Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

[ProVobis]

If this is indeed true about being allowed to receive communion in a state of adultery, shouldn’t the other sins be looked into as well in preventing communion? And what does one really gain by receiving in the state of mortal sin?

 

[Deltadeliquent]

OK, OK!
I was just offering a suggestion. Im not offering to change the rules, nor the nature of marriage, the sacraments or the popes favorite dinner.

I was hoping for a real discussion on if this would work, or if not why. If it’s a dumb idea, why is it a dumb idea?
I think its a better suggestion (although only a partial solution) than leaving it up to each individual, or copying the Orthodox ways, or doing away with it altogether. Suggestions I have read about from others.

Frankly, I hope they don’t change the rules. Even if my own situation can’t be resolved. I signed up, I have to play by the rules.
But it’s the pope and the bishops that are talking about changing things.

 

[Ender]

But it’s the pope and the bishops that are talking about changing things.

A large part of this issue is just this: who, exactly is “talking” about it? Is this driven mostly by the media or does the pope really believe the doctrines can be changed? There are no doubt a lot of people who would like to see the prohibition removed, but there is a lot of doubt that the emphasis on this point is being driven from within the church.

You have indicated a willingness to “play by the rules” (which is not actually the same thing as accepting the doctrines as true), but what about the myriad others in similar circumstances whose hopes are being raised by the visibility of the controversy? How can they be expected to react when those hopes are raised but not realized? Is it likely the church will be strengthened by such a development? The outcome is foreseeable so it is appropriate to ask: cui bono - who benefits?

Ender

 

[Deltadeliquent]

I do accept the doctrines as true.
But I also live in a secular world where most others don’t accept them as true, or even relevant.

Frankly, I think this issue is what the synod should be about, with respect to family and marriage.

 

[Usige]

I was hoping for a real discussion on if this would work, or if not why. If it’s a dumb idea, why is it a dumb idea?
I think its a better suggestion (although only a partial solution) than leaving it up to each individual, or copying the Orthodox ways, or doing away with it altogether. Suggestions I have read about from others.

I don’t think it’s a dumb idea, but simply pointing out why it couldn’t be done. Marriage is like baptism, confirmation and holy orders in that it produces an ontological change in the spouse’s souls. The difference is that the change is not indelible like it is for the other 3. In simple terms the bond is so strong that it can only be broken in death. It is not about Catholic vs non-Catholic marriage. Either a marriage is valid or it isn’t. Too often there is a desire to treat religious vs civil marriage as two separate things. In a perfect world civil marriage would simply be an acknowledgement of what is true in God’s eye, rather that the reverse.

What I suspect you will see is a streamlined process for annulments and perhaps a more consistent tribunal process. Pope Francis has already appointed a commission to look I to the possibilities on that front. I also suspect we will see clearer teaching on what makes an invalid marriage so there isn’t as much confusion. I hope we see more teaching on Marriage pushed down to an earlier age (middle school and high school). Waiting until people chose to marry is often too late as seen by the number of Catholics who skip marrying in the Church.

That does leave the problem of divorced and remarried persons, who say their previous marriages were valid so refuse to investigate the validity. I don’t have a good solution there. I know some have suggested just saying all marriages outside the Church are invalid or perhaps saying any marriage before 25 without kids is automatically invalid because of lack of maturity. I certainly hope they don’t go down that road. Any change should still reflect the truth.

 

[TMC]

OK, OK!
I was just offering a suggestion. Im not offering to change the rules, nor the nature of marriage, the sacraments or the popes favorite dinner.

I was hoping for a real discussion on if this would work, or if not why. If it’s a dumb idea, why is it a dumb idea?
I think its a better suggestion (although only a partial solution) than leaving it up to each individual, or copying the Orthodox ways, or doing away with it altogether. Suggestions I have read about from others.

Frankly, I hope they don’t change the rules. Even if my own situation can’t be resolved. I signed up, I have to play by the rules.
But it’s the pope and the bishops that are talking about changing things.

I think that there should be a real discussion on this topic, and that no ideas should be rejected out of hand as dumb.

One of the things I have seen on the several threads on this topic is the insistence by some that nothing can be changed. I have seen three reasons given for that position 1) that the Church cannot change anything about its doctrines or policies; 2) that the teaching on divorce comes directly from the Gospel and is therefore immutable, and 3) that if the Church makes any change to doctrine there will be some kind of loss of faith in the Church that will be catastrophic. I’ll take them in reverse order.

The third reason is the easiest to dismiss – the Church must do what the Church believes is correct, and not resist change out of a pure fear of change itself.

The second reason is simply wrong. While Jesus spoke against divorce, He never set forth the pastoral rules for dealing with divorce. That is, Jesus did not say “and therefore the divorced and remarried are forever barred from the sacraments.” It is the Church that decided that was the way to deal with the remarried; and the Church can (and in my view should) revisit that.

The first reason is equally wrong. The Church has changed lots of policies and even doctrines over the centuries. That should not happen lightly, but it is the responsibility of the Church to continually review such things and make changes as appropriate.

So the Church could, as you suggest, treat those married outside of the Church differently and (for example) relax annulment procedures for them. More globally, the Church could treat remarriage as a sinful act, but allow the remarried to repent their divorce and remarriage one time, and be deemed to be readmitted to the sacraments at that point. That is what makes sense to me. My sense is that at least some of the bishops are suggesting something like that.

 

[Megan7]

I don’t think it’s a dumb idea, but simply pointing out why it couldn’t be done. Marriage is like baptism, confirmation and holy orders in that it produces an ontological change in the spouse’s souls. The difference is that the change is not indelible like it is for the other 3. In simple terms the bond is so strong that it can only be broken in death. It is not about Catholic vs non-Catholic marriage. Either a marriage is valid or it isn’t. Too often there is a desire to treat religious vs civil marriage as two separate things. In a perfect world civil marriage would simply be an acknowledgement of what is true in God’s eye, rather that the reverse.

What I suspect you will see is a streamlined process for annulments and perhaps a more consistent tribunal process. Pope Francis has already appointed a commission to look I to the possibilities on that front. I also suspect we will see clearer teaching on what makes an invalid marriage so there isn’t as much confusion. I hope we see more teaching on Marriage pushed down to an earlier age (middle school and high school). Waiting until people chose to marry is often too late as seen by the number of Catholics who skip marrying in the Church.

That does leave the problem of divorced and remarried persons, who say their previous marriages were valid so refuse to investigate the validity. I don’t have a good solution there. I know some have suggested just saying all marriages outside the Church are invalid or perhaps saying any marriage before 25 without kids is automatically invalid because of lack of maturity. I certainly hope they don’t go down that road. Any change should still reflect the truth.

Usige, maybe you can clarify this for me. You seem to be well versed in the faith If I am not mistaken, years ago, maybe decades or even 100 years ago or so. Catholics were only able to marry Catholics, right?
Do you know when the change occurred or if it did at all? It seems that so many people marry non Catholics with previous marriages under their belt, and it just complicates things even more.
Maybe there was a wisdom in Holy Mother Church when you were only able to marry a Catholic. Because the other problem I see with people marrying non Catholics, is that you always see posts in the family section, of how the non Catholic spouse will not raise the children Catholic & or it causes tensions in the family. And eventually you either end up with divorce or with children growing up without the faith at all What a mess!

Anyway, if you happen to know, please let me know. Thanks.

And to others, yes I know there are some people who convert because of a devout practicing Catholic, but that does not seem to be the norm

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe there was a wisdom in Holy Mother Church when you were only able to marry a Catholic.

Not maybe. Definitely.

My brother-in-law’s wife-to-be converted from Baptist to Catholic before he would decide to get married. Made things much easier from the family’s standpoint. And her parents were okay with it.

 

[Petaro]

theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/27/vatican-pope-remarried-divorced-communion

You rely on the Guardian for your news on the Catholic faith discussions? Really!

 

[Megan7]

Not maybe. Definitely.

My brother-in-law’s wife-to-be converted from Baptist to Catholic before he would decide to get married. Made things much easier from the family’s standpoint. And her parents were okay with it.

Oh, Pro Vobis, I definitely agree with you. “Definitely” should be the word used, not maybe. I am just usually paranoid of how or what to post here Your brother-in-law was a wise man:thumbsup:

I know of several cases where the spouse said they would convert, and it never happened,
and the children suffered. I think that is one of the many reasons we are in the mess we are in. So much chaos, confusion, etc. I always feel bad for the poor soul who posts in the family area forum, questions like “would it be ok to marry so & so if they are atheists, or whatever?” I feel like hitting my head on the wall…

+Pax

 

[Brendan]

Usige, maybe you can clarify this for me. You seem to be well versed in the faith If I am not mistaken, years ago, maybe decades or even 100 years ago or so. Catholics were only able to marry Catholics, right?

That is not true. St. Monica, for example, was not married to a Catholic, and that was in the 300’s AD. And St. Cecillia married St. Valerian when he was still a pagan.

They needed permission from the bishop when the other person is unbaptized ( which is still true today, it’s called a ‘Dispensation for Disparity of Cult’.)

 

[Usige]

Usige, maybe you can clarify this for me. You seem to be well versed in the faith If I am not mistaken, years ago, maybe decades or even 100 years ago or so. Catholics were only able to marry Catholics, right?
Do you know when the change occurred or if it did at all? It seems that so many people marry non Catholics with previous marriages under their belt, and it just complicates things even more.

Maybe there was a wisdom in Holy Mother Church when you were only able to marry a Catholic. Because the other problem I see with people marrying non Catholics, is that you always see posts in the family section, of how the non Catholic spouse will not raise the children Catholic & or it causes tensions in the family. And eventually you either end up with divorce or with children growing up without the faith at all What a mess!

Anyway, if you happen to know, please let me know. Thanks.

The Latin Church has never technically forbid Catholics from marrying non-Catholics. It has been an impediment for perhaps 1200 years and technically still is. What has changed is that it is perhaps not as widely discouraged as it used to be. The language has certainly softened. For instance in the 1917 code of Canon Law Canon 1060 said:
1917 CIC 1060:

Most severely does the Church prohibit everywhere that marriage be entered into by two baptized persons, one of whom is Catholic, and the other belonging to a heretical or schismatic sect; indeed, if there is a danger of perversion to the Catholic spouse and children, that marriage is forbidden even by divine law.

(Dr Edward Peters - translator)

Canon 1062 of the former code also included an obligation by the Catholic spouse to “prudently take care for the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse”. A dispensation for a mixed marriage was also only to be granted for “just and grave reason” and not simply because of the petitioners preference. In other words bishops were not supposed to dispense unless there was serious reason that the Catholic could not find a Catholic spouse (e.g. a Catholic in a non-Catholic community). Both of these proscriptions are no longer in the 1983 Code of Canon law.

I don’t know when exactly the move away from discouraging mixed marriages began, but there were changes following the Second Vatican II such as removing excommunication for Catholics marrying in-front on a non catholic minister without dispensation or agreeing to not raise their children Catholic. These were abrogated in Matrimonia Mixta (1970).

I would say that the focus on ecumenism was one reason, but to be honest I think the real issue can be traced to three specific things.

First is a general disregard for authority over the last 50+ years, This extends to how people perceive the Church in that many see Her as an adviser rather than an authority. Something to be listened to, but not obeyed. Many Catholics know the laws of the Church, but simply disregard any laws that they disagree with. I saw that many times when I used to do marriage prep.

The second issue is that people have become more mobile and hence less religiously insular. Before the mid 20th century most people tended to be in communities that had a common value and religious structure. With more people going to universities and moving away from their communities there was likely a decay in adherence to teachings. Universities are like the confluence of two rivers. They can build up sand bars while eroding the banks.

Third, is a general lack of commitment to permanence. Many people find excuses not to follow through on what they promise. In the past there was a sense of dishonor that went with breaking your word. Now most people simply shrug and say they tried their best and then move on. I see this not just in relationships, but in the work place too.

Long and short, would restricting marriage to only between Catholics help? Perhaps, but not that much. Many Catholics will continue to ignore Church teachings. This would just be one more thing they would shrug at and go about their way, To be honest many of the most staunch supporters of the Church often are not cradle Catholics. Neither my wife nor I were raised Catholic, but have worked for the last 7 years to proclaim the Church’s teaching on marriage after watching or own parents marriages implode into divorce.

 

[ProVobis]

That is not true. St. Monica, for example, was not married to a Catholic, and that was in the 300’s AD. And St. Cecillia married St. Valerian when he was still a pagan.

They needed permission from the bishop when the other person is unbaptized ( which is still true today, it’s called a ‘Dispensation for Disparity of Cult’.)

It was one of the precepts of the Church that all children be baptized Catholic. You are right that permission was needed. But how often was/is this declined?

 

[Deltadeliquent]

I love my husband very much…
But after two marriages to non Catholics, I envy those who can share that important part of their lives with their spouse.

 

[Ender]

The third reason (Goodness, we can’t change doctrine!) is the easiest to dismiss – the Church must do what the Church believes is correct, and not resist change out of a pure fear of change itself.

The church is free to change her disciplines as she chooses, but that freedom does not extend to her doctrines, and to suggest it is fear that causes some to oppose giving communion to the divorced and remarried is not an argument; it is merely an insult.

The second reason is simply wrong. While Jesus spoke against divorce, He never set forth the pastoral rules for dealing with divorce. That is, Jesus did not say “and therefore the divorced and remarried are forever barred from the sacraments.” It is the Church that decided that was the way to deal with the remarried; and the Church can (and in my view should) revisit that.

This is another Jesus-never-said-it-so-I-don’t-have-to-accept-it argument. Let’s start with what Jesus did say: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Mt 19:9) Are we in agreement that adultery is a grave sin, and is it not true that one is not to receive communion while in a state of grave sin? Even Cardinal Kasper acknowledges this:Therefore divorced and remarried people should find a good priest confessor who accompanies them for some time and if this second, civil marriage, is solid then the path of new orientation can end with a confession and absolution. Absolution means admission to Holy Communion.
That is, even the most outspoken supporter of readmitting to communion those who have divorced and remarried recognizes that they must first confess and receive absolution. But is this even possible? Here is the relevant church doctrine:Can. 987* To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God.*
Doesn’t “having a purpose of amendment” mean intending to stop sinning? But if the person intends to continue with the marriage, which Jesus himself defined as adultery, how can that individual receive absolution? How is the church to “revisit” its understanding of the sacrament of penance?

The first reason is equally wrong. The Church has changed lots of policies and even doctrines over the centuries. That should not happen lightly, but it is the responsibility of the Church to continually review such things and make changes as appropriate.

This is much too casual a description of the development of doctrine. Yes, surely doctrine can develop, and in that sense change, but the “change” you support here involves not a natural growth of existing doctrine but its repudiation. Again, even Cardinal Kasper won’t go that far.Doctrine, in so far as it is official binding doctrine, cannot change.
That would seem to describe the church’s understanding of the sacrament of penance so it isn’t exactly clear how the change that you (and Cardinal Kasper?) seek could come about.

Ender

 

[Rdunbar123]

I see your point but with the millions and millions of Catholics all over the world from every different culture do you really think such a limited rigid rule is appropriate of best in every Catholic marriage situation. People want to know why people are leaving the Church and this is one of the top reasons. The God I was raised with was a much, more, loving, forgiving, and understanding God that knew our struggles better than we knew them ourselves. Only God know if we have done the best we can possible have done, not the Church with men who have never even been married.

Which God were you raised with, I thought there was only one?

 

[phil19034]

By the very fact the CC has a rule I immediately know that is for good and true reasons. And ‘rules’ develop the same as doctrines develop, or rather, fruit comes from… In no circumstances, not ever, could Church rules be compared with golf! (except that they are both holey ). But for the sake of being exacting, maybe ‘rule’ can be misconstrued, so possibly *‘holy values and laws/rules/(?) set by Doctrine concerning the sanctity of life and faith and morals’ *might be better although a bit of a mouthful. Let us remember that there is also a difference between a Doctrine and a Dogma.

The reason the Church has a “rule” against them receiving communion is to protect them. If Christ views them as being in an adulterous relationship; then they will be committing the mortal sin of sacrilege in addition to adultery.

What’s better; ban them from communion to protect them from committing sacrilege and increasing their chances of going to hell; or keep them from the communion in an attempt to limit the number of mortal sins they commit?

Either way, this is not an easy situation:

when you bar people from communion; they are protected from sacrilege, but continue to committee adultery. If you allow them to committee sacrilege and they are still committing adultery, then they are in double trouble.

Let’s assume that the discipline changed to being you may return to communion once the annulment process is underway… what if the person dies before it’s complete? Or what if the annulment is denied? Is that a risk that’s worth taking to encourage people to seek annulments? If the annulment isn’t granted, they will keep sinning anyway. But if it’s granted, then they would not be committing adultery (just fornication) and can get their re-marriage con-validated and go to confession and get right with the Church.

IF there are ever any changes to the discipline; I think it really comes down to what is the a “worse” mortal sin? Sacrilege or leaving the Catholic Church? Just typing this, I know it’s playing with fire…

The best thing is to educate teens, young adults, adults, senior citizens and even elderly about what the Church teaches regarding marriage, annulments, divorce, etc. ALSO streamline the annulment process using 21st century technology and methods so divorced Catholics feel like they can easily petition for an annulment and find out in weeks or months; not months or years.

 

[shelby_sun]

Which God were you raised with, I thought there was only one?

How do you not know that God is not presenting Himself in different ways to different cultures and people so He can get the most of His children into heaven with HIm. Do you talk to and raise your children exactly the same? Do you expect every single person on earth, from all the different parts of the world, with all the different culture to see and believe exactly what you do?

 

[shelby_sun]

Which God were you raised with, I thought there was only one?

How do you not know that God is not presenting Himself in different ways to different cultures and people so He can get the most of His children into heaven with HIm. Do you talk to and raise your children exactly the same way? Do you expect every single person on earth, from all the different parts of the world, with all the different culture to see and believe exactly what you do?

Would you be upset if you found people of other faiths in heaven if you are blessed enough to get there yourself. Would you question God’s plan?

 

[TMC]

The church is free to change her disciplines as she chooses, but that freedom does not extend to her doctrines, and to suggest it is fear that causes some to oppose giving communion to the divorced and remarried is not an argument; it is merely an insult.

I am not suggesting that the Church will refuse to change out of fear. I am saying that I have heard fear of any change advanced as an argument against all change, and that is a poor argument. It seems you would agree.

This is another Jesus-never-said-it-so-I-don’t-have-to-accept-it argument. Let’s start with what Jesus did say: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Mt 19:9) Are we in agreement that adultery is a grave sin, and is it not true that one is not to receive communion while in a state of grave sin? Even Cardinal Kasper acknowledges this:Therefore divorced and remarried people should find a good priest confessor who accompanies them for some time and if this second, civil marriage, is solid then the path of new orientation can end with a confession and absolution. Absolution means admission to Holy Communion.
That is, even the most outspoken supporter of readmitting to communion those who have divorced and remarried recognizes that they must first confess and receive absolution. But is this even possible? Here is the relevant church doctrine:Can. 987* To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment*, the person is turned back to God.
Doesn’t “having a purpose of amendment” mean intending to stop sinning? But if the person intends to continue with the marriage, which Jesus himself defined as adultery, how can that individual receive absolution? How is the church to “revisit” its understanding of the sacrament of penance?

I am not saying that the only things that must be obeyed are those that come from the lips of Christ. The point is that people are saying that the rules on divorce come directly from Jesus, and are thus immutable. That is simply untrue. As to the rest of your point, there are many ways to handle the situation of the divorced and remarried without changing the doctrines on either divorce or penance.

This is much too casual a description of the development of doctrine. Yes, surely doctrine can develop, and in that sense change, but the “change” you support here involves not a natural growth of existing doctrine but its repudiation. Again, even Cardinal Kasper won’t go that far.Doctrine, in so far as it is official binding doctrine, cannot change.
That would seem to describe the church’s understanding of the sacrament of penance so it isn’t exactly clear how the change that you (and Cardinal Kasper?) seek could come about.

Ender

You can call it “casual” but it is accurate. Whether doctrines technically change is mostly semantic. Has the Church’s doctrine on usury changed? On slavery? On religious freedom? Technically, the answer to each is arguably no. As a practical matter, each has absolutely changed.

To be clear, I am neither advocating for a change in doctrine, or saying that we need one. I do think a change in discipline would be prudent. I think there is no doubt that a change in discipline is possible. It seems apparent that a large part of the Church agrees, and that at least some of the bishops support change.