San Diego's Bishop McElroy strongly encourages Communion for divorced/remarried [CC]

[St_Francis]

Since I was also discussing this issue on this thread, I am posting this here as well.

In the past they were far more serious than we are now. **The fathers would give people public penances that lasted years before they were readmitted to communion. **They didn’t see it as ‘complicated’. It was simple, even if it was difficult.

Additionally, I believe that people used to have to confess in public.

Thanks, Mongo, for reminding me of this, as it gave me the last piece of the puzzle to put this all together, which I will share.

Now, imagine you are in the olden days… People had to confess to the whole church and perform a looooong penance before being able to receive the Eucharist again. Suddenly, confessions become private and anonymous! What!!! What about your friend who was unable to confess his sin because of the pain it would cause his family, who has since died? What about your cousin, who died before his penance was completed? What does this all mean? Why is it happening?

That’s how I felt about AL. I’m still not happy about it, but accept that that is just my own personal feeling rather than an objective reaction. Objectively, well, it’s not up to me, right?

So, how does this work?

Say that Joe, a non-practicing, non-catechized Catholic, marries Jane but their marriage fails because it was built on sand rather than on a rock (a reason which would allow for a decree of nullify if proven). They had married in the Church because their mothers both thought it was so beautiful. The priest was the sort of person who tended to be a little too accommodating and went along with all this.

Their marriage fails, and some years later, Joe meets Kim, and eventually they decide to marry. Joe is still not practicing or knowledgeable about the Faith, a new priest has come in who refuses to accommodate his mother, and they marry in Kim’s Protestant church.

As the children come along, Kim starts practicing her faith more, and Joe begins to feel a pull to Catholicism. Joe then finds he is unable to get an annulment because (it all happened in another country, all the witnesses have died, or some other reason).

1. Now, the first marriage is either sacramental or not sacramental: *this reality is unaffected by any work the Tribunal does. *The Tribunal is to *discover an already-existing truth, *not to create a truth.

If this is the case, then Joe could know the truth and simply be unable to prove it to a Tribunal. However, the truth that the marriage was not sacramental still exists.

1. The ministers of a marriage are the two who are marrying each other. The priest is merely a witness. When marriages take place under Catholic auspices, the Church is sort of approving them rather than conducting them. And this allows the Church to make rules: if your marriage has not been approved by the Church, you are not permitted to receive the Eucharist.
2. So, if it is a truth that Joe’s first attempt at marriage was a failure at that time, then he is free to marry. Since there is no *actual *necessity (this is only a discipline) for a priest to be present, then there is no blockage to their marrying sacramentally.
3. So Joe and Kim’s marriage would exist in reality as a sacramental marriage, although this reality is unknown to the Church.

I once had a written conversation in which a woman complained that Group A and Group B had committed similar infractions but received very different punishments. My correspondent was advocating that the system be changed so that everyone would receive the lesser punishment that Group B had received, to make things fair.

I suggested that Group A had received a fair punishment, which she was willing to concede. I then suggested that we consider the parable of the workers who came in at different times of the day but received the same pay at the end of the day. Obviously neither of us wanted to be like the workers who complained!

For many decades, too many people in the Church hierarchy (in the West, at least) have not encouraged vigorous catechesis and the result is that all too many Catholics are really ignorant of many aspects of the Faith. In the US, our cultural passing-down of the Faith was interrupted by many factors. The Church is a bit of a mess.

I would like to see certain changes, and this is not one of them (the reasons for which I will not go into here ) but this is the one we are getting. I hope that this explanation of my change of heart on this issue will help others.

PS: to all who were negative and dismissive of people who expressed their concerns about this change, it was through my discussions with others on this board which allowed me to come to understand how to think about this. I am really grateful to all those who commented in a helpful way on my thoughts and the thoughts of others who were/are confused about this issue as this all contributed to increased understanding on my part.

 

[ARSpade]

This is an interesting comment, especially in regard to your signature line*“God take away your alms. For as you live by charity, so do I by war, and to me it is as genuine a vocation as yours.” – Sir John Hawkwood
*If Hawkwood’s conscience is clear in his belief that war is as genuine a vocation as charity, on what grounds can anyone object? I do think, though, that the individual you refer to in your comment does not think he is committing adultery, but rather that his situation is not adulterous. In the absence of concrete standards either position seems as warranted as the other.

Ender

As the story goes, Sir John was riding along in Tuscany (not sure if he was employed by the Pope at that time or one of the other Italian factions) when some Franciscan monks greeted him by saying, “Peace be with you.” That was his response. Or one of many versions of the response that float about. The 14th century can have spotty records.

He wasn’t objecting for any reason of conscience. He was objecting that the monks praying for peace for him was essentially praying to take away his job.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It’s in the realm of “public” because marriages are public. There are no secret marriages in the Church.

This is not at all correct.

Canon law absolutely makes provision for marriage to be celebrated secretly. Such a marriage is to be recorded exclusively in the diocese’s secret archives.

 

[pnewton]

Is there a way for the priest to refuse communion to someone he believes to be in an adulterous relationship?

Of course. One thing that was clear from the Pope’s exhortation is that we need to avoid categories. So of course I can see where someone tried to consult with a priest and it was clear that person still had serious sexual issues. Nothing put out by the Pope or any bishop so far has stated that communion for a person in an irregular situation is a right they can insist on.

 

[Paganus]

But I thought we had a synod to help the family.

How does this help my family?

How does this strengthen my faith. It only weakens it.

Nothing a bishop says should weaken your faith, even if you feel it might be in error - they are not always infallible in their pronouncements.

Here’s an old timey Catholic thought for the day:

“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” – St. Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, AD 325

But then, one suspects that perhaps St. Athanasius was not always charitable in his posts concerning Catholic clergy.

 

[ARSpade]

This is not at all correct.

Canon law absolutely makes provision for marriage to be celebrated secretly. Such a marriage is to be recorded exclusively in the diocese’s secret archives.

I don’t think hiding sin and scandal is what the canon law was going for. Not in the “spirit” as they say.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The following article addresses a question from somebody regarding divorced people and whether they are allowed to be Godparents or sponsors for Baptism or confirmation.

Are there really now instances now where the divorced and remarried who can not get annulment are allowed to receive Communion but yet can not be Godparents or sponsors for Baptism or Confirmation? Wow. This is so confusing!

This article says:

if the person does not have a Church annulment and is in a romantic relationship or has attempted remarriage outside the Church, then that person is not living “a life of faith that befits the role to be undertaken *,” as required by canon law (CIC 874), and so another candidate for the role should be chosen.
catholic.com/quickquestions/can-divorced-individuals-become-godparents-or-sponsors-for-baptism-and-confirmation

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think the issue of the remarried becoming Godparents etc. was specifically addressed in Amoris Latetia.

Has Bishop McElroy said anything about those people that cannot get an annulment and their ability to become Godparents or sponsors for Baptism or Confirmation?*

 

[zz912]

This is not at all correct.

Canon law absolutely makes provision for marriage to be celebrated secretly. Such a marriage is to be recorded exclusively in the diocese’s secret archives.

I should have noted in my post there are very rare instances where secret marriages can be held. But these are of course NOT what we are discussing here. We are discussing situations where marriage is public. Anyone in the US asking for a secret marriage would be laughed out of hand. They are only allowed for grave and urgent causes, i.e. under serious persecution or some violent threat on their lives.

But like I said, that’s not what we’re discussing here. We are discussing normal conditions, so secret marriages are not allowed. So my point stands, marriage is a public act and public event.

CHAPTER VII.

MARRIAGE CELEBRATED SECRETLY

Can. 1130 For a grave and urgent cause, the local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated secretly.

Can. 1131 Permission to celebrate a marriage secretly entails the following:

1/ the investigations which must be conducted before the marriage are done secretly;

2/ the local ordinary, the one assisting, the witnesses, and the spouses observe secrecy about the marriage celebrated.

Can. 1132 The obligation of observing the secrecy mentioned in ⇒ can. 1131, n. 2 ceases on the part of the local ordinary if grave scandal or grave harm to the holiness of marriage is imminent due to the observance of the secret; this is to be made known to the parties before the celebration of the marriage.

Can. 1133 A marriage celebrated secretly is to be noted only in a special register to be kept in the secret archive of the curia.

 

[goout]

1631
…

• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

The statement from CCC can be taken for what it is.

 

[TCEL]

I should have noted in my post there are very rare instances where secret marriages can be held. But these are of course NOT what we are discussing here. We are discussing situations where marriage is public. Anyone in the US asking for a secret marriage would be laughed out of hand. They are only allowed for grave and urgent causes, i.e. under serious persecution or some violent threat on their lives.

The first examples that comes to mind are Wallace and Murrin from Braveheart.

 

[KSU]

… You are the first I have seen to raise the possibility that the Pope cannot even change discipline.

The Pope can order a change to discipline, normally in a manner by which the whole Church is made aware of the exact change. That has not happened here; Cannon Law remains unchanged and the whole Church has not otherwise been assured of a change.

Moreover, not even a Pope can make a change to discipline if that change contradicts doctrine–in this case dogma, Christ’s words regarding adultery and remarriage, affirmed as unchangeable for 2,000 years.

So then, p, what back-door change to “discipline” by which an adulterer becomes a non-adulterer do you see in A.L.? The ambiguous Footnote 351 obviously did no such thing. And even if it were intended to make that earth-shaking change, why would the Pope say he doesn’t even remember the footnote, and refuse to explain it?

 

[rabbitdonkey]

That same reasoning could be used to mandate all confessions be public and in front of the Church, which it was for a time. While our sin does affect others, there is no logical leap that all must know.

Besides, this statement assumes as fact the one thing that is not known. Namely, is the current union actually adulterous.

Not all confessions in the early Church were public, I think only if it was a public sin. Frst they would go pricately to the Priest