Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

[Ender]

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.

I think it is a serious misunderstanding to call the prohibition against people receiving communion who are in a condition of grave sin a discipline.

Even those pushing for communion to be given to persons who have divorced and remarried recognize the need first for confession and absolution for having committed a serious sin. This is their way around the problem: confession one time for having married, but thereafter they are free to receive. There are at least two problems with this, however, first because it is not the act of marriage that is adulterous but the marriage act, and second because one cannot profit from an immoral act. It would be like stealing $1M and expecting to receive absolution for confessing to the sin of theft without having to return the money.

If fact this point has already been addressed and resolved by the church: a couple that is in an invalid marriage can receive communion only if “*they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.’” *(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

Given the number of times this issue has been raised within the church, and the consistency with which she has answered it, recognizing that the prohibition “*expresses an objective situation that of itself renders **impossible **the reception of Holy Communion” (CDF), *where can she be expected to go from here?

What change would you recommend that allows the divorced and remarried to receive?
Is the church to say that a second marriage is not adultery? That adultery is not a grave sin? That those having committed a grave sin can receive communion without absolution? That those who confess to grave sin with no intention of changing can be absolved? What exactly do you propose?

Ender

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think it is a serious misunderstanding to call the prohibition against people receiving communion who are in a condition of grave sin a discipline.
Ender

I do, too.

If a marriage (whether real or fake) is a perpetual thing–as in, it continually exists until it ceases, there is no “off and on” sort of thing regarding marriage–then it is logically impossible to receive absolution validly without making the decision to stop acting as if you’re married.

The reason a bank robbery can be absolved is because it’s a one-time act. While its effects may be felt for a long time, the thing itself happens once. Marriages/“marriages” are not one-time acts, they are perpetual, it’s not like, “Today I’m going to be married, tomorrow I’m not, the next day I will be married, then next Tuesday I won’t again, then I will three days later.” One is constantly married/“married.”

 

[Rdunbar123]

-]/-]

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?

My response was to what I hear a lot of especially from my older sister, " I do believe God wants people to do this or doe that’s" or " I don’t believe people will go to hell forever, God wouldn’t do that" in other words instead of listen to the teachings found in the scriptures ect. They create their own God and own religion. Surely search for truth, but if you declare " I’m Catholic, or "I’m Orthodox " then the concept of what God is and what he expects is pretty well stated. By the way, according to scripture didn’t Jesus give Peter and the apostles the power to bind and loose starting with the word "whatever ". According to Roman Catholic doctrine, that would seem to give Pope Francis broad discretion.

In answer to the second part our Bishop has been quoted as saying " there will be Baptists, Methodists, Catholics …ect in Heaven, their May even be some Orthodox." We are absolutely forbidden from speculation on the eternal destiny of othes , we worry about ourselves.

 

[shelby_sun]

-]/-]

My response was to what I hear a lot of especially from my older sister, " I do believe God wants people to do this or doe that’s" or " I don’t believe people will go to hell forever, God wouldn’t do that" in other words instead of listen to the teachings found in the scriptures ect. They create their own God and own religion. Surely search for truth, but if you declare " I’m Catholic, or "I’m Orthodox " then the concept of what God is and what he expects is pretty well stated. By the way, according to scripture didn’t Jesus give Peter and the apostles the power to bind and loose starting with the word "whatever ". According to Roman Catholic doctrine, that would seem to give Pope Francis broad discretion.

In answer to the second part our Bishop has been quoted as saying " there will be Baptists, Methodists, Catholics …ect in Heaven, their May even be some Orthodox." We are absolutely forbidden from speculation on the eternal destiny of othes , we worry about ourselves.

You will find many, many people on this site that we let you, using scripture to tell you that Catholics and Only Catholics are going to be saves and get to Heaven. I am not one of them, but there are plenty on here who are.

 

[St_Francis]

You will find many, many people on this site that we let you, using scripture to tell you that Catholics and Only Catholics are going to be saves and get to Heaven. I am not one of them, but there are plenty on here who are.

Right, but listen to what they are saying: that only Catholics enter Heaven, not that only those who were outwardly Catholic on earth will enter. By the time someone not outwardly Catholic enters Heaven, they will have come to believe the truths of the Catholic faith because of their earthly love for God and the good.

 

[Usige]

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?

I would agree that God can reveal Himself to us each in different ways, but what He reveals would not be different between different people. God is Truth so He can only reveal Truth. There is not women’s and men’s truth. There is not Baptist and Catholic Truth. There is not atheist and Buddhist Truth. As Catholics we are supposed to hold the teachings of the Church as the fullness of the Truth. Anything that offends God in one place offends Him in all places so if something contradicts revealed Truth as taught by the Church then it cannot be from God.

 

[St_Francis]

This is an interview with bai MacFarlane, who was struck with a terrible divorce and who has since done a lot of reflecting and study about Catholic ideas of marriage. What I found of particular interest was her words about the requirement that a divorce occcur *before *the investigation into the validity of the marriage.

Oops must run will provide quote from later

 

[St_Francis]

Sorry about that! Someone from out of town suddenly arrived so had to run.

From the article:
Let’s get back to Church law. What about cases in a Catholic marriage where one of the spouses believes the marriage is invalid?

According to the Church’s code of canon law, all marriages are assumed valid until proven otherwise. That’s canon #1060. You can’t assume that it is invalid and get a civil divorce. And the recent Vatican document, Dignitas Connubii, cautions against people presuming their marriages are invalid.

Unfortunately, right now in the United States, it’s the exact opposite. The unwritten policy is that most tribunals will not accept a petition for annulment—they won’t investigate the validity of a marriage—until a civil divorce is finished. That’s an unwritten policy that is nowhere in canon law. Basically, they’ve made it up. There is no approved law for this policy which has been approved by Rome.

Civil divorce is setting oneself up for permanent separation, which is never acceptable according to canon law, except in cases of adultery, or if you have special permission from the bishop, and then only when there is serious, grave fault. For anything but an emergency (in which case you can temporarily separate on your own), if you think you have valid grounds for a separation, or if you believe that your marriage is invalid, according to canon law, you go to the Church, not the civil courts.

So you’re saying that diocesan marriage tribunals in this country are implicitly encouraging people to divorce?

Oh yes. I know because I’ve actually tried it. I asked my diocese to do an investigation of nullity so that they would conclude that we have a valid marriage, so that my husband would know he doesn’t have to divorce, if his reason for doing it is because we have an invalid marriage. That’s how I know.

Now, to me this is an interesting point, that it’s only a rule that the couple must divorce before applying for an investigation of the validity of their marriage, and that this rule actually encourages the bad situation of making permanent (in an antagonistic forum) a bad situation.

Her next point, about how counseling from priests sometimes goes, is also illuminating, and tuis is something others have pointed out about secular counseling wrt one (often the wife) of a married couple.

No one really seems interested in keeping marriages together, and our (US) legal institutions are assuredly working towards division.

I bring all this up because these seem like much more valid areas for the Synod to consider rather than rendering *even easier *the breaking of vows and dissolution of families.

 

[shelby_sun]

I would agree that God can reveal Himself to us each in different ways, but what He reveals would not be different between different people. God is Truth so He can only reveal Truth. There is not women’s and men’s truth. There is not Baptist and Catholic Truth. There is not atheist and Buddhist Truth. As Catholics we are supposed to hold the teachings of the Church as the fullness of the Truth. Anything that offends God in one place offends Him in all places so if something contradicts revealed Truth as taught by the Church then it cannot be from God.

In all my years I have never had a priest tell me that only Catholics get into heaven. It almost sound like people that believe as you do want to keep others out. It sounds like that somehow make you better than others. Jews have been a very faithful people to God. Protestants also believe in Christ has their savior. I just don’t believe they will be kept out of heaven and if I am blessed to get to heaven I will welcome everyone God see deserving. Will you or will your start question God himself?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The issue is that the prohibition against divorce is not a Catholic rule, but is divine in nature. Since marriage is a divine institution all mankind is bound regardless if they acknowledge it or not.

This is not quite true. Matrimony (genuine marriage) is a divine institution, but “marriage” is simply a word subject to abuse and misuse. It is not at all implausible to say that two people united in Vegas by a justice of the peace are not in a genuine marriage.

 

[St_Francis]

In all my years I have never had a priest tell me that only Catholics get into heaven. It almost sound like people that believe as you do want to keep others out. It sounds like that somehow make you better than others. Jews have been a very faithful people to God. Protestants also believe in Christ has their savior. I just don’t believe they will be kept out of heaven and if I am blessed to get to heaven I will welcome everyone God see deserving. Will you or will your start question God himself?

How on earth are you getting this out of what he wrote?! He is saying there is one truth revealed by God. Anything present in another religion that agrees with Church teaching is true. Anything that doesn’t is not true, and is not from God.

And there is nothing in his answer indicating that he thinks he is better than anyone, or that he wants to keep the truth from them, much less that he is implying that people not visibly connected with the Church in this life are unable to attain Heaven.

The reality is that those outside the Church attain Heaven because of the limited truth they have and follow, and *despite *the errors.

 

[Usige]

In all my years I have never had a priest tell me that only Catholics get into heaven. It almost sound like people that believe as you do want to keep others out. It sounds like that somehow make you better than others. Jews have been a very faithful people to God. Protestants also believe in Christ has their savior. I just don’t believe they will be kept out of heaven and if I am blessed to get to heaven I will welcome everyone God see deserving. Will you or will your start question God himself?

My post said nothing about who will make it to heaven and who won’t. I was speaking about moral relativism. God is entirely consistent and cannot reveal different contradictory Truth to different peoples. My apologies if you projected or perceived something else.

Let me try to give you a more concrete example. It is possible that God reveals His true plans for life long unions in different ways. In one culture it might be via cultural sexual mores and in another perhaps it is through teachings on family and economics. These represent different aspects of the same Truth. Now God would not, indeed could not, reveal a contradictory Truth to a third group that says sexual relationships that are short lived and flow then merge like water on a window are good. So different views can point to the same Truth, even if they do not fully encompass the fullness of the Truth. On the other hand when two Truths contradict then one must be wrong. When there is a conflict there must be an arbiter. Fortunately Christ gave us one, the Church.

When I say there is no Baptist and Catholic Truth I simply mean that there is God’s Truth and not different versions of the Truth for each group or individual. Baptist, Jews, Muslims, and any number of religions are based on the seeds of Truth, but when they are in conflict with the Truth proclaimed by the Catholic Church they are in conflict with the Truth revealed by God. Either the Church was established by Christ as His mediator on Earth or it wasn’t. If we can each hold our own version of Truth then why did God leave the Church on Earth? The view that any number of versions of the Truth are equally acceptable is the hallmark of relativism.

 

[shelby_sun]

My post said nothing about who will make it to heaven and who won’t. I was speaking about moral relativism. God is entirely consistent and cannot reveal different contradictory Truth to different peoples. My apologies if you projected or perceived something else.

Let me try to give you a more concrete example. It is possible that God reveals His true plans for life long unions in different ways. In one culture it might be via cultural sexual mores and in another perhaps it is through teachings on family and economics. These represent different aspects of the same Truth. Now God would not, indeed could not, reveal a contradictory Truth to a third group that says sexual relationships that are short lived and flow then merge like water on a window are good. So different views can point to the same Truth, even if they do not fully encompass the fullness of the Truth. On the other hand when two Truths contradict then one must be wrong. When there is a conflict there must be an arbiter. Fortunately Christ gave us one, the Church.

When I say there is no Baptist and Catholic Truth I simply mean that there is God’s Truth and not different versions of the Truth for each group or individual. Baptist, Jews, Muslims, and any number of religions are based on the seeds of Truth, but when they are in conflict with the Truth proclaimed by the Catholic Church they are in conflict with the Truth revealed by God. Either the Church was established by Christ as His mediator on Earth or it wasn’t. If we can each hold our own version of Truth then why did God leave the Church on Earth? The view that any number of versions of the Truth are equally acceptable is the hallmark of relativism.

I have no idea why the Church would revisit this point if they were as sure of everything as you are. Maybe you should be their to advise them.

 

[Usige]

I have no idea why the Church would revisit this point if they were as sure of everything as you are. Maybe you should be their to advise them.

Me apologies that the long standing teachings of the Church offend you so much. I will pray that the Lord remove the anger that dwells in your heart.

 

[St_Francis]

I have no idea why the Church would revisit this point if they were as sure of everything as you are. Maybe you should be their to advise them.

The Church has not decided to revisit this point: a few known radical progressives took advantage of the Synod to bring the issue up. The Synod will consider matters relating to the family and marriage from all over the world, not just the US and western Europe.

I hope that the resolution in this case will be to improve catechesis and be more vocal both in the Church (homilies, etc) and outside the Church. For too long we have been lax on this points!

 

[ringil]

I guess I don’t see the big deal.

The Church can change the logistic of annulments without touching doctrinal questions. They make the legalistic process thus they can do whatever with it they want while maintaining the permanent nature of marriage.

 

[shelby_sun]

I have no idea why the Church would revisit this point if they were as sure of everything as you are. Maybe you should be their to advise them.

What anger? Nice try. That seems to be what people like you do when seem to ask questions. You twist others in hating the Church, really. I have not said anything will change or should change, but unlike you I have compassion for the very difficult situation this can be for people, many who did not want their marriages to end. I experienced this with my own mother. Have you been through it?

 

[RaphaelJ]

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.

About this, it is true that Christ did not prohibit communion to those who divorced and remarried but it is a logical conclusion:

He stated that those who divorced and remarried except for immorality are committing adultery because a valid marriage is only dissolved through death. If so, people in this kind of state are adulterers (meaning those who are committing adultery). Adultery is considered a mortal sin by the Church and St. Paul warned us in his First Letter to the Corinthians that it is a very grave sin to take the Eucharist unworthily (which is interpreted to mean having committed a grave sin without having repented for it).

It just seems hard to justify this. Also, I would like to see a way to handle this without changing the doctrine. It seems that streamlining the annulment process is the only way.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

He stated that those who divorced and remarried except for immorality are committing adultery because a valid marriage is only dissolved through death.

If we’re gonna stick to what He said, He didn’t say this. He added the words “except in cases of porneia (i.e. gross sexual immorality).”

 

[RaphaelJ]

If we’re gonna stick to what He said, He didn’t say this. He added the words "except in cases of porneia (i.e. gross sexual immorality)

There was a clause there “except for immorality”. Even then, I posted on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=910008

The Greek word porneia used here has a lot of layers of meanings.