Rec'g Communion-Divorced & Remarried

[HagiaSophia]

Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who suffer because they cannot receive Communion must be welcomed in parishes as Catholics who witness to the importance of the Eucharist, Pope Benedict XVI said.

At the same time, he said, if a priest, acting out of compassion for their suffering, gives them the Eucharist, he risks undermining the dignity and indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage.

“We all know that this is a particularly painful situation,” the pope said July 25 during a meeting with about 140 priests, religious and deacons from the Valle d’Aosta region where he was vacationing.

The pope added that he knew the issue could get complicated and said, “Given these people’s situation of suffering it must be studied.”

The meeting, which was closed to the press, lasted about two hours. The pope’s opening remarks and responses to questions from the priests were transcribed and published July 27 in the Vatican newspaper.

“The pope is not a prophet,” he told the priests. “He is infallible in very rare circumstances, as we all know.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504311.htm

 

[Karin]

I thought divorced catholics could still recieve communion as long as they did not remarry (without benefit of an annulment)?!?!

 

[jrabs]

Karin:

I thought divorced catholics could still recieve communion as long as they did not remarry (without benefit of an annulment)?!?!

hmmm, I was under that assumption as well.

 

[netmilsmom]

Karin:

I thought divorced catholics could still recieve communion as long as they did not remarry (without benefit of an annulment)?!?!

Reread the first sentance…
“Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics…”

As long as one is not remarried civilly, one can receive the Sacraments.

 

[Tedster]

Karin:

I thought divorced catholics could still recieve communion as long as they did not remarry (without benefit of an annulment)?!?!

This is true, but he was simply talking about divorced AND remarried Catholics, of which there are very many, as we all know.

 

[Karin]

Tedster:

This is true, but he was simply talking about divorced AND remarried Catholics, of which there are very many, as we all know.

Ok that is what I thought but the first sentence in the post threw me off…

 

[pnewton]

My priest remarked once that if he could change one thing, this would be it. The presumption of validity of anything that looks like a marriage prevents many from reception of communion for years while previous marriages are examined. It has always inspired me, though, that even though he does not agree, he has faithfully upheld what the church requires.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I see nothing new in this article. All he said was the same thing that’s always been said: Get divorced and remarry civilly, and you can’t receive the Eucharist until it’s corrected- but the obligation of Sunday Mass is still there.

 

[Catholic2003]

pnewton:

My priest remarked once that if he could change one thing, this would be it. The presumption of validity of anything that looks like a marriage prevents many from reception of communion for years while previous marriages are examined. It has always inspired me, though, that even though he does not agree, he has faithfully upheld what the church requires.

In prior Church law, the presumption of validity applied to the current marriage, so that someone with a prior marriage would be assumed to be in a valid second marriage until proven otherwise. However, the presumption of validity in current canon law now applies to the first marriage, so the second marriage is assumed to be invalid until proven otherwise.

 

[stbruno]

This is a very vexing problem for those of who are called to do baptismal preparation and later baptize children of couples who are civilly remarried after theywere married in a prior Catholic sacramental marriage or just civilly married and not in a Catholic marriage but they want their children baptized anyway.First, we have to remind them of their separation from the church’s reception of the sacraments. And most of them time, they are clearly clueless or uncaring of that notion. Some are taken aback and appear to be unaware of this restriction. Maybe it’s due to the facts that in addition to being clearly uncatechized themselves,
Nearly 75% of the couples who come to us for baptismal prep either are:

1. Civilly married only.
2. Civilly remarried after a prior Catholic sacramental marriage.
3. Living together with no intentions of sacramentally marrying ever.
4. Liiving together for more than 15yrs. with more than one child with no intention of ever dong more than baptizing their child in the faith of which they do not practice or intend to practice.
5. More and more are in mixed faith relationships…even non-Christian relationships
   And we are expected to just accept their desire to have the child baptized because they have shown up for a class.
6. Are single parents…by choice or by circumstance.
   My spouse and I work together as a team in the baptismal prep effort. First, we remind them about the gift they have been given by God and all the responsibilities it entails including the care of them physical, emotionally and spirtually. Baptism root word comes from the Latin…oath…So when you make the promise to raise this child inthe faith they claim to profess…you will be held accountable to Christ who meets them in this Sacrament in the persona of the priest or deacon. That means you need to live your faith by example and if you avoid sacramental Catholic marriage, you are breaking this oath from the very beginning. It is hard to teach them this very difficult message without being heavy handed, so we pray to the Holy Spirit to enlighten us with the right words and tools. I am very glad that the Pope is working on this issue. It is vital in this day and age of relativism and secularism. Pray Pray, Pray some more!

 

[Chatter163]

Catholic2003:

In prior Church law, the presumption of validity applied to the current marriage, so that someone with a prior marriage would be assumed to be in a valid second marriage until proven otherwise. However, the presumption of validity in current canon law now applies to the first marriage, so the second marriage is assumed to be invalid until proven otherwise.

When and where did the Church assume a second marriage to be valid and a prior one invalid?

 

[JimG]

Chatter163:

When and where did the Church assume a second marriage to be valid and a prior one invalid?

I thought that the Church always assumed the validity of any first marriage until proven otherwise. I’ve never heard of such a thing as disregarding a first marriage and presuming the validity of a second.

 

[Catholic2003]

Chatter163:

When and where did the Church assume a second marriage to be valid and a prior one invalid?

From the CLSA New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, on canon 1060:

In its earliest formulation by Innocent III, the presumption of validity was meant to favor an existing marriage’s claim to legitimacy when doubts about its validity surfaced because of a possible impediment. The validity of the existing marriage was to be upheld until its nullity had ben certainly proved. At the present time, however, the effect of the favor of the law has been reversed. The presumption now favors the marriage that has, existentially at least, ceased over an existing subsequent marriage in peaceful possition. In addition, the presumption is at odds with the general principle that doubtful laws, contracts, and moral obligations do not oblige.

The footnote to “Innocent III” is “X, 2.20.47”, which I believe is a reference to the Decretals of Gregory IX in the old Corpus of Canon Law (prior to 1917).

 

[JimG]

In its earliest formulation by Innocent III, the presumption of validity was meant to favor an existing marriage’s claim to legitimacy when doubts about its validity surfaced because of a possible impediment.

It seems that this could be understood in several ways. In the time of Innocent II, I don’t think that a prior marriage was among the most common impediments to marriage. So despite any subsequently alleged impediment to an existing marriage–such as an alleged improper degree of consanguinity–the existing marriage was treated as valid until proven otherwise.

It is much the same today, but today prior marriages and civil divorces are much more common. How could a prior marriage be treated the same as any other impediment without jeopardizing every marriage?

 

[Catholic2003]

JimG:

It seems that this could be understood in several ways. In the time of Innocent II, I don’t think that a prior marriage was among the most common impediments to marriage. So despite any subsequently alleged impediment to an existing marriage–such as an alleged improper degree of consanguinity–the existing marriage was treated as valid until proven otherwise.

That paragraph from the commentary is pretty much the extent of my knowledge of this. I don’t even know how to begin to lookup the footnote.

My vague understanding of medieval history is that divorce wasn’t very common, but what did happen was for someone to simply abandon a prior marriage and relocate to a place where that marriage wasn’t known, and then attempt remarriage. Hence the Church requirement for the marriage banns. Certainly, the impediment of prior bond (Latin ligamen) was in place.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is a paragraph from the Bouscaren & Ellis commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law on the corresponding 1917 canon 1014:

Before the [1917] Code, disparity of cult invalidated a marriage between a validly baptized heretic [Protestant] and an unbaptized person. In case the baptism of the heretic was doubtful the presumption was in favor of valid baptism, and hence against the validity of the marriage. Since the [1917] Code, the presumption is in favor of the validity of the marriage until it is proved that one party was baptized in the Catholic Church and that the other was unbaptized.

 

[JimG]

I had nearly forgotton about the “banns” of marriage.

In my youth, the names of the prospective bride and groom along with the name of their home parish, was announced from the pulpit for three consecutive Sundays. Anyone who had information that might indicate any reason that they could not be validly married was asked to bring that information to the pastor.

 

[Karin]

JimG:

I had nearly forgotton about the “banns” of marriage.

In my youth, the names of the prospective bride and groom along with the name of their home parish, was announced from the pulpit for three consecutive Sundays. Anyone who had information that might indicate any reason that they could not be validly married was asked to bring that information to the pastor.

I know they do this in Bermuda…but I have not seen it done in the States…why???

 

[JimG]

Karin:

I know they do this in Bermuda…but I have not seen it done in the States…why???

I think it is still generally done, except that now they just publish the names of upcoming brides & grooms in the parish bulletin. (Although, for about the past 30 years I can’t recall any priest explaining to the congregation why this is done! People probably think it is just a nice gesture.)

 

[Karin]

JimG:

I think it is still generally done, except that now they just publish the names of upcoming brides & grooms in the parish bulletin. (Although, for about the past 30 years I can’t recall any priest explaining to the congregation why this is done! People probably think it is just a nice gesture.)

I have not seen this done in our Parish and we have had many people getting married. The only thing they publish is that the couple got married and Congratulations!