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

[Elizium23]

I haven’t been to a single Catholic church where there haven’t been nearly 100% of the congregation receiving communion…our priests are continually telling our congregation of the need for reconciliation before communion so obviously they have good idea exactly how many do confess…that doesn’t stop nearly 100% receiving communion…

Try going to a Spanish Mass. Or any (insert non-English language) Mass. Demanding that we receive Holy Communion each and every time by everybody present is a real Anglophone thing. And personally, I think the pew-by-pew enforcement by ushers is partly to blame. If you go to a Spanish Mass you will not see any ushers herding the faithful into line. You will see people randomly getting up from their pews and forming a short ad hoc line that has no sense of precedence. You will also see fewer EMHCs. In my parish, there are four Holy Communion stations in English Masses, whilst in the Spanish Masses there are only two. And distribution goes just as fast, if not faster, in the latter Masses due to far fewer people receiving.

 

[philipl]

Unfortunately, I know of too many cases where divorced and remarried people were made to feel unwelcome because they were unable to receive an annulment and, sadly, left the Church. They have been told that they can’t receive communion and in some case even told they should abstain from sex until their marriage is “fixed” by means of getting the previous marriage(s) annulled. While such might seem logical to some, it is so unrealistic as to be impossible and absurd.

It is also quite true that when divorced and remarried parents leave the church, they take their children with them. Thank God Pope Francis sees the absurdity of allowing these losses to go on.

First, they shouldnt receive communion and they should abstain from sex until they can get an annulment. But almost everyone that tries to get an annulment can get one. So is it that they are “unable” to get an annulment or not willing to get one?

If not receiving communion it the only reason they feel unwelcome, then they need to understand catholic teachings.

 

[Ender]

To deny a Catholic communion on the basis of a perception, which by definition cannot be the observation of manifest grave sin, is indeed a moral judgment. But what would this possibly have to do with a Catholic not in the state of mortal sin?

Whether or not a divorced and remarried couple are committing the sin of adultery, they are in a situation that is objectively wrong, and for that they cannot receive publicly. If they approach a priest and assert that they are not having sexual relations then they would be allowed to receive privately. Unless they take that step, however, they are banned from receiving whether or not the sin exists. Since you have said you know what the church teaches you sure realize that these are her standards, not mine.

Please tell me how a person would be known by your perception alone to be in objective, manifest grave sin when in fact they are not?

It is enough to know that they are living in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law.

The same applies to the long discussion that began with my comment that the question of a divorced and remarried Catholic receiving communion could in part be addressed without a change in doctrine. You disputed that too and also said a change in the annullment process was not even a consideration in the question before the synod.

No, I never said the annulment process could not be changed. That is a process the church has developed and it is a process she can alter. That process is not doctrinal. I have said that the doctrines cannot change.

Ender

 

[Peebo]

Try going to a Spanish Mass. Or any (insert non-English language) Mass. Demanding that we receive Holy Communion each and every time by everybody present is a real Anglophone thing. And personally, I think the pew-by-pew enforcement by ushers is partly to blame. If you go to a Spanish Mass you will not see any ushers herding the faithful into line. You will see people randomly getting up from their pews and forming a short ad hoc line that has no sense of precedence. You will also see fewer EMHCs. In my parish, there are four Holy Communion stations in English Masses, whilst in the Spanish Masses there are only two. And distribution goes just as fast, if not faster, in the latter Masses due to far fewer people receiving.

That’s interesting…do Latinos in general have a better understanding of the Eucharist than we Catholics in the west…do they hold a much deeper reverence against receiving when they are unworthy…maybe they just don’t see not receiving communion as some sort of shame to be avoided in front of their friends or the rest of the congregation…perhaps that’s the reason why we tend to have almost 100% participation at mass…or we just do it out of habit…worthy or not…I wonder how they treat receiving the Eucharist in the Orthodox church…or the Lutheran…Anglican churches which believe in the real presence.

 

[Elizium23]

That’s interesting…do Latinos in general have a better understanding of the Eucharist than we Catholics in the west…do they hold a much deeper reverence against receiving when they are unworthy…maybe they just don’t see not receiving communion as some sort of shame to be avoided in front of their friends or the rest of the congregation…perhaps that’s the reason why we tend to have almost 100% participation at mass…or we just do it out of habit…worthy or not…I wonder how they treat receiving the Eucharist in the Orthodox church…or the Lutheran…Anglican churches which believe in the real presence.

You can get a glimpse of the entitlement complex whenever a priest denies Holy Communion to an American and they run to the media and news stories hit the presses about how mean the Catholic Church is.

 

[Thomas_White]

Whether or not a divorced and remarried couple are committing the sin of adultery, they are in a situation that is objectively wrong, and for that they cannot receive publicly. If they approach a priest and assert that they are not having sexual relations then they would be allowed to receive privately. Unless they take that step, however, they are banned from receiving whether or not the sin exists. Since you have said you know what the church teaches you sure realize that these are her standards, not mine.

Yes, I know it is Church teaching. I have known it is Church teaching for more than sixty years. I never thought this was a test on Catholic teaching but rather a discussion of it. I am secure enough in faith and belief that I know there is no harm for me in discussion, but if you are uncomfortable with this, I understand. Let’s let it go. If not, please tell me what the “objective wrong” would be in this situation. You need to be very clear about this.

Here is my understanding of Church teaching concerning your assertion that a person in such a situation “cannot receive publicly.”

“Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as “brother and sister” (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments.” –Communion of Divorced and Remarried —CCC

It is enough to know that they are living in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law.

You did not answer the question. I already know Catholic teaching on this matter. Here is the question: "How would you know by your perception alone that a person is in the objective state of mortal sin when in fact they are not?.

 

[Ender]

please tell me what the “objective wrong” would be in this situation. You need to be very clear about this.

The objective wrong is contracting a second marriage after divorcing from a valid first marriage.

Here is my understanding of Church teaching concerning your assertion that a person in such a situation “cannot receive publicly.”

“Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as “brother and sister” (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments.” –Communion of Divorced and Remarried —CCC

Yes, you, the church, and I all understand this the same way. There is no issue on this point.

You did not answer the question. I already know Catholic teaching on this matter. Here is the question: "How would you know by your perception alone that a person is in the objective state of mortal sin when in fact they are not?.

How can I know a person is in a state of sin when they aren’t? Really? Clearly this is impossible so why do you ask? The practice you cited above covers this point. A couple in an objectively disordered arrangement is prohibited from the public reception of communion if that arrangement is publicly known…regardless of whether they are in a state of sin or not.

Ender

 

[marimagi]

I think this is somewhat “new” in that Pope Francis is saying that divorced and remarried
Catholics are welcome in the Church and are not excluded from God’s love, unlike the attitudes of many bishops, priests and lay people in our parishes who scorn and often verbally abuse people in that situation and try to place them “at a distance from the community”, to quote the Pope. I am aware of divorced and remarried Catholics who have been told by priests about the “pastoral option”, where they can go to Mass and receive communion at a different parish. In one case, when a priest at the new parish became aware of their situation, he did not tell the couple they could not receive.

Quite often it seems, what happens in the parish does not always comply with what the church hierarchy says should happen. I think Pope Francis is quite aware of that and is trying to bring the man-made rules of the Church in synch with the Gospel. Bless the man.

Bless you. I agree wholeheartedly. I am in an irregular situation and I can attest to the fact that MANY are eager to judge the particulars of my life; a life they don’t know or understand. If my love of God was not as strong as it is, I would be lost to Him and the Church. It has been hard to withstand the judgements of men and remember that God knows, loves, and still cares for me.

Pope Francis is a true Christian leader. He sees, he cares, he has compassion and MERCY. In my opinion, he will become a great saint.

 

[pnewton]

Bless you. I agree wholeheartedly. I am in an irregular situation and I can attest to the fact that MANY are eager to judge the particulars of my life; a life they don’t know or understand.

It is always easier to judge the sin of another, or a sin that one does not deal with or is tempted by. That is a common theme here at CAF. I know that I do that a lot.

It is my opinion that Pope Francis is altering the mindset of how we deal with people in these irregular situations. Instead of the emphasis being on what is denied, the pastoral approach is to look at what can be done in the way of ministry, other than being told to stand in line and kibitz about for a few years while you go through a canonical process.

 

[gus]

At a local Catholic Church here, almost everyone goes up to receive Holy Communion.

That doesn’t make it correct in fact it’s an obscene perversion of the Eucharist

Christains have apostatized in every age ,usually giving in to the current. Trend.
Whether it be ,By persecution
Arianism, Gnosticism,Protestantism , modernism, secularism or any other ism
But the church has always endured
As Chesterton said
Just because a falsehood becomes fashionable it is no less a falsehood.

 

[Thomas_White]

That doesn’t make it correct in fact it’s an obscene perversion of the Eucharist

Christains have apostatized in every age ,usually giving in to the current. Trend.
Whether it be ,By persecution
Arianism, Gnosticism,Protestantism , modernism, secularism or any other ism
But the church has always endured
As Chesterton said
Just because a falsehood becomes fashionable it is no less a falsehood.

Why would you say that when almost everyone goes up to receive Holy Communion it is an “obscene perversion”?

 

[pnewton]

That doesn’t make it correct in fact it’s an obscene perversion of the Eucharist

As Chesterton said
Just because a falsehood becomes fashionable it is no less a falsehood.

Can you apply Chesterton to your statement? You did use the word “fact”, as opposed to opinion. No where in Catholic teaching can you find where any percentage of communion recipients is right or wrong, much less an “obscene perversion of the Eucharist.” At least I challenge you to find this. Perhaps you can show us where the USCCB or any bishop (still ministering in the Catholic Church) has said this.

Perhaps the Church in question simply was falling Catholic teaching. Perhaps the understanding of mortal sin at that Church is different than yours. There is** no **reason to call what they are doing obscene or perverse.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, I know it is Church teaching. I have known it is Church teaching for more than sixty years. I never thought this was a test on Catholic teaching but rather a discussion of it. I am secure enough in faith and belief that I know there is no harm for me in discussion, but if you are uncomfortable with this, I understand. Let’s let it go. If not, please tell me what the “objective wrong” would be in this situation. You need to be very clear about this.

Here is my understanding of Church teaching concerning your assertion that a person in such a situation “cannot receive publicly.”

“Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as “brother and sister” (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments.” –Communion of Divorced and Remarried —CCC

You did not answer the question. I already know Catholic teaching on this matter. Here is the question: "How would you know by your perception alone that a person is in the objective state of mortal sin when in fact they are not?.

I have just finished reading the debate between yourself and Ender.

What it all comes down to from what I can see is different Catholic understandings of “mortal sin” “state of mortal sin” and “objective mortal sin”.

Clearly the Communion prohibition relates to “objective mortal sin” not the personal imputability (commission) thereof.

Yet Ender, you have not responded to Thomas’s observation of Vatican ambivalence on this objective point. The Church does allow some persons in objective states of mortal sin to receive! You must accept that privately not engaging in sex does nothing to change their objective state - surely? Yet in this case Communion is allowed if its occult.

This is a pastoral judgement that reveals your more “Canonical” approach has theological gaps.

This is exactly the “interstice” the Synod seems to be investigating?

 

[phil19034]

That’s interesting…do Latinos in general have a better understanding of the Eucharist than we Catholics in the west…do they hold a much deeper reverence against receiving when they are unworthy…maybe they just don’t see not receiving communion as some sort of shame to be avoided in front of their friends or the rest of the congregation…perhaps that’s the reason why we tend to have almost 100% participation at mass…or we just do it out of habit…worthy or not…I wonder how they treat receiving the Eucharist in the Orthodox church…or the Lutheran…Anglican churches which believe in the real presence.

It’s not just the Latinos… You will find this over sees too

The answer is actually pretty simple.

They are raised in a CATHOLIC culture. While people born in English speaking nations are born into a Protestant culture.

People from Catholic nations don’t say “well look at what the Anglicans, Methodist, etc do.”

They don’t grow up in a culture where the majority of people don’t believe in the Real Presence.

I’m currently reading an interesting book from the Ignatius Press called “American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America” by Russell Shaw.

You can buy it on Amazon.com here: amzn.to/1jeTwvl

It’s a very interesting read and I highly recommend it.

God Bless

 

[Seamus_L]

It’s all about being in a state of grace. Nothing else is relevant.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s all about being in a state of grace. Nothing else is relevant.

How does the Magisterium define a state of grace… which may not be the same as possessing sanctifying grace?

 

[Ender]

I have just finished reading the debate between yourself and Ender.

What it all comes down to from what I can see is different Catholic understandings of “mortal sin” “state of mortal sin” and “objective mortal sin”.

Clearly the Communion prohibition relates to “objective mortal sin” not the personal imputability (commission) thereof.

Yet Ender, you have not responded to Thomas’s observation of Vatican ambivalence on this objective point. The Church does allow some persons in objective states of mortal sin to receive! You must accept that privately not engaging in sex does nothing to change their objective state - surely? Yet in this case Communion is allowed if its occult.

This is a pastoral judgement that reveals your more “Canonical” approach has theological gaps.

This is exactly the “interstice” the Synod seems to be investigating?

I have been traveling and have not had the opportunity to participate in this discussion, but I’m back and can address the issue you raise.

I would dispute your assertion that the church “allows” someone in an objective state of moral sin to receive. You surely must acknowledge the difference between not reacting to what is not known and reacting to what is. That is, it is Canon 916 that tells the individual he is not to receive if he knows he is in a state of mortal sin. This hardly constitutes the church allowing them to receive; it just puts the burden on the individual to police himself.

The case that Canon 915 deals with is entirely different. In those situations the sin is manifest; it is not known solely by the communicant, and in this case the church knows of, and acts on, that knowledge. There is no pastoral judgment involved. In the second situation the sin is public knowledge, and if the church did nothing it would essentially obviate 916 as well. After all, if the church knows I am a grave sinner and doesn’t prevent me from receiving why should I prevent myself? If she doesn’t care why should I?

This is the crux of the matter: what should the church do when someone who obstinately persists in manifest, grave sin presents himself for communion?

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would dispute your assertion that the church “allows” someone in an objective state of moral sin to receive. You surely must acknowledge the difference between not reacting to what is not known and reacting to what is. That is, it is Canon 916 that tells the individual he is not to receive if he knows he is in a state of mortal sin. This hardly constitutes the church allowing them to receive; it just puts the burden on the individual to police himself.
Ender

You have lost me a little here.

Would you accept that a Catholic who has contracted a 2nd marriage (without an annulment wrt the first legitimate Catholic wedding) is by that fact alone in such an objective state?

That’s what I understood you to mean when you said, “The objective wrong is contracting a second marriage after divorcing from a valid first marriage.”

 

[Ender]

Would you accept that a Catholic who has contracted a 2nd marriage (without an annulment wrt the first legitimate Catholic wedding) is by that fact alone in such an objective state?

Yes.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes.

Ender

Yes.

Ender

The obvious question is why then does the Church permit remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment and who are not committing adultery to receive communion?