Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[sttcatherinefan]

I am very in favor of making it easier for remarried divorcees to receive Communion. It just seems odd to me that the assumption is that a corrupt businessperson has reformed him or herself before Communion and can receive but someone with a stable twenty year long second marriage cannot. And just reviewing the threads complaining about annulments on this forum, I think that there is something very wrong with the current process.

I also have been thinking about it and don’t think that annulment reform would be the answer. This is because in the 1970s this was already tried. There was something called the American Procedural Norms which made it very easy to get an annulment. I think that this is what the annulment commission will recommend. These norms angered conservatives and were ultimately pulled by JPII. JPII created the current tedious process in order to limit the number of annulments granted and dissuade people from beginning the annulment process. So something like the American Procedural Norms could be implemented by Pope Francis (a moderate like Paul VI) and then pulled by a future Pius XIII just like JPII did in the 1980s. However, if Francis suggests that he is open to a process by which certain remarried people can receive Communion, then it is more difficult for future popes to walk it back. There won’t be whiplash like in the 1970s.

 

[TEPO]

That’s the whole point. She should be excused (for lack of a better word) from her first marriage because of her philandering husband. She’s being punished for the rest of her life for something she did not do.

That’s the exact same situation my sister was in.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

That is the problem with sin. It can affect others, innocent others. So she cannot be remarried again. Yes that is hard. But when someone murders someone and denies them the ability to go to confession first, that too can be a problem. When some sick person tortures someone then maybe, perhaps there are lasting effects. When a woman is raped and conceives a child, she has affects from the sin. It alters her life. The Church is not a magic wand that is waved to make bad things and the effects of one’s sin go away. It never has claimed that power.

In other words, “Oh well. Tough noogies.” Is that what you are saying?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Just saw this fantastic article - am quoting it in full. (I’ve not read the Douthat piece yet.)

**
Could respect for the papacy mean resisting the Pope?**
By Phil Lawler Oct 25, 2014

A challenging column by Ross Douthat in the New York Times prompts me to clarify my thoughts on the recent Synod and especially the Pope’s role in the October session.

Douthat kindly links to my piece, “The Pope is not the problem,” as representative of efforts by conservative commentators to assuage fears about the Pope’s involvement. That was certainly part of my intent. But I did not intend to passive acceptance of what happened at the Synod, nor did I argue that organizers “went rogue” without encouragement from the Holy Father. On the contrary I cited “the abundant evidence that Pope Francis was a party to the manipulation.”

Still the Pope did not make any public statements or endorse any proposals until the Synod had concluded. We may all know (or think we know) where the Pope’s sympathies lie, but he avoided anything that might have been seen as an invocation of his authority as Supreme Pontiff. This, I feel sure, was quite intentional and quite prudent.

The nature of papal authority is very often—I am tempted to say nearly always—misunderstood. The Pope cannot change established doctrine. He speaks infallibly, but only when he speaks for the universal Church, defining what the faithful always and everywhere have believed.

So Pope Francis might wish to change the Church’s teaching, but he realizes that he cannot do so unilaterally. He needs the full support of his brother bishops, to assure him that he is not merely promoting his own personal preferences. If he is contemplating an important change (as in this case he is), he needs much more than a voting majority; he needs an expression of support so overwhelming that it trumps what Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead”—the consistent witness of faithful Catholics across the centuries. Nothing approaching that level of support materialized at the October meeting of the Synod. In his closing address (which I strongly encourage everyone to read), Pope Francis tacitly acknowledged as much and signaled that he wanted above all to preserve the unity of the Church.

Still this debate is not finished; it will be rejoined at the Synod session next year. Between now and then we can be quite sure that Cardinal Kasper and his supporters will continue aggressively to promote their proposals for change. There is no reason to doubt that Pope Francis will continue to listen sympathetically.

So I can accept Douthat’s conclusion that orthodox Catholics “might want to consider the possibility that they have a role to play, and that this Pope may be preserved from error only if the Church itself resists him”—but with two crucial caveats. If the Pope is contemplating a change in Church teaching on marriage, and insofar as he is contemplating such a change, then faithful Catholics should be vocal in opposing the idea. By doing so we would be helping him to discern the truth, not setting ourselves up as enemies of the Vicar of Christ.

catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=910

 

[Lost_Sheep]

But why didn’t she seek help from the Church before she found support from someone else?

What’s to say she didn’t?

It’s not like the Church never heard of bad marriages. Seems like we’re talking about people who care nothing much about working with the Church but think they’re entitled to the sacraments anyway? This doesn’t make sense to me.

She shouldn’t have to work with the Church. She should simply be excused from her “marriage” because her husband dumped her.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

In other words, “Oh well. Tough noogies.” Is that what you are saying?

no, But do you have that same view for anyone hurt by the sin of another? Rape, murder, torture, etc… Sometimes people cannot be made whole after someone else sins and it affects them. Most certainly we do not say “tough noogies” to people who have been harmed by the sin of others, but we also cannot put the egg back in the shell sometimes. That is life. And humans being what they are will go outside of God and His Church to seek to remedies the situation. And then, when they want back in, they seem to not understand that they went outside of the construct in chasing something they should not have. The egg has been shattered, the way back to eternal happiness may require some serious sacrifices on earth.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The Poll was an interesting addition. And I think it shows a huge problem we now find ourselves in. Thankfully there has not been much rhetoric on the Kasper side about defecting if the Church does not see it their way. But it does show that we risk a massive break in a Church that is floundering in modern society at best. I am wondering if the parable shifts when the 99 sheep are under deadly attack, are scattered, and are scared.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The Poll was an interesting addition. And I think it shows a huge problem we now find ourselves in. Thankfully there has not been much rhetoric on the Kasper side about defecting if the Church does not see it their way. But it does show that we risk a massive break in a Church that is floundering in modern society at best. I am wondering if the parable shifts when the 99 sheep are under deadly attack, are scattered, and are scared.

Yes, no matter what happens in 2015 (my guess is we hold as is), the divide is deepened. And we haven’t even gone through the year of debating yet; just getting started! Our openness will cost us dearly; how do we pick up the pieces? I hope we handle it better than our Protestant brothers and sisters did!

 

[JimG]

Once again I think of my late aunt, who refrained from receiving communion for decades after her second marriage, following a denial by the tribunal of her annulment request. She was active in her parish, respected by the pastor, and accepted by everyone. But she did not receive communion until much later in life when age and illness caused her second husband to be incapable of marital relations.

Now, I think that if her pastor had approached her during that time and said, “you know, we’ve given this a lot of thought, and it’s okay for you to receive communion now,” her first question would have been: “But what about my first marriage? Was it valid or not?”

If he said, “I don’t know,” her response would likely have been, “Well, thank you father, but in that case, I’ll just continue to refrain from receiving.”

The key question has to be: was the first marriage valid or not?

Or perhaps the real key question has to be: Does the Church still believe in the indissolubility of marriage?
Does anyone?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s the whole point. She should be excused (for lack of a better word) from her first marriage because of her philandering husband. She’s being punished for the rest of her life for something she did not do.

Except that Jesus never said that this was the case.

This just may be one of those “hard sayings” that Christ professed that is a shibboleth for those who want God to do their bidding, to make things the way the creature wants it to be, who want to say, “God, do things MY WAY!”

And like the disciples who murmured in John 6 about the “hard saying” of the Eucharist ("He’s saying we have to eat His flesh? No way! My way says that this is ridiculous!), you can walk away…because it’s too hard to swallow (pun intended)…

but that’s walking away from Christ.

 

[Phil502]

no, But do you have that same view for anyone hurt by the sin of another? Rape, murder, torture, etc… Sometimes people cannot be made whole after someone else sins and it affects them. Most certainly we do not say “tough noogies” to people who have been harmed by the sin of others, but we also cannot put the egg back in the shell sometimes. That is life. And humans being what they are will go outside of God and His Church to seek to remedies the situation. And then, when they want back in, they seem to not understand that they went outside of the construct in chasing something they should not have. The egg has been shattered, the way back to eternal happiness may require some serious sacrifices on earth.

When someone is devastated by rape or other tragedies we work to make them whole again whether it’s successful or not. I think a big portion of people that end up in divorce did not want to be there, that’s a tragedy for them. I’m not saying drop annulments, I’m saying look at the process and find a way to make it more compassionate to already injured people. I don’t have any answers on how to accomplish this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Does anyone?

Forget the indissolubility. Does anyone even know what marriage is anymore?! Or between whom? And wouldn’t a reversal of communion for those in adulterous situations further confuse the flock!?

 

[JimG]

Forget the indissolubility. Does anyone even know what marriage is anymore?! Or between whom? And wouldn’t a reversal of communion for those in adulterous situations further confuse the flock!?

Yes, quite possibly a reversal of policy would confuse the faithful. It would also drain the last bit of hope from those who do accept the indissolubility of marriage, as taught by Jesus.

It’s quite possible that very few do know what marriage is any more. That would explain the explosion in annulments. But the solution is not to further accede to the culture. The solution is to once again teach what marriage is.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes, quite possibly a reversal of policy would confuse the faithful. It would also drain the last bit of hope from those who do accept the indissolubility of marriage, as taught by Jesus.

It’s quite possible that very few do know what marriage is any more. That would explain the explosion in annulments. But the solution is not to further accede to the culture. The solution is to once again teach what marriage is.

Agreed, I think I’ve seen one person in this whole debate even mention the word “sacrament” in reference to marriage. What does that tell us?

 

[Jason_Firestone]

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.

Perhaps some might review their Catechism on the THREE requirements for Mortal Sin.
One must commit an act KNOWINGLY and with FULL assent that it is seriously evil. If the party does not believe it is Mortal Sin, it cannot be one. One cannot commit Mortal Sin inadvertently.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

When someone is devastated by rape or other tragedies we work to make them whole again whether it’s successful or not. I think a big portion of people that end up in divorce did not want to be there, that’s a tragedy for them. I’m not saying drop annulments, I’m saying look at the process and find a way to make it more compassionate to already injured people. I don’t have any answers on how to accomplish this.

More compassionate? You want to change the wording of “no”?

I have no problems with making the process more approachable. Heck, some of these adulterers might not be in the position they are in if the process educated them and seemed open to them. But there is no changing “null” It either is or it is not.

Our priest gave a wonderful homily the other day about this subject. He sits on the Marriage Tribunal for our diocese. He did not want to. The Bishop asked him many times. He wanted no part of it. Out of obedience he did it. He said that he has taken this opportunity to not only help heal people (if he can) but to also educate them on what marriage is. Though many may not get the answer they want, they leave more educated and they have clarity that many who do not seek annulments will never have.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The Church sees any Catholic marrying outside the Church as insulting and defiant. Have I missed something? Matrimony is a sacrament. Why would one want the other sacraments when he or she has rejected Matrimony (and its graces) as one?

We should be a little cautious here. Marriage outside the Church is only invalid because of canon law, it is not essential to the sacrament that marriage take place in a church in front of clergy.

As canon lawyer Edward Peters has pointed out:

Canonical form, as a requirement for the validity of marriage, is only about four hundred years old; it has been universally demanded in the Church for less than 100 years. By far the greater part of Church history did not know canonical form.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yes, quite possibly a reversal of policy would confuse the faithful. It would also drain the last bit of hope from those who do accept the indissolubility of marriage, as taught by Jesus.

It’s quite possible that very few do know what marriage is any more. That would explain the explosion in annulments. But the solution is not to further accede to the culture. The solution is to once again teach what marriage is.

Great post.

 

[Sy_Noe]

She committed adultery, and jesus did say divorce is alliwed in those cases. This discussion is just going round and b round in circles. I havent been to mass for a few months now.

5 for me. I did one Sunday morning go to an Episcopal church but the priest was called to a family emergency and they weren’t sure there would be worship services that morning so I didn’t stay.

 

[ProVobis]

She shouldn’t have to work with the Church. She should simply be excused from her “marriage” because her husband dumped her.

That happens and I can sympathize. Some don’t have a real choice in staying married. It doesn’t even have to be one party dumping the other. But shouldn’t she (or he) at least talk to a priest about it? She should, I think, before she decides to leave the Church by marrying outside. She can’t presume she has no recourse.