Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[marimagi]

My view is that we have to assent, which is a bit nuanced. That means we will be bound by what comes out of the synod, regardless of whether we agree or not.

In my case it’s a moot point. I’m in a valid, sacramental marriage to the only woman I’ve ever been married to (and I’m her only husband as well), and I pray to God it remain that way. However I did not arrive at that point immediately. I married as a lapsed Catholic, in a civil ceremony, to a non-baptized woman. Eventually I came back to the Church and she was baptized as an Anglican, and some time (far too much time) later we had our marriage convalidated. It took time because my wife was not convinced for many years and frankly I had my doubts too because we went through several rocky periods. When things started going much better between us (maturity and wisdom being one of the few advantages of getting old and creaky), I approached the Chancery Office for a radical sanation, and was told to go back and try to get my wife to agree to convalidation first. Fortunately, at that point, she was ready.

Thank you so much for sharing your story of real life and compassion. And I believe as your priest confessed to you. Those in difficult situations NEED the Sacrament if they are going to continue the struggle to rectify their situation in and with love.

A good priest did take the approach of “graduality” with me just after I reverted, admitting me to the sacraments as long as I was doing something to rectify my situation. After convalidation, I confessed to a good, holy and orthodox priest that I received unworthily. His reply floored me: “Ora, I will tell you what I would never say in public: without the graces of the sacrament, you would never have been able to save your marriage and have it convalidated”.

Who am I to argue? However he does give an example of “assent”, in that he publicly promotes the view of the Church even if in private, he has doubts.

You’ll also understand that I have a great deal of sympathy for those caught in irregular situations, who are only marginally in the Church. It must really hurt, especially if they’re faithful Catholics, to have a lifetime of payment extracted for a mistake of youth.

(please note: I don’t normally share personal information and it’s the first time I’ve related my story on this forum).

 

[marymary1975]

Lord, I AM NOT WORTHY that you should enter under my roof. But only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.

That WORD, is what eh individual hears in their heart out of mutual love.

The quote from Corinthia’s refers to receiving communion in mortal sin. This passage is the base for the church’ s doctrine that a person currently in state of mortal sin should not approach communion. Which again is the base for the rule that a person divorced and remarried who has not obtained an annulment cannot receive communion.

 

[ProVobis]

Lord, I AM NOT WORTHY that you should enter under my roof. But only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.

That WORD, is what each individual hears in their heart out of mutual love.

This is an act of faith, based on the centurion’s beliefs.

If anything, IMO it serves well as a spiritual communion, whether one sacramentally receives or not.

 

[marimagi]

The quote from Corinthia’s refers to receiving communion in mortal sin. This passage is the base for the church’ s doctrine that a person currently in state of mortal sin should not approach communion. Which again is the base for the rule that a person divorced and remarried who has not obtained an annulment cannot receive communion.

Let me explain my state of mortal sin MaryMary:

I am divorced from a man who abandoned me and his 3 children, 23 years a go. He is not Catholic, and doesn’t even believe in God. He never cared about the Sacrament of marriage, and was only humoring me by marrying in the Church (clear basis for annulment.) He remarried his current victim in a Presbytarian ceremony.

I have been remarried for 4 years. My husband is a kind, honest, and respectful man of integrity. He works one and a half jobs so that we can raise my (now his) granddaughter, provide for us, save for our retirement AND her college education.

Adultrey? Mortal sin? It happens from time to time. But usually we are too tired to sin.

Many of Jesus’ parables taught that we are to use common sense, mercy and love. The pharisees didn’t get that, and look what happened.

 

[Memaw]

Well, playing devil’s advocate and taking Card. Kasper as a model, why is it so bad to reject ecclesiastical, disciplinary strictures? He seems to have no problem rejecting the current Church practice regarding the divorced/remarried/Communion issue. He’s disagreed with it for years and not really hidden his disagreement. I dare say he has rejected it.

Dan

If so, must we follow his bad example. He has to answer for that!. God Bless. Memaw

 

[MaryT777]

Let me explain my state of mortal sin MaryMary:

I am divorced from a man who abandoned me and his 3 children, 23 years a go. He is not Catholic, and doesn’t even believe in God. He never cared about the Sacrament of marriage, and was only humoring me by marrying in the Church (clear basis for annulment.) He remarried his current victim in a Presbytarian ceremony.

I have been remarried for 4 years. My husband is a kind, honest, and respectful man of integrity. He works one and a half jobs so that we can raise my (now his) granddaughter, provide for us, save for our retirement AND her college education.

Adultrey? Mortal sin? It happens from time to time. But usually we are too tired to sin.

Many of Jesus’ parables taught that we are to use common sense, mercy and love. The pharisees didn’t get that, and look what happened.

Have you pursued or been granted an annulment. You state you feel you have grounds?
If not I am curious if you care to share why you have not.
Mary.

 

[Memaw]

Let me explain my state of mortal sin MaryMary:

I am divorced from a man who abandoned me and his 3 children, 23 years a go. He is not Catholic, and doesn’t even believe in God. He never cared about the Sacrament of marriage, and was only humoring me by marrying in the Church (clear basis for annulment.) He remarried his current victim in a Presbytarian ceremony.

I have been remarried for 4 years. My husband is a kind, honest, and respectful man of integrity. He works one and a half jobs so that we can raise my (now his) granddaughter, provide for us, save for our retirement AND her college education.

Adultrey? Mortal sin? It happens from time to time. But usually we are too tired to sin.

Many of Jesus’ parables taught that we are to use common sense, mercy and love. The pharisees didn’t get that, and look what happened.

Did you ever apply for an annulment?? That should be the first thing you do and then if granted, you could marry the wonderful guy and be able to practice your faith. What could be better than that. We are not permitted to sin just because the first guy was a bum and this one is nice. Common sense, yes but only in line with the TRUTH. We can’t make our own truth! Is there a reason why you haven’t even applied for an annulment?? If I were you, I’d run to the nearest priest to help me! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Ender]

I think anything that comes out of the Synod should, in fact must, include the sacrament of reconciliation as part of the plan of being re-admitted to the sacraments, if such is to happen for people in irregular situations such as I was in.

PaulinVA:

it is either adultery or it is not.

This is the problem. If the second marriage is adultery then absolution cannot be given; it’s pretty much that simple. It seems the only way to admit to communion the divorced and remarried is to regularize the second marriage and deem it not adultery. If that does not happen, yet they are admitted to receive, then all the doctrines about confession and communion are undone.

Ender

 

[Neofight]

So, there has been a lot of good discussion on the topic…so let’s take it a step further.

If you consider yourself a good Catholic, and the synod recommends opening communion for divorced people, and the Holy Father accepts the recommendations and puts it into effect, will you willingly accept the outcome in totality, accept it begrudgingly, or be vocally opposed to such a move?

Again, this is just a matter for discussion, and not intending confrontation between responders.

Peace and all Good!

 

[marimagi]

MeMaw:

There is no place for lawyers (albeit Cannon lawyers,) in Christ’s Church.

My ex could care less about making his own response. Same with any of his people we knew back then (who are just like him.) All information would come from me, and I already know and have lived my own story. Why do councils of men who will never even see me, or hear my voice, judge the validity of a marriage I’m describing? Does something sound silly about this? Even if they say that a true marriage never existed, only God really knows.

I wonder why the sin of remarriage goes through such a complicated process, and other sins do not. Why isn’t there a council to determine if a soldier’s actions in war were justified, when he/she returns home with blood on his hands. Shouldn’t this be investigated far beyond the confessional?

What some authorities in the Church are discussing, is a way to make the annulment process less legalistic.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

So, there has been a lot of good discussion on the topic…so let’s take it a step further.

If you consider yourself a good Catholic, and the synod recommends opening communion for divorced people, and the Holy Father accepts the recommendations and puts it into effect, will you willingly accept the outcome in totality, accept it begrudgingly, or be vocally opposed to such a move?

Again, this is just a matter for discussion, and not intending confrontation between responders.

Peace and all Good!

Since the Church can never contradict the commandments of Christ in its formal and official decisions in which doctrine is at stake, I suspect this is a scenario that could not take place. In the most crisis-ridden periods of its history the Church was, from the human viewpoint, brought to within a hair of promulgating something heterodox - the Arian crisis is a good example - but it never went over the edge. This is the kind of test the Church has always passed and will pass until the end of the world, as Christ has promised.

 

[FollowChrist34]

So, there has been a lot of good discussion on the topic…so let’s take it a step further.

If you consider yourself a good Catholic, and the synod recommends opening communion for divorced people, and the Holy Father accepts the recommendations and puts it into effect, will you willingly accept the outcome in totality, accept it begrudgingly, or be vocally opposed to such a move?

Again, this is just a matter for discussion, and not intending confrontation between responders.

Peace and all Good!

I am taking a wait and see attitude. I think the most likely outcome is a far more conservative one that many seem to anticipate, in which case I am a happy camper, to put it mildly. If there are changes, I will commit myself to understanding them and the arguments for them to the best of my ability. Pray on it, think about it, then either accept or not, depending on Scripture, doctrine and conscience. I will also watch others and take into consideration their responses.

 

[dans0622]

… There is no place for lawyers (albeit Cannon lawyers,) in Christ’s Church. …

What ever happened to the Church being welcoming, even to the gravest of sinners (which, I guess, is now understood to refer to lawyers)? I’ll never deny that I’m a sinner but…golly, “no place”?

Dan

 

[JimG]

The answer to #2 and #3 is in 1 Corinthians 11:27. “Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the lord unworthy shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the lord.”

Perhaps one thing that the Synod might wish to consider is that perhaps way too many people are approaching communion who should not be, not just the divorced and remarried. One can be Catholic without going to communion every Sunday.

 

[FollowChrist34]

This is the problem. If the second marriage is adultery then absolution cannot be given; it’s pretty much that simple. It seems the only way to admit to communion the divorced and remarried is to regularize the second marriage and deem it not adultery. If that does not happen, yet they are admitted to receive, then all the doctrines about confession and communion are undone.

Ender

Yes, to me, what is so unsettling is the undoing of doctrine which is based on Scripture. I am actually more affected by that on a larger scale as a concept, than the specifics of what is happening here. If you can justify this kind of alteration of Scripture, it follows logically that you can do the same thing about anything in Scripture that you don’t like, over and over. I can’t accept that.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

it is either adultery or it is not.

One either needs to be in a state of grace to receive Communion or one does not.

It really is just that simple.

This is really the Catholic Church founded by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit or it isnt.

 

[JimG]

If one believes the words of Jesus, then a remarriage after a binding valid first marriage cannot be a valid marriage. One cannot be married to two persons at once, and Jesus does not recognize divorce.

The solution for the difficult cases often mentioned is to streamline the process of granting an annulment for an invalid first marriage.

And the solution for the future is to make sure that the nature of marriage is presented accurately and preached often. Marriage is for life and cannot be undone by man. All man can do is recognize when no marriage took place because of some defect at the beginning.

 

[Neofight]

If one believes the words of Jesus, then a remarriage after a binding valid first marriage cannot be a valid marriage. One cannot be married to two persons at once, and Jesus does not recognize divorce.

The solution for the difficult cases often mentioned is to streamline the process of granting an annulment for an invalid first marriage.

And the solution for the future is to make sure that the nature of marriage is presented accurately and preached often. Marriage is for life and cannot be undone by man. All man can do is recognize when no marriage took place because of some defect at the beginning.

Jim, that brings up an interesting point…and I’m not questioning your rationale, just trying to understand it.

Jesus does not, clearly, recognize divorce (of what the Church has determined to be a valid marriage).

So, divorce for any reason (except for adultery, I believe is the only scriptural caveat) is sinful. And remarriage following divorce would not only result in an invalid marriage, but would result in sin.

My question is, then what becomes of the sin of those who divorce and remarry? Is it a sin that cannot be absolved through the Sacrament of Reconciliation without undoing the second (invalid) marriage?

The reason I ask is it is also a grave sin for a man to have a vasectomy. Once he takes that sin to reconciliation he is absolved, and even though there is (costly and arguably not 100 percent effective) a means to reverse the procedure, he is under no ecclesiastic duty to do so.

Therefore, does the sin of divorce for reasons other than adultery, and remarriage following that divorce really carry the weight of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as the only sin that cannot be forgiven? Or is that a false assumption if the remarried person can undue things by simply walking away from the second (invalid) marriage.

It sure is a sticky situation, and I can’t agree or disagree with it, because I just can’t (at this point) understand it. I’ve only been married once, but when I try to put myself in the shoes of a person who say divorced, and remarried 25 years ago, raised a family, and then are told, well, you need to break this relationship up to take your soul and the soul of your spouse out of jeopardy…I have heard of sins against others being confessed, and part of the penance was not to apologize to who the offense was caused, because it may serve no useful purpose (for instance adultery years ago that a spouse never knew about) without inflicting more harm on the one we sinned against.

I know I rambled, but its a rambling kinda problem!

Peace and Blessings.

 

[CarolNoel]

it is either adultery or it is not.

One either needs to be in a state of grace to receive Communion or one does not.

Exactly…!

 

[JimG]

Jim, that brings up an interesting point…and I’m not questioning your rationale, just trying to understand it.

Jesus does not, clearly, recognize divorce (of what the Church has determined to be a valid marriage).

So, divorce for any reason (except for adultery, I believe is the only scriptural caveat) is sinful. And remarriage following divorce would not only result in an invalid marriage, but would result in sin.

My question is, then what becomes of the sin of those who divorce and remarry? Is it a sin that cannot be absolved through the Sacrament of Reconciliation without undoing the second (invalid) marriage?

The reason I ask is it is also a grave sin for a man to have a vasectomy. Once he takes that sin to reconciliation he is absolved, and even though there is (costly and arguably not 100 percent effective) a means to reverse the procedure, he is under no ecclesiastic duty to do so.

Therefore, does the sin of divorce for reasons other than adultery, and remarriage following that divorce really carry the weight of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as the only sin that cannot be forgiven? Or is that a false assumption if the remarried person can undue things by simply walking away from the second (invalid) marriage.

It sure is a sticky situation, and I can’t agree or disagree with it, because I just can’t (at this point) understand it. I’ve only been married once, but when I try to put myself in the shoes of a person who say divorced, and remarried 25 years ago, raised a family, and then are told, well, you need to break this relationship up to take your soul and the soul of your spouse out of jeopardy…I have heard of sins against others being confessed, and part of the penance was not to apologize to who the offense was caused, because it may serve no useful purpose (for instance adultery years ago that a spouse never knew about) without inflicting more harm on the one we sinned against.

I know I rambled, but its a rambling kinda problem!

Peace and Blessings.

Of course the sin can be forgiven. The problem is, that the first marriage (if valid) remains in place, and that subsequent sexual intercourse with the second spouse constitutes objective adultery. Of course, adultery can also be forgiven, but one must have a purpose of not continuing to purposely commit the sin.

The best solution, if possible, is to determine that the first marriage was not valid. Then the 2nd marriage can be.

I’ve used the example of my late aunt before. Her first marriage ended quickly through abandonment. Her annulment request was denied. (This was in the 1940’s). My own view is that the denial was incorrect and she ought to have appealed, but she did not. She had married a very good man in a second marriage. She did not deny him sex. She did not quit going to Mass or being active in her parish. She just quit going to communion for the duration, until his advancing age and impotence resolved the situation.

Edit: As to vasectomy, it’s true, the sin can be forgiven, and he is not required to have the vasectomy reversed. It seems like a get out of jail free card. Of course, sorrow for sin means, “If I had it to do over again, I would not commit that sin.” I think it would be a good faith gesture for a man in that situation to try to reverse the vasectomy. But that’s not the moral teaching of the Church, and it’s not a requirement for absolution.