M
McCall1981
Guest
I started a thread on it here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=828694
I cant open the link you provided, but if its a different article you could post it in the other thread
- Status
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=828694
I cant open the link you provided, but if its a different article you could post it in the other thread
P
ProVobis
Guest
I must have missed that thread. It looks like a thread on this has already been closed.I started a thread on it here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=828694
I cant open the link you provided, but if its a different article you could post it in the other thread
The article doesn’t seem to cover anything that hasn’t been covered already but here it is anyway.
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19309
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem is with the headline. The Vatican never said that the Holy Father approved or disapproved. The actual message was not to go forward with their plans until the Synod on the Family offers guidance for the universal Church. Something like this happened with Communion on the hand and also with remarried Catholics.
In the case of Communion in the hand, there was no problem. The pope had the authority to legalize what had been done. In the case with Communion for remarried Catholics, that was more problematic and the pope had to tell the bishops to retract the permission that they had issued. This creates unnecessary hardship for people. It is better for the Germans to wait for the Synod.
In the case of Communion in the hand, there was no problem. The pope had the authority to legalize what had been done. In the case with Communion for remarried Catholics, that was more problematic and the pope had to tell the bishops to retract the permission that they had issued. This creates unnecessary hardship for people. It is better for the Germans to wait for the Synod.
E
Elizium23
Guest
So JR, are you saying that, pending the outcome of the Synod next year, it is a real possibility and a doctrinally sound course that would open the way for Catholics, who are remarried in an intimate relationship with their new spouses, to receive Holy Communion with Church approval, and without falling under Canon 915 or other sanctions? What is the doctrinal rationalization here?
J
JReducation
Guest
Let’s work this in reverse. Canon 915 can be abrogated by the pope whenever he wants to do so. It’s a law, not a doctrine.
The issue is whether or not the law, in this case that remarried folks cannot receive Holy Communion, whether the law should be applied in every situation.
We’re speaking about law here, not doctrine. There is no doctrine that says that remarried person cannot receive Holy Communion. It’s a law. It is based on Paul’s teaching that he who approaches the Holy Eucharist unworthily condemns himself.
The question on the table is whether or not the law applies all the time. The Orthodox say that Paul’s warning does not apply in this case. This situation is outside of Paul’s warning. The question for the Synod is to look at what the Orthodox have to say about it and see if they’re understanding passes the test. I can’t explain their understanding, because I’ve never studied the economy of salvation. That has not been taught to Catholics as a norm. Some Catholics have some knowledge of it.
The other question on the table is one of validity. There is a sense that almost 50% of couples who get married in the Church are not validly married. Personally, I think that percentage is a little high. But it’s worth looking at. It is true that many couples marry in the Church and have a very poor understanding of the sacrament. Their understanding of marriage is everything but sacramental. If you don’t buy into the sacrament, are you married? If you don’t understand the sacrament, can you buy into it? These are important questions that need answers.
This brings up another issue. How many of those who married, divorced and remarried, are unable to prove that their first alleged marriage was invalid? It’s very difficult to prove that someone lacks enough understanding of the sacrament to make a valid marriage. What happens is that the person was never really married, but can’t prove it. The question is how does the Church deal with this? Should the Church give people the benefit of the doubt? If so, to whom and under what conditions?
These are not going to be easy questions to answer. But in the interest of the many Catholics who are divorced and remarried, the Church owes it to them to answer these questions. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments. If the law is based on faulty logic, the law needs to be changed. If the law is based on solid logic, that also needs to be shown. There is always the third possibility, but we don’t want to go there if we don’t have to go there. The third possibility is that the law is what it is, because the pope so wishes. He has that power.
To conclude, it’s important to keep in mind that what keeps remarried people from Holy Communion is law, not dogma. The law is based on an understanding of Paul. Paul was not stating dogma. He was giving people guidance on the necessity of repentance before receiving the Eucharist. If there is the possibility that a person be remarried and not be culpable of grave sin, that person should be admitted to the sacraments.
I don’t know if there is such a possibility. Does anyone here know? I’m not an expert on sacramental theology nor am I an expert of moral theology. I know enough of both to guide people in the usual day-to-day questions. But this is a question that goes beyond the usual. This question requires experts. I’ll wait and see what the experts say.
S
sw85
Guest
No, but again, we have to properly situate that claim. Judaism is not salvific in itself but is salvific only to the extent that it participates in the mystical body of Christ. Jews can be saved but even their salvation is mediated by the Church in mysterious ways not immediately recognizable to us.
This is a super important point that most people miss. We tend to look at America’s annulment stats and conclude that the American Church is a divorce factory neck-deep in complicity with adultery. But the truth may be closer to the American Church simply recognizing the reality that Americans are a people with a uniquely impoverished conception of marriage.
The Church teaches that in order for a marriage to be valid it has to be contracted by a man and a woman who are at least capable in principle of completing the marital act, who are not otherwise impeded, and who intend to contract a marriage. A “marriage” by nature is exclusive and indissoluble. So if one or both partners go into it with the reservation that they will divorce in the event of, say, infidelity, then what they intend is not marriage because they do not intend an indissoluble union. They are entering into the arrangement in bad faith, and bad faith always voids a contract.
People can disagree in good faith about the extent to which canon law should address that reality – how do we really verify with certainty what a couple intends at the moment of marriage, which in many cases is years or even a decade or more before? do we place more priority on avoiding “false positives” (giving the benefit of the doubt to the applicant at the risk of “annulling” a sacramentally valid marriage?) or “false negatives” (refusing to void even some obviously invalid marriages in order to avoid the injustice of voiding truly valid ones)? – but that there is a problem here, one cannot doubt.
The new associate pastor at my parish is a fairly young man (30 years old, ordained 3 years ago when he was my age) and has said on a few occasions that canon law was his least favorite class in seminary. He said he thought canon law existed for the benefit of the Church but that, so often when it came to annulments, it became an exercise in legal nitpicking, searching for loopholes through which we could quickly usher divorced persons, as if the problem of divorce was something the Church wanted to sweep under the rug. My hope is that the synod addresses this reality and finds a way to accommodate it that doesn’t just resort to more legalism but which also does not compromise devotion to the Eucharist in an effort to accommodate people who are, at least materially speaking, adulterers. Sounds like a herculean task to me but what do I know.
P
ProVobis
Guest
If the issue of communion reception is to be discussed in cases of divorced/remarried, shouldn’t also the issue of frequent confession as well?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Interesting observations.
J
JReducation
Guest
The presence of any of these can invalidate a marriage before it begins. Many people don’t realize that there are requirements to a valid marriage.
- Must marry for love, not because she’s pregnant.
- You must be open to as many children as God sends. NFP is for spacing children no Catholic Contraception.
- You may never enter a marriage thinking that you’ll get a divorce if it does not work.
- You must know that if there is danger to the mother during a pregnancy, you cannot choose abortion.
- You may not have a prenuptial agreement, because it signals that you believe that the marriage can terminate.
P
ProVobis
Guest
BrJR, you’re absolutely right about that. I notice parents enjoy it when their toddlers become popular with the opposite sex from early on; they rarely think of their education or spirituality or anything else anymore.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
It seems to me that this is problematic, especially point #2 on birth control. At a local Jesuit school here, they recently conducted a poll and found that 90% of graduating seniors believed that ABC was acceptable for “married” couples. Now with such a large percentage of Roman Catholics disagreeing with ABC and thus in violation of point #2, and who know how many are in violation of the other points, what percentage of Roman Catholics today are actually sacramentally married?
E
Elizium23
Guest
It is not for us to cast doubt on the validity of marriages. They enjoy the favor of law: they are putatively valid until proven otherwise. So nobody should be going around calling marriages invalid before the tribunal speaks in the matter.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, you’re both right. If a couple enters marriage with the idea of contracepting, the marriage is invalid. However, we must not go around trying to pass judgment of the validity of marriages. This is for an ecclesiastical tribunal to decide. A marriage is presumed valid until the judge decides that there is no bond.
The judgement is made on conditions prior to the wedding. A priest, deacon or even the parents can deny permission to marry if they feel that there is an impediment, such as a lack of openness to children.
The fact that so many people believe that they can marry and contracept does not change truth. Openness to all the children that God gives us is a requirement for a valid marriage.
Remember, we’re speaking about conditions before the wedding, not after the wedding. Some people are very open to children before the wedding and something happens after the wedding where they change how they think. That marriage is valid. Many things happen after a wedding that should not happen. But these do not invalidate a marriage.
A
Artar1
Guest
We should be careful about reading too much into the comments made by Pope Francis to the media.
What I understand his message to say is this: we should show mercy toward divorced Catholics, meaning we should demonstrate compassion (e.g., pity, kindness, and benevolence) as well as understanding. I believe Pope Francis did not say the Church should grant a full pardon. However, he did mention that a commission of eight cardinals may take up the matter of marriage invalidity, but he didn’t promise anything beyond that.
If the Catholic Church does revise its interpretation of invalidity, citing ignorance of the finality of marriage as a reason for granting more annulments in the future, those Catholics married in the Church may still find it very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an annulment, unless one can document abuse, adultery, or involuntary divorce in a civil court.
What I understand his message to say is this: we should show mercy toward divorced Catholics, meaning we should demonstrate compassion (e.g., pity, kindness, and benevolence) as well as understanding. I believe Pope Francis did not say the Church should grant a full pardon. However, he did mention that a commission of eight cardinals may take up the matter of marriage invalidity, but he didn’t promise anything beyond that.
If the Catholic Church does revise its interpretation of invalidity, citing ignorance of the finality of marriage as a reason for granting more annulments in the future, those Catholics married in the Church may still find it very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an annulment, unless one can document abuse, adultery, or involuntary divorce in a civil court.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Declarations of nullity aren’t and won’t be granted for abuse, adultery, or involuntary divorce.
J
JReducation
Guest
Elzium is right. A decree of nullity speaks to what should have been and was not present at the time of the wedding or what should not have been and was present at the time of the wedding.
For example, if there was infidelity at the time of the wedding, this would not be adultery, because you were not married, but it’s a serious impediment to marriage. How can you make marriage vows to one person and be having affairs?
If the infidelity takes place after the wedding, that’s not the same thing.
P
ProVobis
Guest
BrJR, maybe it’s me but it seems like we’re getting sidetracked here a little. Isn’t adultery the underlying issue in a divorce/remarriage? Normally one can confess adultery and go to communion reception. But a remarriage implies a permanent adulterous state. Is there someway (perhaps a vow of living without sex) a way to resolve this permanent state without a second divorce, which might be detrimental to children, etc.?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
In 1929, 1930 or 1931 in the USA, how many of these reasons were recognized as invalidating a marriage. During that period, in the whole USA, were there any marriages at all, even one, annulled on the basis of any of these 5 points?
C
Colorad007
Guest
Thanks for that perspective.
The problem I see is that, even removing the bounds of Canon law 915 for remarried couples, the fact remains that they are still in an adulterous relationship. That cannot change without their previous marriages being annulled. So the question to me is why these ostensibly adulterous couples should be allowed to Communion when those in improper or homosexual relationships are not without confession and consequent resolution to avoiding sin. I am all for making sure that null marriages are annulled, but granting Communion to basically adulterous couples? I just don’t see is as prudent. In fact, I wonder of the Pope is really even contemplating this at all, or whether it is a whim of the Catholic left that few take seriously. I really do wonder.
C
Colorad007
Guest
This goes a long way in explaining the Pope’s comment about how many marriages may be invalid, and may also give solid reasoning for a move to “open up,” so to speak, the annulment process. But it lends nothing to why those who have remarried in contradiction to basic Biblical and Church teaching should be allowed Communion. I frankly just don’t see a change on 915 coming out of this synod. But, as the Holy Father is fond of saying, God surprises us.
- Status