implication”) is really a separation one. But I do not believe “judgment” is even then justified, and I will explain why. It concerns either case (i.e., whether there is “evident indication” or not).

It concerns John 5:26-27:

“For as the Father hath life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself: And he has giveth him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man.”

I would agree that should one learn for a fact that a person is committing adultery, it would not be an error to say, “Yes, adultery is sinful, and a person who commits adultery has sinned.” That I think is an objective conclusion and the only sensible one. The disagreement, if there really is one, concerns what in this context it means to then “judge” the objective sin. The verse quoted from John concerns the Last Judgment. Surely, this sort of moral judgment is for Christ. That is what I have meant to say–that judgment. It is not for us to make.

Perhaps with this clarification there is no real disagreement.

 

[Ender]

In the question of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received an annullment, the presumption of adultery is in error if there are not “evident indications” of it. I am sorry if I failed to make this clear, but it was meant to be the point of my original comment. If this was unclear the fault was mine, but it was what I meant. There is also more that also requires clarification, I believe.

In the question of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received an annulment, the presumption is that they are living in adultery. The fact that they have remarried without an annulment is the evident indication. This is precisely why they cannot receive communion publicly.

If it is the state of the re-marriage that is not known - whether or not it came after an annulment - then it should not be presumed to be invalid. If the marriage is known to be invalid, however, it is appropriate to assume they are behaving in a way that is normal for married couples. That is, it is reasonable to assume they are having sexual relations which is, by definition, adultery.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

In the question of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received an annulment, the presumption is that they are living in adultery. The fact that they have remarried without an annulment is the evident indication. This is precisely why they cannot receive communion publicly.

If it is the state of the re-marriage that is not known - whether or not it came after an annulment - then it should not be presumed to be invalid. If the marriage is known to be invalid, however, it is appropriate to assume they are behaving in a way that is normal for married couples. That is, it is reasonable to assume they are having sexual relations which is, by definition, adultery.

Ender

I understand that is the teaching of the Church. I also understand why this has been thought necessary. The Church has provisions for addressing it, and the question at hand does not concern those particular instances.

A presumption is not an “evident indication”. It is an assumption and not an empirical fact. To assume a couple is having sexual relations is not by definition adultery. Adultery is an act and an objective fact. To conclude that a married couple is engaging in such relations because they are married is a subjective assumption and one’s opinion. It is not a logically valid conclusion.

“If the state of the re-marriage is not known–whether or not it came after an annullment–then it should not be presumed to be invalid.”

Nor should it be presumed to be valid. To conclude a married couple is having sexual relations because they are married is contrary to the laws of logic. It is never reasonable to conclude an assumption is true within its own closed logical system. As a premise, one might say that all married couples engage in sexual relations. A second premise could be that couple X is a married couple. But the conclusion that couple X therefore engages in sexual relations does not prove that the premise that all married couples engage is sexual relations is true. The premise remains an assumption and cannot be proven in the argument.

A serious difficulty also arises with the use of the word “should”, as though it were a moral imperative that one must arrive at a conclusion from a mere assumption.

As Pope Benedict XVI said in ‘God in the Word’, revelation is not yet fully known. The full revelation will not be revealed before the end of time, and to each generation a bit more is revealed. It is a serious error to presume we know everything there is to know. It is but one more reason why man was told not to judge. Only Christ knows all there is to know, and this cannot be understood by reason. It is a matter of faith that I do not doubt.

And there is the fact Pope Francis has presented the question of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment for the Synod of Bishops to consider. It will not do to simply say if Church doctrine is followed the question is already answered, not when it is the pope raising the question. While the question will not likely be settled among those participating on this thread, there is no harm in discussing it. Pope Francis has encouraged such discussion.

 

[Ender]

I understand that is the teaching of the Church. I also understand why this has been thought necessary. The Church has provisions for addressing it, and the question at hand does not concern those particular instances.

I would have thought the discussion was ended at “that is the teaching of the Church.”

A presumption is not an “evident indication”. It is an assumption and not an empirical fact.

If the presumption was sufficient for Christ it ought to suffice for us.*Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband *commits adultery. (Lk 16:18)

To conclude that a married couple is engaging in such relations because they are married is a subjective assumption and one’s opinion. It is not a logically valid conclusion.

Au contraire, it is both logical and rational to make that assumption, and it is clearly the assumption the church makes. No one in his right mind would accept the bet where he pays a dollar for every married couple who has sex and gets a dollar for every couple who does not.

To conclude a married couple is having sexual relations because they are married is contrary to the laws of logic.

There is nothing illogical about making an assumption, nor is a conclusion based on an assumption illogical. It may not be true but it is not illogical. To assume a married couple is not having sexual relations is contrary to reason.

And there is the fact Pope Francis has presented the question of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment for the Synod of Bishops to consider.

This is too vague. Clearly the synod on the family is about ministering to those in irregular unions, but asking for that to be investigated is not the same as asking whether they should receive communion. If you believe the pope specifically raised that issue you need to show some evidence of it.

Ender

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by zz912 View Post
From the CCC:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1. Grave matter - adultery is grave matter, check.
2. Full knowledge - they know they were married in the Church and are attempting marriage outside the Church, check
3. Deliberate consent - they are freely attempting to remarry outside the church and sleeping with someone other than their spouse, check.

All three conditions are met.

It can be argued that they have not fulfilled conditions 2 and 3.

You can try arguing it. It won’t get you far.

They aren’t being forced to marry another person, so #3 is clearly fulfilled, and #2 is clear that they are attempting to marry outside the Church, as they weren’t confused about the difference between the Church building and the courthouse (or wherever they attempted a wedding).

 

[zz912]

Yes, and the point of course is that If a marriage, any marriage, is invalid how could it be the case adultery is involved? An invalid marriage is by definition not a marriage.

The key point is they haven’t gone to the Church to receive the actual decision over the marriage. So they were attempting to commit adultery, and Jesus was pretty clear that even wished-for sin is sinful.

And let’s not forget, even if they technically didn’t commit adultery, they committed fornication, because they aren’t married until the Church blesses the marriage.

 

[Thomas_White]

I would have thought the discussion was ended at “that is the teaching of the Church.”
If the presumption was sufficient for Christ it ought to suffice for us.*Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband *commits adultery. (Lk 16:18)
Au contraire, it is both logical and rational to make that assumption, and it is clearly the assumption the church makes. No one in his right mind would accept the bet where he pays a dollar for every married couple who has sex and gets a dollar for every couple who does not.
There is nothing illogical about making an assumption, nor is a conclusion based on an assumption illogical. It may not be true but it is not illogical. To assume a married couple is not having sexual relations is contrary to reason.
This is too vague. Clearly the synod on the family is about ministering to those in irregular unions, but asking for that to be investigated is not the same as asking whether they should receive communion. If you believe the pope specifically raised that issue you need to show some evidence of it.

Ender

Suppose the following argument:

All lawyers are male.
X is a lawyer.
Therefore, X is male.

The argument is valid. It is logical. However, the premise that all lawyers are male is an assumption, and if there is even one lawyer, Y, who is female, it is a false assumption.

What you are trying to logically prove is the premise (1.) in the following argument:

1. All married couples engage in sexual relations.
2. Couple X is married.
3. Therefore, couple X engages in sexual relations.

The argument is both logical and valid. However, as in the first example above, the premise (1) remains an assumption, and just as surely as in the first example, it is not proven by the argument. It is a false assumption if there is even one married couple that does not engage in sexual relations. As I have said, an hypothesis itself cannot be logically proven within its own argument.

The explanation provided to explain why proof is not necessary, or why the assumption of the premise suffices as proof, is this comment: “If the presumption is sufficient for Christ it ought to suffice for us.”

Seriously? What suffices for Christ, who is omniscient, ought to suffice for us? John 5:26-27 says that the Son of man was given by the Father “the power to do judgment.” Humans are not omniscient, do not know everything, and were not given this power. The Son was given this power by the Father. It allows for a just judgment by the One who know everything.

Matthew 7.1: “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” Humans, who are not omniscient, are told not to judge. To do so is to try to use a power given to the Son. For this, Christ tells us a person will be judged. This should not be taken lightly, for what would be judged is pride, the assumption that one is equal to God. It is said this is the greatest sin of all.

What is only worse is the use of the word “ought” in this sentence: “If the presumption is sufficient for Christ, it ought to suffice for us.” The word “ought” is prescriptive. It concerns the moral imperative, and I will provide a reference: The Language of Moral, R.M. Hare. To imply it is a moral imperative to violate Matthew 7.1 is not so good a position.

 

[Ender]

The argument is both logical and valid.

True, a faulty premise does not make an argument illogical. A conclusion can be wrong without being illogical.

Seriously? What suffices for Christ, who is omniscient, ought to suffice for us? John 5:26-27 says that the Son of man was given by the Father “the power to do judgment.” Humans are not omniscient, do not know everything, and were not given this power. The Son was given this power by the Father. It allows for a just judgment by the One who know everything.

Either those words of Christ apply to us or they don’t. Christ was speaking in general, and not of a particular case, so what justification is there for us to simply ignore this generality because we are not ourselves omniscient?

Matthew 7.1: “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” Humans, who are not omniscient, are told not to judge.

That this is inaccurate is demonstrated by everything the church has said on the subject.

• CCC 1807 "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but* in righteousness shall you judge** your neighbor."*
• CCC 1861 *However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

• It is not all judgment that is denied us; we are **not **"told not to judge." What is forbidden is judging someone’s culpability for an act, but the act itself we are in fact obligated to judge.*The Gospel tells us to correct others and to help them to grow on the basis of a recognition of the objective evil of their actions (cf. Mt 18:15), but without making judgments about their responsibility and culpability (cf. Mt 7:1) *(Evangelii Gaudium #172)
  How can we correct another if we are barred from judging his actions as sinful?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

You’re missing another angle. Let’s say that a person who’s been civilly married to another person, and then later receives an annulment, does that mean they were NOT in mortal sin, since their previous marriage never occurred? But we’re missing the fact that they were NOT obeying the Church, and were attempting marriage outside the Church. They went and got married before the annulment, and without permission from their bishop. That is sin.

That is objective reality.

This applies to those who are Catholic, but not those who are not, and therefore not bound by the Canon Law. You are right that it is a sin to marry outside of the precepts set for marriage, but that sin may not be adultery, and those no stated of adultery.

1. Full knowledge - they know they were married in the Church and are attempting marriage outside the Church, check

I guess this gives me the most pause. Most remarriage (the part that we call sin) I do not think is done with full knowledge. Most non-Catholic ministers I know do not consider re-marriage sinful and I would be willing to bet that it is a minority opinion, at least in this country, as a result of the way the majority of Christianity teaches. I would bet the only people who have full knowledge that remarriage is adultery are those who are the core of the Catholic faithful.

But if they’ve remarried they have done so outside the Church. Even without the impediment of a prior marriage that would render their marriage invalid.

I may be wrong here, but I thought even prior marriages (between Catholics) that were done outside of the Church also required a decree of nullity. Am I mistaken?

 

[pnewton]

The validity of the marriage is determined by the church, not by the individuals involved, and the marriage is presumed valid until specifically determined to be invalid.

This is something that is not a matter of doctrine, but of practice. It seems to be contradicted by this:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

I would think that while it might be practical, it is not required that the Church assumes that mortal sin exists until a tribunal is shown it does not.

 

[Thomas_White]

True, a faulty premise does not make an argument illogical. A conclusion can be wrong without being illogical.

Yes, and that all divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment are in a state of mortal sin is also an invalid conclusion if even one such person is not.

Ender:

Either those words of Christ apply to us or they don’t. Christ was speaking in general, and not of a particular case, so what justification is there for us to simply ignore this generality because we are not ourselves omniscient?
That this is inaccurate is demonstrated by everything the church has said on the subject.

Christ was speaking “in general” in John 5:26-27?

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself: And he hath given to the Son to do judgment because he is the Son of man.”

This is speaking in general? It is utterly specific and concerns only the Father and the Son. There is no generality in these two verses to ignore, and I cannot understand why it would be thought they apply to us.

That Matthew 7.1 says what it says–“Judge not”–is inaccurate? It seems to me that you are arguing that these words of Christ either do not mean anything at all or that the Father has given to us, as he has to the Son, the power to judge.

Ender:

• CCC 1807 "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but* in righteousness shall you judge*** your neighbor."
• CCC 1861 However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

It is not all judgment that is denied us; we are **not **"told not to judge." What is forbidden is judging someone’s culpability for an act, but the act itself we are in fact obligated to judge.The Gospel tells us to correct others and to help them to grow on the basis of a recognition of the objective evil of their actions (cf. Mt 18:15), but without making judgments about their responsibility and culpability (cf. Mt 7:1) (Evangelii Gaudium #172)
How can we correct another if we are barred from judging his actions as sinful

CCC 1807 is speaking of impartiality and fairness, not moral judgments.

What 1861 means (and says) is that we can judge that committing adultery is a grave sin (an intangible that has no soul) but we are to “entrust judgement of persons” to God. There is a reason why this distinction is made, and we cannot do both. It means that we can judge that adultery is wrong but should not judge that a person has committed adultery. There is much we could not know.

Matthew 18:15 states the following:

“But if they brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between he and thee alone.” This is not the judgment of “Judge not” of Matthew 7.1.

This is clear and means “Judge not”, as Christ means it in Matthew 7.1. We can correct others without judging.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, and that all divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment are in a state of mortal sin is also an invalid conclusion if even one such person is not.

I would think that this must happen often, as some couples receive the decree of nullity (meaning these marriages were always invalid) and then have their current marriage con-validated, meaning that it is possible that the current marriage is valid.

While these facts are known only in hindsight, they remain facts, and their for objective. Am I missing something here?

If not, then we can see that what we something think is Church doctrine on marriage, re-marriage and communion, might be just the best was to incorporate certain doctrinal facts into difficult to untangle situations. Some changes then might be possible without violating any defined doctrine.