Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[anon99031074]

Here is a somewhat more detailed article about the issue:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-jesus-allow-divorce

It seems to me that an exception for adultery is not merely an exception but a wide open gate, since it effectively would give any couple the ability to divorce, merely by the expedient of one or both of them committing adultery. They might flip a coin to see who gets the nod.

Is the marital bond more permanent that a cell phone contract? Or is it essentially nullifiable by human will? What God has joined together let no man put asunder, except…

LET no man put asunder. Just like LET no man kill! He doesn’t say it is impossible to break the marriage bond, only that it ideally should not be broken, and that doing so is gravely immoral. But even if it is gravely immoral to break the marriage bond and dissolve the unity God has made through grace, is it unforgivable? I see no reason to think that the RCC is right here and that the Orthodox Church is wrong, It is not a constant tradition, as divorce was granted as a concession to human weakness in the Eastern Churches long before the great schism. And as the references I quoted above suggest, it was also sometimes allowed in the western Church. Furthermore, the Church already allows divorce and remarriage on the basis of the words of Paul, arguing that it is only sacramental marriages that are truly indissoluble. Jesus made no distinction between sacramental and non sacramental marriages. He was speaking to unbaptized Jews when he said “let no man put asunder”, and the basis for the argument was what God intended from the very beginning, not something new due to the sacramental grace given in the new covenant, which is simply added divine aid.

 

[MaryT777]

Here is a somewhat more detailed article about the issue:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-jesus-allow-divorce

It seems to me that an exception for adultery is not merely an exception but a wide open gate, since it effectively would give any couple the ability to divorce, merely by the expedient of one or both of them committing adultery. They might flip a coin to see who gets the nod.

Is the marital bond more permanent that a cell phone contract? Or is it essentially nullifiable by human will? What God has joined together let no man put asunder, except…

I highly doubt anyone willing to commit adultery to get a divorce is planning on worrying too much about getting an annulment in the Catholic Church.
Mary.

 

[JimG]

LET no man put asunder. Just like LET no man kill! He doesn’t say it is impossible to break the marriage bond, only that it ideally should not be broken, and that doing so is gravely immoral. But even if it is gravely immoral to break the marriage bond and dissolve the unity God has made through grace, is it unforgivable? I see no reason to think that the RCC is right here and that the Orthodox Church is wrong, It is not a constant tradition, as divorce was granted as a concession to human weakness in the Eastern Churches long before the great schism. And as the references I quoted above suggest, it was also sometimes allowed in the western Church. Furthermore, the Church already allows divorce and remarriage on the basis of the words of Paul, arguing that it is only sacramental marriages that are truly indissoluble. Jesus made no distinction between sacramental and non sacramental marriages. He was speaking to unbaptized Jews when he said “let no man put asunder”, and the basis for the argument was what God intended from the very beginning, not something new due to the sacramental grace given in the new covenant, which is simply added divine aid.

Yes, I understand the Orthodox Churches view the marriage bond as breakable by man, and remarriage can be thereby authorized after penance is done for the sin of breaking of the prior bond. Up to three wives but no more. Somehow I doubt that the Synod will go in this direction, but I’m not in the Synod!

 

[anon99031074]

Yes, I understand the Orthodox Churches view the marriage bond as breakable by man, and remarriage can be thereby authorized after penance is done for the sin of breaking of the prior bond. Up to three wives but no more. Somehow I doubt that the Synod will go in this direction, but I’m not in the Synod!

I also doubt it, but I think the Orthodox Church is right. History shows that the Church in the east, and sometimes in the west, has allowed divorce and remarriage. The interpretation of the exception in Matthew is possible, but weak, given the the fact that porneia DOES mean the adulterous act many times in the LXX. And finally, the exception to the rule that is allowed in the RCC is taken from 1Cor7, where Paul explicitly says that he is speaking on his own authority when he grants an exception to the rule he quotes from Jesus.

All this technical discussion of tradition and the meaning of words, leaves out mercy, compassion and lovingkindness, which I feel is sorely missing in the legalistic interpretations of Jesus’ words. I have no doubt at all that Jesus himself would have made exceptions in unique situations, and have forgiven people for their mistakes.

 

[JimG]

I highly doubt anyone willing to commit adultery to get a divorce is planning on worrying too much about getting an annulment in the Catholic Church.
Mary.

If they are desiring a divorce, they might already have a new partner in mind, in which case premarital sex with the presumptive new fiancée might not be a big deal. And if the divorce were obtained anyway, which is the problem the synod is trying to solve, a remarriage by either partner creates a de facto adultery which could be used to justify the divorce and remarriage under Catholic auspices.

 

[anon99031074]

If they are desiring a divorce, they might already have a new partner in mind, in which case premarital sex with the presumptive new fiancée might not be a big deal. And if the divorce were obtained anyway, which is the problem the synod is trying to solve, a remarriage by either partner creates a de facto adultery which could be used to justify the divorce and remarriage under Catholic auspices.

People divorce and remarry anyway, with or without forgiveness from the Church. Catholics do so at the same rate that protestants and EO do. So the doctrine clearly doesn’t deter people from breaking up marriages, in violation of Jesus’ ideal. Instead, this extremely rigid enforcement of the doctrine alienates people from the Church. I hope the Church finds a way to meet these people with love, compassion and an understanding of the human condition. But I have my doubts.

 

[JimG]

I also doubt it, but I think the Orthodox Church is right. History shows that the Church in the east, and sometimes in the west, has allowed divorce and remarriage. The interpretation of the exception in Matthew is possible, but weak, given the the fact that porneia DOES mean the adulterous act many times in the LXX. And finally, the exception to the rule that is allowed in the RCC is taken from 1Cor7, where Paul explicitly says that he is speaking on his own authority when he grants an exception to the rule he quotes from Jesus.

All this technical discussion of tradition and the meaning of words, leaves out mercy, compassion and lovingkindness, which I feel is sorely missing in the legalistic interpretations of Jesus’ words. I have no doubt at all that Jesus himself would have made exceptions in unique situations, and have forgiven people for their mistakes.

And yet it was Jesus himself who said, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” He then goes on to emphasize his own teaching on the permanence of marriage. It is his teaching that seems to be causing our current problems.

Because of the hardness of our own hearts, will he now, like Moses, allow divorce?

 

[anon99031074]

And yet it was Jesus himself who said, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” He then goes on to emphasize his own teaching on the permanence of marriage. It is his teaching that seems to be causing our current problems.

Because of the hardness of our own hearts, will he now, like Moses, allow divorce?

No. Forgiving people for breaking the marriage bond, and allowing them to do so, are two different things. According to the law of Moses, there was no sin for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus explicitly forbids it, And so breaking the marriage bond, for instance through an act of adultery and subsequent separation, is a grave sin. That doesn’t mean it cannot be forgiven.

 

[kmaaj]

There needs to be a much better way of dealing with this pastorally.

It’s time for the bishops to stop talking about doctrine (we all know what the doctrine is), including the conservative ones, and start proposing some loving ways of dealing with this pastorally.

Yep. Please note the words that I bolded. While people debate over what they -think- canon law means, while certain radio hosts tell caller after caller in irregular situations how -honorable- it is to refrain from communion (puke!), the reality is that there are LEGIONS of PASTORS that recognize that there is no one size fits all cookie cutter approach to this subject, and they make PASTORAL decisions based on the dynamic that they know of any given situation firsthand. There is scores of precedent for this in scripture, tradition, church history, and THAT is the solution. Let the pastor decide. Heck, they’re already doing it more often than people want to admit.

 

[MaryT777]

People divorce and remarry anyway, with or without forgiveness from the Church. Catholics do so at the same rate that protestants and EO do. So the doctrine clearly doesn’t deter people from breaking up marriages, in violation of Jesus’ ideal. Instead, this extremely rigid enforcement of the doctrine alienates people from the Church. I hope the Church finds a way to meet these people with love, compassion and an understanding of the human condition. But I have my doubts.

I agree with you completely. The annulment process in my opinion is no deterrent to anyone Catholic getting divorced and remarried. People are not thinking at that time, " Gee, someday I might want to remarry in the church and be denied an annulment so I should not do this and work on getting my marriage on the right track." They surely are not thinking of their spouse, “Gee this could impact my spouse someday with their Status and ability to Commune in the Church should they wish to remarry and our marriage was valid”

I think the Church recognizes the lack of pastoral concern and care for those Catholics divorced and remarried currently in the Church, who have left the Church, and those seeking an annulment and are working on some way to approach this in a more caring manner. The annulment process is basically a huge paperwork ordeal in my opinion writing pages and pages of testimony about every detail of your marriage to people who will read it you will never meet. More pastoral assistance during this time certianly would be warranted.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Yep. Please note the words that I bolded. While people debate over what they -think- canon law means, while certain radio hosts tell caller after caller in irregular situations how -honorable- it is to refrain from communion (puke!), the reality is that there are LEGIONS of PASTORS that recognize that there is no one size fits all cookie cutter approach to this subject, and they make PASTORAL decisions based on the dynamic that they know of any given situation firsthand. There is scores of precedent for this in scripture, tradition, church history, and THAT is the solution. Let the pastor decide. Heck, they’re already doing it more often than people want to admit.

Yes they are. In my church I was in them middle of the annulment process when a woman who taught my children told me the Pastor in my Church had told them after they had refrained from Communing because of their irregular marriage situation for 2 years (divorced and remarried without the annulment) to use their judgement and Commune if their conscience was clear.

 

[anon99031074]

Yep. Please note the words that I bolded. While people debate over what they -think- canon law means, while certain radio hosts tell caller after caller in irregular situations how -honorable- it is to refrain from communion (puke!), the reality is that there are LEGIONS of PASTORS that recognize that there is no one size fits all cookie cutter approach to this subject, and they make PASTORAL decisions based on the dynamic that they know of any given situation firsthand. There is scores of precedent for this in scripture, tradition, church history, and THAT is the solution. Let the pastor decide. Heck, they’re already doing it more often than people want to admit.

Jesus did not deny Judas communion, even when Satan had entered him (Luke 22:1-7), so why should priests deny people communion? Paul says to test yourself to see if you are worthy. He does not say that this is the task of the presbyter.

 

[JimG]

Jesus did not deny Judas communion, even when Satan had entered him (Luke 22:1-7), so why should priests deny people communion? Paul says to test yourself to see if you are worthy. He does not say that this is the task of the presbyter.

And it still is not the task of the presbyter. Priests do not, to my knowledge, question communicants about their marital status before giving communion.

Still, Paul’s warnings about not eating and drinking judgment on ourselves remain to be considered.

 

[JimG]

I’ve not undergone the annulment process, but I’m sure it can be not only painful but lengthy and exhausting. Currently the Catholic view is to have the prior marriage examined as to validity. If it is judged invalid from the beginning, the applicant is free to marry.

If we were to take the Orthodox view, the marriage bond can be broken by either of the parties. So the parties would need only to obtain a civil divorce, and present the tribunal with the divorce as evidence that the bond is broken.

 

[anon99031074]

And it still is not the task of the presbyter. Priests do not, to my knowledge, question communicants about their marital status before giving communion.

Still, Paul’s warnings about not eating and drinking judgment on ourselves remain to be considered.

Yeah. Still, I must confess that I don’t believe in the kind of God he portrays in that passage. A God that would make people sick and kill them for being “unworthy” when receiving communion. I guess one could soften it by a little mental gymnastics, so that God simply withholds graces that would otherwise cure sick or dying people if they are “unworthy”. But I suspect this angry image of God was merely his own projection and not a revealed truth. A remnant from the time people believed volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters were punishments from an angry God. We now know better.

 

[JimG]

Yeah. Still, I must confess that I don’t believe in the kind of God he portrays in that passage. A God that would make people sick and kill them for being “unworthy” when receiving communion. I guess one could soften it by a little mental gymnastics, so that God simply withholds graces that would otherwise cure sick or dying people if they are “unworthy”. But I suspect this angry image of God was merely his own projection and not a revealed truth. A remnant from the time people believed volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters were punishments from an angry God. We now know better.

Indeed. “We now know better,” might well serve as the official mantra for our times.

 

[anon99031074]

Indeed. “We now know better,” might well serve as the official mantra for our times.

When it comes to the science of said natural disasters, we undoubtedly do. We also know that epilepsy is not demonic possession, as was believed in ancient times. Natural revelation through the scientific method has shown that these things have nothing to do with an angry God. Indeed, there would be no complex life on our planet without the mechanisms that give rise to such natural disasters.

 

[ProVobis]

Jesus did not deny Judas communion

This is debatable.

ukapologetics.net/11/judascommunion.htm

 

[anon99031074]

This is debatable.

ukapologetics.net/11/judascommunion.htm

According to Luke’s account he did. What the site you reference has done, is create a new gospel that nobody had ever heard of in the early church, “the gospel according to uk apologetics” using quotes from several gospel accounts as the source. The fact that they feel they can make the pieces of the puzzle fit, does not in any way, shape or form prove that it happened that way. If you find three different accounts of a car accident, and you find a way to make all three fit into a single narrative, is not evidence that this narrative is what actually happened. There are many reasons for this, only one being the possibility of error in any of the accounts.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Again, people keep saying this is the case but I have yet to see where it is written.

I just don’t know why the Church would tie any sort of significance to a government’s authority. It makes no sense. Is that why there are more annulments now? Because it is easier to get a divorce secularly? Is this universal in the faith? What if a couple in Iraq are attempt to marry but the state does not recognize it. Then they move to America as refugees? Would they have no recourse to seek an annulment if they questioned their marriage? Would they have to get civilly married to then get a divorce?

Generally speaking, the Church does defer quite a bit to government authority. For starters, a marriage (unless there’s a grave reason) must be in accordance with the laws of the land.

In the example you give of a couple married in Iraq, it would depend upon whether there is any record of the marriage at all. Without records it would be a messy process. Which is why the Church is looking to possibly simplify the process.