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

  • Thread starter Thread starter lizardley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr. Ed Peters: Was Jackie O Excommunicated?
  1. Under Pio-Benedictine law, Catholics who disregarded canonical form in attempting to marry (certain persons) before non-Catholic ministers were automatically excommunicated (1917 CIC 2319 § 1, 1º). Setting aside my consternation at the interminable complications that arise from making certain excommunications automatic (including a number of ‘affirmative defenses’ that avail defendants even if they do not know to invoke them), Jackie might (depending on the person of the officiant) have fallen within the highly specific terms of this canon. But, in March 1970, Pope Paul VI, as part of a wider reform of marriage law, abrogated all excommunications levied in this regard (CLD VII: 717). Jackie’s marriage was not “validated” by the pope’s action but any penalty associated with her possibly having violated this aspect of canonical form would have ceased in 1970.
Click to expand...
  1. Bigamy and attempted bigamy were crimes under Pio-Benedictine law (1917 CIC 2356). Jackie, though herself free to marry, knew of Ari’s prior marriage and would have been liable to this penalty (Dom Augustine, VIII: 411-413). The penalty for bigamy, however, was not excommunication but “infamy” (1917 CIC 2293-2295) and, while the consequences of infamy were significant, they were not equivalent to excommunication. There is no evidence, moreover, that the canonical steps by which infamy could have been parlayed into excommunication were taken in Jackie’s case.
Click to expand...
  1. In 1884, the bishops of the United States enacted particular law by which divorced Catholics who attempted (even civilly) to marry another were automatically excommunicated. Although this penal law famously survived the advent of the Pio-Benedictine Code, its automatic nature meant, again, that a wide variety of ‘affirmative defenses’ could have prevented Jackie’s falling with its scope (assuming that she, not being divorced herself, were subject to it at all). In any case, Pope Paul VI abrogated all penalties associated with this special American law in October 1977 (CLD VIII: 1213-1214) and, as above, all sanctions possibly incurred under it immediately ceased.
Click to expand...
Bottom line: it is possible, but not likely, that Jackie was excommunicated under universal law for some 18 months in the late 1960s and/or under particular law for some years into the 1970s; it is certain that Jackie labored under no marriage-related excommunications at the time of her death in 1994.
Click to expand...
Et poenae latae sententiae delendae sunt.
Click to expand...
 
Church? Hope? Love? What do you think we are, Catholic are something? 😊
 
Thomas_White said:
There is a lot of gray area here, and if that isn’t a concern it ought to be. The issue is not as clear as many would like it to be, and it does need to be addressed.
Click to expand...
There are several separate areas of concern, and it is necessary to keep them separate to keep the discussion clear as to what is being debated. As far as I know, no one has suggested that there isn’t a problem with the annulment process or the impaired state of many marriages. This might suggest serious changes are needed both in preparing Catholics for marriage and in handling requests for annulment. A third concern is how best to minister to those who live in “irregular” arrangements and are not now permitted to receive communion.

None of this, however, relates to the question of whether the prohibition against receiving communion should be changed. There is no real argument about how best to implement changes in the first three areas; the entire debate here is on the question of whether church doctrines can and should be changed to permit what is now denied.

Ender
 
Tomdstone said:
IMHO, historically, it looks to me like number 1 was held to be true sometimes but not always. We have the fact that the Catholic Church in the east, before the schism of 1054, allowed divorce and remarriage after a period of penance and Rome did not object. We have the historical case of Pope Sergius who sent papal legates to Constantinople supporting the fourth marriage of the emperor Leo.
And we have the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 and the Council of Florence in 1439 which effected a reunion between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church and I don’t see where either ecumenical Council objected to the custom in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Do you?
Click to expand...
All of this is a search to find a way around the doctrines of the church. I identified four clear and specific teachings that together do not permit someone who lives in an irregular situation from receiving communion. As I said before, at least one of the four doctrines would have to be eliminated (reversed, repealed, ignored…) for communion to be possible, and until you can propose a candidate for elimination there really is no possibility of change.

Ender
 
Ender said:
All of this is a search to find a way around the doctrines of the church. I identified four clear and specific teachings that together do not permit someone who lives in an irregular situation from receiving communion. As I said before, at least one of the four doctrines would have to be eliminated (reversed, repealed, ignored…) for communion to be possible, and until you can propose a candidate for elimination there really is no possibility of change.

Ender
Click to expand...
I said #1.
 
Ender said:
There are several separate areas of concern, and it is necessary to keep them separate to keep the discussion clear as to what is being debated. As far as I know, no one has suggested that there isn’t a problem with the annulment process or the impaired state of many marriages. This might suggest serious changes are needed both in preparing Catholics for marriage and in handling requests for annulment. A third concern is how best to minister to those who live in “irregular” arrangements and are not now permitted to receive communion.

None of this, however, relates to the question of whether the prohibition against receiving communion should be changed. There is no real argument about how best to implement changes in the first three areas; the entire debate here is on the question of whether church doctrines can and should be changed to permit what is now denied.

Ender
Click to expand...
The topic is “Divorced Catholics who remarry are not excommunicated”. The answer to that is a simple “Yes”. End of discussion.

But I would agree that the question relates, in a broad way, to whether divorced and remarried Catholics could receive communion. I don’t think this necessarily entails a change in doctrine. If nearly half of all Catholic marriages would be found null and void if judged by a tribunal, that percentage is surely even higher among those who in fact were divorced. I don’t know how high, but about 90% of all U.S. marriages submitted to a marriage tribunal are judged null and void and an annulment is granted. The obvious conclusion is that a significant number of divorced and remarried Catholics never had a sacramental marriage in the first place. Yet they are now judged as though they did. Beyond question, many divorced Catholics are unwilling to endure the current tribunal process.

Addressing this issue need not be a question of changing Church doctrine, not when a sacramental marriage never occurred. One solution, for instance, could be to expedite the annulment process, perhaps by allowing the parish priest to make this determination. To the extent the discussion involves how the Church ought to receive divorced and remarried Catholics (and it does), I believe this is relevant.

And for what it’s worth, I firmly believe in the indissouluble nature of a sacramental marriage. But the question of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion could, and perhaps in large part, be addressed without a change in doctrine.
 
Tomdstone said:
I thought it was higher. Something like 95% or more.
Click to expand...
That figure is perhaps correct. I only cited what I remembered reading not too long ago. It does vary year to year.

The one thing I am virtually convinced of is that Pope Francis is not going to change Church doctrine. And I would fully agree. But I also don’t believe the question of at least some and perhaps many divorced and remarried Cathics ever receiving communion is necessarily a hopeless one.
 
Tomdstone said:
I said #1.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, here again is the first teaching I listed:
Sexual relations between a couple involved in a remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery.
Changing this one is going to be real difficult in light of this:*And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” *(Mt 19:9)
I’m pretty the church doesn’t have the authority to change what Christ himself explicitly stated.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Just to be clear, here again is the first teaching I listed:
Sexual relations between a couple involved in a remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery.
Changing this one is going to be real difficult in light of this:*And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” *(Mt 19:9)
I’m pretty the church doesn’t have the authority to change what Christ himself explicitly stated.

Ender
Click to expand...
It allows an exception: “except for unchastity”.
 
Thomas_White said:
TBut I would agree that the question relates, in a broad way, to whether divorced and remarried Catholics could receive communion. I don’t think this necessarily entails a change in doctrine. If nearly half of all Catholic marriages would be found null and void if judged by a tribunal, that percentage is surely even higher among those who in fact were divorced…Addressing this issue need not be a question of changing Church doctrine, not when a sacramental marriage never occurred.
Click to expand...
True, and no one has contested that point. That’s a pretty simple issue as well.
And for what it’s worth, I firmly believe in the indissoluble nature of a sacramental marriage. But the question of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion could, and perhaps in large part, be addressed without a change in doctrine.
Click to expand...
If what you’re talking about is in relation to annulments, again, there is no issue. If what you are suggesting is that those who have divorced and remarried without receiving an annulment should somehow be able to receive, then there is a serious - unresolvable - problem. If you disagree then perhaps you could review post #56 and identify how you get around the doctrinal barriers it identifies.

Ender
 
Edit: The last sentence of my above comment was surely meant to read this way:

“But I don’t believe the question of at least some and perhaps many Catholics ever receiving communion is necessarily a hopeless one.”

It was an unfortunate typo, of course, and one I wanted to correct.
 
Tomdstone said:
It allows an exception: “except for unchastity”.
Click to expand...
So you accept continuing the ban on communion for all divorced and remarried people except those who have been cheated on by their spouse or have had an annulment?

Ender
 
Ender said:
True, and no one has contested that point. That’s a pretty simple issue as well.
If what you’re talking about is in relation to annulments, again, there is no issue. If what you are suggesting is that those who have divorced and remarried without receiving an annulment should somehow be able to receive, then there is a serious - unresolvable - problem. If you disagree then perhaps you could review post #56 and identify how you get around the doctrinal barriers it identifies.

Ender
Click to expand...
The only thing I am puzzled by is your unnecessarily contentious replies to my comments. The two quotes, taken together, are (or should be) self explanatory.

I am very clearly am not suggesting that divorced and remarried Catholics whose marriages were sacramental should be permitted to take communion. I know that cannot happen without a change in doctrine, and I have also said I am “virtually certain” that will not occur.

How could the sentence in the comment you quoted that states: “But the question of divorced and remarried Catholics could, and perhaps in large part, be addressed without a change in doctrine” be construed as a suggestion that divorced and remarried Catholics should be allowed to receive communion without a change in doctrine?

To be honest, and with all due respect, I see several of your comments on this thread as outside the spirit of the forum rules.
 
Ender said:
So you accept continuing the ban on communion for all divorced and remarried people except those who have been cheated on by their spouse or have had an annulment?

Ender
Click to expand...
I don’t have an opinion on that one way or another. What I think is true is that the Eastern Orthodox church allows for exceptions and I don;t see where the Roman Catholic Church objected before 1054, or where they objected to this in the Council of Lyons or the Council of Florence which were held to effect a reunion of the churches.
 
Thomas_White said:
The only thing I am puzzled by is your unnecessarily contentious replies to my comments. The two quotes, taken together, are (or should be) self explanatory.

I am very clearly am not suggesting that divorced and remarried Catholics whose marriages were sacramental should be permitted to take communion. I know that cannot happen without a change in doctrine, and I have also said I am “virtually certain” that will not occur.

How could the sentence in the comment you quoted that states: “But the question of divorced and remarried Catholics could, and perhaps in large part, be addressed without a change in doctrine” be construed as a suggestion that divorced and remarried Catholics should be allowed to receive communion without a change in doctrine
Click to expand...
One thing that occurs repeatedly in almost all discussions is a misunderstanding of just exactly what is being asserted. Terms are undefined, statements are vague or ambiguous, and one side objects to what the other hasn’t actually said.

I try to be very explicit. That probably comes across as pedantic and contentious, but all I am attempting to be is clear. Take your statement above about “the question of divorced and remarried Catholics.” I suggested in an earlier post that there were at least four different problems that arise from that condition, so, again, it wasn’t clear what you were referring to. So I asked.

Ender
 
Ender said:
One thing that occurs repeatedly in almost all discussions is a misunderstanding of just exactly what is being asserted. Terms are undefined, statements are vague or ambiguous, and one side objects to what the other hasn’t actually said.

I try to be very explicit. That probably comes across as pedantic and contentious, but all I am attempting to be is clear. Take your statement above about “the question of divorced and remarried Catholics.” I suggested in an earlier post that there were at least four different problems that arise from that condition, so, again, it wasn’t clear what you were referring to. So I asked.

Ender
Click to expand...
I understand, and it’s fine. I agree that unless one of the four cited doctrines is reversed, there is no way that “the divorced and remarried can be admitted to communion.” And I don’t believe Pope Francis will ever change Church doctrine. In my view, the matter has long since been settled.

So, then, what could be done for these Catholics? That was what I was attempting to address. I guess I did not make this clear.

Pax
 
Unfortunately for those who want to claim that Jesus gave an ‘out’ for ‘unchastity’, that translation is dead wrong.

The correct translation is ‘except if the marriage is **unlawful.’

**Examples of unlawful marriage that Jesus would have been addressing would have been the many cases (since Moses had allowed divorce) of people who had divorced and remarried. The ‘second’ marriages were the unlawful ones. Therefore, those who had divorced and remarried would be required, to ‘get right with God’, to divorce that SECOND (or third, or fourth, etc.) spouse, since THAT marriage was not lawful. The divorce was a legal necessity, but since the persons were still married in the eyes of God to the first space, that ‘lawful divorce’ was not the same as the original divorce. The original divorce was wrong; the ‘second’ divorce was a legal formality to enable the unlawfully married person to ‘right him/herself’ with God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top