Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[JimG]

I’m probably not the clearest person as I age–and in the throes of a cold–but I’m speaking of a case where a civilly divorced and remarried person/couple, without a decree of nullity, and continuing to engage in sexual relations.

There are cases where a couple in an irregular marriage (above) abstain from relations, 'living as brother and sister". By Catholic teaching, those people MAY receive because even though there is the sin of having invalidly ‘married’, if there is no real marriage according to the Church AND the couple are not living as a married couple, it’s like having opposite sex roommates. If the couple is seen as a ‘legal married couple’ and don’t say anything about their sexual–or not–relations, there is also no ‘scandal’ as there would be if two people of the opposite sex, not married, lived with each other (even if they were chaste).

The irregularity of an invalid marriage is thus to an extent ‘regularized’ if the couple is not engaging in sexual relations. Since the ‘first marriage’ is held to be valid by the Church, the ideal would be for the original partners to remarry each other and attempt to live out a valid marriage. But sometimes that cannot happen. If there are children in the second marriage, they are as ‘entitled’ to having a mother and father present as any other children. And since they are usually younger, they would need the parents’ presence perhaps a bit more, for a time, than older children, although again this is not always the case.

The Church has always provided pastoral care, but the fact remains, that especially with the advent of the Internet, even in ‘far off places’, people CAN be aware of Church teaching with the same kind of normal effort that they can be aware of the laws regarding driving, voting, how to balance a checkbook. Of course, some people will ignore those laws, not necessarily with evil intent. . . they drive ‘mostly’ by the rules, but ignore the stop sign if they’re in a hurry. They balance a checkbook, except when they have ‘more important things to do’.

Now as a point of information, back in the Stone Age, my mother, Catholic, married a twice divorced Protestant man. She loved him, he loved her, she was young, he didn’t see any problem (even in the early 1950s) with anything, all was going to work out. Yep. Then they started having children. And we were raised Catholic. With my mother accompanying us to every Mass, making sure we attended Catholic school, etc. And never once receiving communion until after my father died. My mother wasn’t stupid. She was very devout. She was raised pre Vatican 2. Her father had attended the seminary in his youth but found his vocation called him to marriage. (BTW, they never treated her any differently and we were as welcome in the family as the other cousins born in valid marriages). She knew what was what. Many times she regretted not the marriage itself, but the situation and the fact that she didn’t push for a decree of nullity (which would, even in the old days, almost certainly have been granted, but she accepted that wrong was wrong, even with all the good she had from it (my dad’s love, her wonderful kids, etc). If she had been told that since it was HER first marriage, and my dad’s marriages nearly certainly invalid, she could receive if her conscience was clear, she’d have reported the priest who said so to the bishop, if a bishop told her, she’d have reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. She didn’t think that she deserved to declare herself ‘in union’ with the Catholic Church when she was deliberately disobeying one of its teachings, and she would neither want the teaching changed to accommodate her, nor to be ‘winked at’ and allowed to receive communion under ‘false pretences’.

The story you told about your mother is not greatly unusual for those of us raised in an older generation. I knew of kids whose parents could not receive communion due to a prior marriage, with no decree of nullity. Those parents raised their children to be devout Catholics, and attended Mass every Sunday, not receiving communion until the marital situation was resolved by a decree of nullity or by death of a spouse. A prior marriage is either valid or it is not. If it is, then a second marriage is invalid. Everyone understood that.

 

[patricius79]

We should not even oppose the Church’s disciplinary rules. However, if the Pope does allow for a change in the latter, that too should not be opposed, at least by us laymen, especially when the option is always available for one to not receive communion, if one chooses. No where does it say one must receive communion against one’s conscience.

There have already been some bishop conferences that are close to putting Amoris Laetitia into practice in varying forms. Discipline can change. The Pope is under no obligation to put out a new catechism to make a change. Besides, 1650 is still the norm, even in disciplinary matters.

I have talked to my own priest about this. He said that he has already been approached, yet those that have done so simply aren’t in a situation that can be resolved outside of continence, or separation.

So is allowing remarried persons who are engaging in relations to receive Communion only a disciplinary issue?

And has the discipline definitely changed, then, to allow for priests–according to their prudential judgment-- to allow some remarried persons who are engaging in relations to receive Communion?

 

[psalm90]

…
In my own, personal opinion, I think he did want to start a new religion, though not initially. In 1517 I think he wanted to stick within the Church, but by 1521 I think he had had enough and really wanted to teach new doctrines and create new churches with new leaders and a different understanding of how the hierarchy works and other essential parts of the faith, and I think he made that clear in his Letter to the German Princes. At this link, I’ve documented some quotes from that letter that I think demonstrate that he really wanted to start a new religion. Let me know what you think, if you decide to click through and read it.

Privately I agree with one of Luther’s assertions, about pilgrimages. We just ended the Jubilee Year of Mercy. In my diocese, the website had an announcement to that effect, and listed 8 pilgrimage churches. Well, the big one, the cathedral, was closed months before the close of the YOM, in spite of the assertion that all holy doors would be open “through the end” of the jubilee year. I went to another pilgrimage church which, when I arrived, was closed and locked. The diocese itself made an absurdity of the pilgrimages to the holy doors. Martin Luther would be laughing at this.

 

[kyrie03]

My opinion is irrelevant. Let me just say it is not a doctrinal contradiction. Therefore, I will say I do not believe it to be an absolute, every time necessity. It might be the the current marriage is the valid one, if we remember that an annulment does not annul a marriage, but is only a recognition of a marriage that was not valid, as determined by the tribunal.

But don’t listen to me. I admit that in twenty years of studying the issue, I have never had all my reservations answered on this topic, its unique treatment in canon law. Maybe this is why I understand Amoris Laetitia more easily. I think we should be cautious about giving each other advice on this. I am not a trained Catholic pastor, and even then, some of these issues are a process of exploration between penitent and priest.

Person presumes first union is null, but has no decree of nullity. The second union is indeed valid in God’s eyes. So if the person partakes of Eucharist, there is no doctrinal contradiction. (I think this is what you are saying -please correct as necessary).

Church teaching has, up to this point in time, been clear on the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage and necessity of presuming first marriage to be valid until decree of nullity rendered – thus always prohibiting reception of Eucharist without firm purpose to practice continence in second union. The discipline, or action, is in agreement with the doctrine. To act otherwise would divorce action from doctrine. (pun intended)

Is it not presumption to partake of Eucharist without decree of nullity?
Could it possibly lead one to “eat and drink unworthily unto own condemnation”?
Does not ambiguous interpretation of doctrinal teaching leave souls more susceptible to falling into presumption?

Presumption: (Latin praesumere, “to take before”, “to take for granted”). Defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God’s mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them.
Five ways in which one may be guilty of presumption, as follows:
1.by hoping to obtain by one’s natural powers, unaided, what is definitely supernatural, viz. eternal bliss or the recovery of God’s friendship after grievous sin (this would involve a Pelagian frame of mind);
2.a person might look to have his sins forgiven without adequate penance (this, likewise, if it were based on a seriously entertained conviction, would seem to carry with it the taint of heresy);
3.a man might expect some special assistance from Almighty God for the perpetration of crime (this would be blasphemous as well as presumptuous);
4.one might aspire to certain extraordinary supernatural excellencies, but without any conformity to the determinations of God’s providence. Thus one might aspire to equal in blessedness the Mother of God;
**5.finally, there is the transgression of those who, whilst they continue to lead a life of sin, are as confident of a happy issue as if they had not lost their baptismal innocence. **newadvent.org/cathen/12403a.htm

For the sake of unity and the salvation of souls, should we not seek clarity from the one whose duty it is to guard the deposit of faith?

 

[josh987654321]

The problem is it’s not an ‘irregular marriage’ (That strikes me as the secular society ‘alternate family’ they are not 'irregular or ‘alternate’ they are either married or not). There is no such thing as divorce and no such thing as remarried, they are either married validly, or that marriage was null and void, leaving them free to marry again, it really is that simple.

The Church is rigid in this because Christ himself was rigid in this teaching, St John the Baptist lost his head for it.

If they were married validly, divorced and are now married to someone else, than all this appears to me, is trying to find a loophole for them, because on one hand, they will be living as ‘married’ in society for all intents and practical purposes, but when it comes to the Church will consider it in some bizarre and naïve way.

They advise that unmarried couples not live together before marriage for prudential reasons.

And in saying this to those living in divorced and remarried relationships, I probably come across as judgmental and the ‘bad guy’, however, I do wish for the Church to reach out to them with mercy and would love to see them in the Church, but one cannot contradict the sacrament of marriage.

If the couple themselves were to concede that they are not in a valid marriage, then the whole living together and acting like a married couple will obviously be thrown into question too.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

If they were married validly, divorced and are now married to someone else, than all this appears to me, is trying to find a loophole for them, because on one hand, they will be living as ‘married’ in society for all intents and practical purposes, but when it comes to the Church will consider it in some bizarre and naïve way.

And in saying this to those living in divorced and remarried relationships, I probably come across as judgmental and the ‘bad guy’, however, I do wish for the Church to reach out to them with mercy and would love to see them in the Church, but one cannot contradict the sacrament of marriage.

I agree with this. It does sound like a loophole. They seem to be saying that people are living in certain situations and the church should just accept it and put some kind of a label on it. Like mercy.

I have an example back at home where a friend is planning a civil ‘remarriage’. She has quit going to church because she knows it is wrong, yet at the same time says the pope will fix all this oldfashioned nonsense and bring the church into the modern world. This is how she interprets these developments, despite having talked with orthodox priests who explained it to her. But I am sure she will find someone who will tell her it’s ok. She has no intention of changing her situation, and knows full well what she is doing. I am the bad guy for not giving her my blessing in this.

There will be many people exploiting this muddle, and the profanation of the Eurcharist will continue, because of the number of people in mortal sin will receive it, with the blessing of the bishops. Incredible really.

 

[Brendan]

There is no such thing as divorce and no such thing as remarried, they are either married validly, or that marriage was null and void, leaving them free to marry again, it really is that simple.

There is such a thing a divorce, but it simply allows the parties to live apart, physically and financially. It does not break the bond of marriage. The Church permits it at times, for example, when the safety of an abused spouse requires it. But the bond still remains.

And there is such a thing a remarriage. A person whose spouse has died can remarry.
The first marriage was valid, but the bond was broken at the death of the spouse. Thus the second marriage can be valid.

 

[Thomas_White]

Marriage is a Sacrament that occurs between two parties, a husband and wife. The priest is a witness to this solemn bond. I cannot agree that the rules for nullity of a Sacrament (if indeed this is even proper in most cases) can legitimately shift with the sands of times or the later subjective interpretation of either of the parties. The current situation really is confusing, and such a situation cannot possibly be morally correct. It is difficult to see how this situation is in the best interests of anyone.

 

[josh987654321]

There is such a thing a divorce, but it simply allows the parties to live apart, physically and financially. It does not break the bond of marriage. The Church permits it at times, for example, when the safety of an abused spouse requires it. But the bond still remains.

And there is such a thing a remarriage. A person whose spouse has died can remarry.
The first marriage was valid, but the bond was broken at the death of the spouse. Thus the second marriage can be valid.

Thank you Brendan.

In actuality though, they didn’t divorce in the first scenario, they separated from on another because of the toxic relationship, which I agree with and in the second scenario it wasn’t a ‘remarriage’ because their marriage had ended at the death of their spouse.

When one says ‘divorce’ we understand it to mean the ‘dissolving of a marriage’ which doesn’t work with the Church because we believe marriage is indissoluble and when one says ‘remarried’ we understand it to mean ‘married to someone else’ which doesn’t work precisely because marriage is indissoluble.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I agree with this. It does sound like a loophole. They seem to be saying that people are living in certain situations and the church should just accept it and put some kind of a label on it. Like mercy.

I have an example back at home where a friend is planning a civil ‘remarriage’. She has quit going to church because she knows it is wrong, yet at the same time says the pope will fix all this oldfashioned nonsense and bring the church into the modern world. This is how she interprets these developments, despite having talked with orthodox priests who explained it to her. But I am sure she will find someone who will tell her it’s ok. She has no intention of changing her situation, and knows full well what she is doing. I am the bad guy for not giving her my blessing in this.

There will be many people exploiting this muddle, and the profanation of the Eurcharist will continue, because of the number of people in mortal sin will receive it, with the blessing of the bishops. Incredible really.

I agree, this is my greatest fear, there are countless people who will take this as a ‘green light’ for their relationships, and all they have to do is find the ‘right’ Priest who tell them what they want to hear, or are ambiguous and can assume the answer they want.

I don’t know anyone who will come back to the Church considering themselves ‘unmarried’ and living as ‘brother and sister’ because obviously a brother and sister are not going to be in a romantically involved relationship to begin with in order to ‘fall’ and they are not going to be living as if they are a married couple.

I mean, if they are living as brother and sister, they would remove their wedding rings as a start (I can’t imagine that happening with the vast majority of people who will pounce on this).

I mean, in a very rare case it is theoretically possible, but in actuality, this I believe will open the door to all kinds of abuses. They were already jockeying for this to happen when they first heard of the Synod on the family, many, many I believe are looking for an excuse/loophole and through this I’m sure they will find them.

Not only that, but imagine what it would be like for one priest to say ‘yes’ and another priest to say ‘no’ to a situation? who is right? what are people supposed to take away from that? moral relativism, subjectivism?

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JimG]

A university professor defends his students’ desire for a respectful liturgy:

“Young people today bear many burdens with little grace offered them by the Church’s ordinary liturgical and doctrinal culture, which has, in far too many places, been in an advanced state of degradation and decadence for fifty years. I would wager that I have more direct, first-hand experience of young people today than the Roman bishop does, and I do see in them a legitimate and understandable fear that the Church has deprived them of many of her liturgical and doctrinal treasures after a half-century of experimentation, “flexibility,” and “creativity.” In a chaotic world, they want to be grounded in the Lord and not buffeted about by every whim and fancy that strikes foolish and selfish hierarchs, clergy, and theologians.”

–Prof. A.J. DeVille

Source

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What the document is saying is that Pastors of souls are just that, Pastors of souls and that they must act in pastoral ways to help the couple come to this understanding and help them to do something about it.

It is not up to well-meaning lay people to pass judgment on any situation, as they will never have all the facts. These guidelines are for the pastoral people on the “front lines”, so to speak, who know the situation, the couple, and their history.

For the life of me, I don’t understand what the confusion is?!

Not only is it affirming that those who have cura animarum are, as you say, to be pastoral…they also are the only ones who have governance.

Lay people may not pass judgment not simply because they will never have all the facts…they have not the competence, according to several definitions of that word.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What the document is saying is that Pastors of souls are just that, Pastors of souls and that they must act in pastoral ways to help the couple come to this understanding and help them to do something about it.

It is not up to well-meaning lay people to pass judgment on any situation, as they will never have all the facts. These guidelines are for the pastoral people on the “front lines”, so to speak, who know the situation, the couple, and their history.

For the life of me, I don’t understand what the confusion is?!

Not only is it affirming that those who have cura animarum are, as you say, to be pastoral…they also are the only ones who have governance.

Lay people may not pass judgment not simply because they will never have all the facts…they have not the competence, according to several definitions of that word.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You would think that pastors should be “pastorally sensitive” but you and I both know that is not/has not always been the case.

The whole document is about pastoral guidelines. That’s what the whole Synod was about.

The document was written for Bishops & Priests, not lay people. They know the rules of the Church, there is no reason for this document to restate them.

So, again, where is the confusion?

Or is it just that this particular document is not “black & white” enough for some people.
The Holy Father did call for his Bishops & Priests to know their sheep, and to get right in there with them, getting dirty if needed.
Is this the problem? Some of the “Princes” don’t want to get their hands dirty?

You have said this very well indeed, from start to finish.

In fact, as you infer, there are many documents and many directives that are, indeed, not black and white at all – at the end of the day and as the one who has the prerogative to do so makes pastoral applications and pastoral provisions.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

My opinion is irrelevant. Let me just say it is not a doctrinal contradiction. Therefore, I will say I do not believe it to be an absolute, every time necessity. It might be the the current marriage is the valid one, if we remember that an annulment does not annul a marriage, but is only a recognition of a marriage that was not valid, as determined by the tribunal.

But don’t listen to me. I admit that in twenty years of studying the issue, I have never had all my reservations answered on this topic, its unique treatment in canon law. Maybe this is why I understand Amoris Laetitia more easily. I think we should be cautious about giving each other advice on this. I am not a trained Catholic pastor, and even then, some of these issues are a process of exploration between penitent and priest.

You have said this quite well.

I would only say that not only does a declaration of nullity not annul a marriage…it is a judgement by an ecclesiastical court using a process that makes a determination according to such facts as are presented before said tribunal.

Based on what I have read in this forum, your admonition about giving advice is very sound indeed.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There is such a thing a divorce, but it simply allows the parties to live apart, physically and financially. It does not break the bond of marriage. The Church permits it at times /…/

It is not simply that the may Church permits it…it can be required.

Beyond that, the civil effects of marriage are properly within the province of the State and not the Church.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Here’s a thought experiment: a lapsed Catholic woman divorces and then remarries a Protestant man who she has children with. The woman and the man both work, and together can just put food on the table for all people in the house. The lapsed Catholic woman then desires to come back to the Church but doesn’t know how. She decides to meet a priest, and after explaining her situation she is told by the priest that she can’t receive Communion unless she lives as brother and sister. She informs her husband, who has a different understanding of marriage. He feels she is unjustly trying to tear apart what he thinks is a legitimate marriage, and says he will divorce her if she refuses to engage in sexual relations. A divorce would likely have a devastating effect on the children, and by having to find new living arrangement and other complications brought on by the divorce they would often go hungry. Fearing this result, the woman continues to have relations…

I ask this rhetorically, but feel free to respond: is this Catholic woman’s culpability mitigated to the point where we could say that she does not have full consent? Does this open up the possibility for Communion for her?

 

[Thomas_White]

Here’s a thought experiment: a lapsed Catholic woman divorces and then remarries a Protestant man who she has children with. The woman and the man both work, and together can just put food on the table for all people in the house. The lapsed Catholic woman then desires to come back to the Church but doesn’t know how. She decides to meet a priest, and after explaining her situation she is told by the priest that she can’t receive Communion unless she lives as brother and sister. She informs her husband, who has a different understanding of marriage. He feels she is unjustly trying to tear apart what he thinks is a legitimate marriage, and says he will divorce her if she refuses to engage in sexual relations. A divorce would likely have a devastating effect on the children, and by having to find new living arrangement and other complications brought on by the divorce they would often go hungry. Fearing this result, the woman continues to have relations…

I ask this rhetorically, but feel free to respond: is this Catholic woman’s culpability mitigated to the point where we could say that she does not have full consent? Does this open up the possibility for Communion for her?

No: “For the wages of sin is death…” Romans, 6:23

 

[josh987654321]

Here’s a thought experiment: a lapsed Catholic woman divorces and then remarries a Protestant man who she has children with. The woman and the man both work, and together can just put food on the table for all people in the house. The lapsed Catholic woman then desires to come back to the Church but doesn’t know how. She decides to meet a priest, and after explaining her situation she is told by the priest that she can’t receive Communion unless she lives as brother and sister. She informs her husband, who has a different understanding of marriage. He feels she is unjustly trying to tear apart what he thinks is a legitimate marriage, and says he will divorce her if she refuses to engage in sexual relations. A divorce would likely have a devastating effect on the children, and by having to find new living arrangement and other complications brought on by the divorce they would often go hungry. Fearing this result, the woman continues to have relations…

I ask this rhetorically, but feel free to respond: is this Catholic woman’s culpability mitigated to the point where we could say that she does not have full consent? Does this open up the possibility for Communion for her?

I would simply encourage her to go to Eucharistic Adoration. You raise a very good and difficult scenario I believe. I don’t think it would be right for her to be in full communion with the Catholic Church though, as it would contradict the sacrament of matrimony.

When one gets married, it’s ‘in sickness and in health’ ‘till death do they part’ which is what makes it such a special, personal, intimate union and the sacrament it is, if one acquiesces on the indissolubility of marriage, one is also harming and attacking the sacrament of marriage I believe.

We can’t have it both ways, St John the Baptist lost his head over it.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I
Not only that, but imagine what it would be like for one priest to say ‘yes’ and another priest to say ‘no’ to a situation? who is right? what are people supposed to take away from that? moral relativism, subjectivism?
Josh

Priests often face such situations. I follow several priests bloggers, which are my sources of info on this. One of them wrote about a woman who showed up at his parish. She was in an irregular living situation. He welcomed her and her family but was clear about communion. She was outraged and told him she would find a more welcoming parish that would not make a big deal out of it. And she did. The priest did the right thing. He has lost several parishoners over the years because of hic orthodox faith and not pandering to secular ideas on abortion, SSM, and other hot topics. People get angry and find a more progressive parish, it’s just what it is. We need to be reminded of St John the Baptist and other saints who were martyred because they didn’t compromise on these matters. But sadly, many priests and bishops can’t handle that and go with the spirit of the times.