Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[Lormar]

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.

 

[Lormar]

It really is just that simple.

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

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

Though I agree, it’s my understanding from what I’ve been told on CAF that Catholics believe at that point in the Mass, God can only say the word to heal venial sin. That’s actually one reason why I don’t practice the faith. Since it’s my belief God is capable of saying the word to heal a soul of any sin and an individual is capable of hearing His call to approach and receive Jesus. But I am unwelcomed to approach and receive Jesus even after believing I hear in my heart His love and mercy and strongly feel His call to.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

marymagi -

Why should the one who has been responsible and taking care of the children be punished?

Discerning on starting the annulment process.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Did Christ want sinners kept from approaching him if they had not yet made atonement for their sins? If we came to Jesus in the state of mortal sin, but properly disposed to receive forgiveness (as we are to be when coming to reconciliation through the Sacrament of Penance), wouldn’t he embrace us, offer forgiveness, and absolution?

From my understanding of what Christ said in Jn 6:37 about him never turning anyone away who comes to Him, my answer to your first question would be no, Christ did not want people kept from approaching Him. And yes he would embrace them. But that’s not the Catholic understanding when it comes to some sinners. The Catholic faith teaches not when it comes to mortal sin.

 

[Seamus_L]

I get the impression we now have people within the church who believe the challenges faced in 2014 are some how more difficult than those faced by the Catholic faithful in 1914, 1814, 1714, etc.

 

[Vouthon]

I get the impression we now have people within the church who believe the challenges faced in 2014 are some how more difficult than those faced by the Catholic faithful in 1914, 1814, 1714, etc.

Not at all, merely a different set of challenges facing the Church in a different society. It needs to apply the same immutable truths set forth in 1914, 1814, 1714…via a new language and with a fresh pastoral approach.

 

[Neofight]

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.

Jim, thanks for your reply…it really brings me closer to understanding.

They only thing I have mixed feelings about is how the lady in your example had to deal with it…Giving up communion works to a point… but given the precepts of the Church to receive the Eucharist a least once a year, how does “I’m sitting out until the old guy can’t perform, loses interest, or dies” become legitimate contrition for the sin of not following the teaching of receiving annually…there are probably more than one priest who would refuse absolution in that case, forcing the woman to shop for an amiable confessor?

But then again, I had a Franciscan theologian, who I deeply respect, tell me that despite John Chapter 6, there is no numeric requirement for receiving the Eucharist - one time could be quite sufficient…but even that smacks in the face of the Church’s precept for once a year reception of the Eucharist.

Makes me also wonder, why (as the point I opened for discussion earlier) if the Eucharist is the source and the summit of our faith, it can absolve us of venial, but only Reconciliation can absolve us of mortal sin…it brings into question whether any one sacrament is more important than another…I would say they all must work in concert…but then that throws the Eucharist as the source and summit into question.

I’m probably overthinking this, but again, want to make it clear I am an obedient Catholic, and will go with the teachings of the Church, its just I have questions…and questions are often the source of sound catechesis…I hope.

Peace and all good!

 

[FollowChrist34]

Not at all, merely a different set of challenges facing the Church in a different society. It needs to apply the same immutable truths set forth in 1914, 1814, 1714…via a new language and with a fresh pastoral approach.

Same set of challenges in the exact same kind of society.

 

[Vouthon]

Same set of challenges in the exact same kind of society.

Well, sin doesn’t change I’ll give you that. Adultery is adultery, sodomy is sodomy, fornication is fornication…but surely we didn’t face a situation 200 years ago in 1814 where 8.1 million couples in the US were cohabiting?

Every society and period faces new challenges, as well as time immemorial ones. Scientific racism and Marxism were unique challenges facing humanity in the 20th century. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did not exist in the 19th. There were other dictators, yes, but not the same as the frightful secular totalitarianism of the last century.

I highly doubt that Soviet Russia was the “same kind of society” as Tsarist Russia with the “same set of challenges” facing the church.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well, sin doesn’t change I’ll give you that. Adultery is adultery, sodomy is sodomy, fornication is fornication…but surely we didn’t face a situation 200 years ago in 1814 where 8.1 million couples in the US were cohabiting?

Every society and period faces new challenges, as well as time immemorial ones. Scientific racism and Marxism were unique challenges facing humanity in the 20th century. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did not exist in the 19th. There were other dictators, yes, but not the same as the frightful secular totalitarianism of the last century.

I highly doubt that Soviet Russia was the “same kind of society” as Tsarist Russia with the “same set of challenges” facing the church.

Honestly to me it feels almost more like the Old Testament, where Moses and others keep trying to get the Jewish people to abandon their idols, licentiousness, etc. Absolutely nobody will listen. You also see this a little bit in the early Church, where Paul and others keep going around and around Christendom proclaiming the Gospel; they do frequently rant about fornication, pride, etc. I guess I don’t see what makes us so special today.

 

[Vouthon]

Consider Pope Paul III’s bull “Sublimus Dei” of 1537 which condemned the brutal enslavement of native Indians and the expropriation of their property on the basis that they were “sub-humans”, owing to the fact that the New World had never received the Good News and its denizens must not be children of Adam…

papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

The Pope is emphatic that the Church of the sixteenth century was facing a grave challenge “never before heard of”…

 

[JimG]

Jim, thanks for your reply…it really brings me closer to understanding.

They only thing I have mixed feelings about is how the lady in your example had to deal with it…Giving up communion works to a point… but given the precepts of the Church to receive the Eucharist a least once a year, how does “I’m sitting out until the old guy can’t perform, loses interest, or dies” become legitimate contrition for the sin of not following the teaching of receiving annually…there are probably more than one priest who would refuse absolution in that case, forcing the woman to shop for an amiable confessor?

But then again, I had a Franciscan theologian, who I deeply respect, tell me that despite John Chapter 6, there is no numeric requirement for receiving the Eucharist - one time could be quite sufficient…but even that smacks in the face of the Church’s precept for once a year reception of the Eucharist.

Makes me also wonder, why (as the point I opened for discussion earlier) if the Eucharist is the source and the summit of our faith, it can absolve us of venial, but only Reconciliation can absolve us of mortal sin…it brings into question whether any one sacrament is more important than another…I would say they all must work in concert…but then that throws the Eucharist as the source and summit into question.

I’m probably overthinking this, but again, want to make it clear I am an obedient Catholic, and will go with the teachings of the Church, its just I have questions…and questions are often the source of sound catechesis…I hope.

Peace and all good!

Oh, my late aunt had quite a good relationship with her pastor. He would have heard her confession any time. Both of them knew that her situation could not be resolved except by leaving her current husband or denying him sex. Or, in my view, an annulment appeal, but in those days that was a quite iffy proposition, and she accepted the judgment of the first tribunal.

 

[Vouthon]

Honestly to me it feels almost more like the Old Testament, where Moses and others keep trying to get the Jewish people to abandon their idols, licentiousness, etc. Absolutely nobody will listen. You also see this a little bit in the early Church, where Paul and others keep going around and around Christendom proclaiming the Gospel; they do frequently rant about fornication, pride, etc. I guess I don’t see what makes us so special today.

Yes, the same sin of putting oneself in the place of God and elevating created things to the level of divinity was committed in the time of Moses and by the 20th century dictators…as I said sin doesn’t change…but the situations are not the same, nor were the challenges.

The Soviet ideology was completely new in creating an entire society on the basis of rejecting God and imposing collectivistic atheism. This had never been done before. Even the French Revolutionaries pledged worship to a “divine being” of some sort, as did and do the Freemasons.

It was a new and terrible challenge for the Church to face an ideology that was attractive to masses of suffering peasants and which was spreading like a virus revolutionary fervour. The sins underpinning Marxist-Leninism might be age old but the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, the uniquely materialist and deterministic interpretation of history based on violent revolutions…these were new ideas ‘never before heard of’.

Likewise the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the excess of Laissez-Faire Capitalism prompted the Church under Pope Leo XIII to take a new pastoral approach and develop a coherent body of social doctrine tailored for 19th century realities.

 

[marymary1975]

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.

You are bringing a great point here Jim. However I have to mention that the idea of everybody going to communion tends to be a USA issue. I can tell that for Latin America and eurpe (particularly Spain, Portugal and Italy that I have personal experience) most people would not approach communion. When I took my husband to a mass in Latin America he was shocked over the fact that most people remain sorted and don’t approach comunion and that during the mass itself confessions were going on and the majority of people going to communion had came out of confession. Given that the pope is Argentinian and this is usually how it work on Argentina I am hopeful that the pope will emphasize on this topic.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes, the same sin of putting oneself in the place of God and elevating created things to the level of divinity was committed in the time of Moses and by the 20th century dictators…as I said sin doesn’t change…but the situations are not the same, nor were the challenges.

The Soviet ideology was completely new in creating an entire society on the basis of rejecting God and imposing collectivistic atheism. This had never been done before. Even the French Revolutionaries pledged worship to a “divine being” of some sort, as did and do the Freemasons.

It was a new and terrible challenge for the Church to face an ideology that was attractive to masses of suffering peasants and which was spreading like a virus revolutionary fervour. The sins underpinning Marxist-Leninism might be age old but the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, the uniquely materialist and deterministic interpretation of history based on violent revolutions…these were new ideas ‘never before heard of’.

Likewise the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the excess of Laissez-Faire Capitalism prompted the Church under Pope Leo XIII to take a new pastoral approach and develop a coherent body of social doctrine tailored for 19th century realities.

I think people need God to be complete, doesn’t matter who you are or when or where you live. You look for him. Now, you may replace him with any number of “fleshly” (physical, mental, political, social, etc.) things, but ultimately that doesn’t work and you realize you are empty. People come to God through revelation and the Church, always will.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

With the push for frequent communion, I’m afraid the Church might have to do a 180 on such a push. But I’m with you.

 

[marymary1975]

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 an annulment? That would be my first question. My second question is why do you have to go to communion if you haven’t been granted an annulment? You don’t have to go to communion to be catholic. In your case the right thing to do would be pursue an annulment.

 

[Vouthon]

I think people need God to be complete, doesn’t matter who you are or when or where you live. You look for him. Now, you may replace him with any number of “fleshly” (physical, mental, political, social, etc.) things, but ultimately that doesn’t work and you realize you are empty. People come to God through revelation and the Church, always will.

I don’t disagree with anything you have said above Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

I don’t think what you are saying though changes (no pun intended) the fact that the church has had to adapt and develop the same, ancient, unchanging truths of divine revelation to the challenges and hopes of different periods of time.

Do you disagree with Pope Paul III that a challenge may arrive for the church that has “never been heard of before”?

If I may quote Gaudium et Spes from the Second Vatican Council:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

To carry out such a task, the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other. We must therefore recognize and understand the world in which we live, its explanations, its longings, and its often dramatic characteristics. Some of the main features of the modern world can be sketched as follows.

Today, the human race is involved in a new stage of history. Profound and rapid changes are spreading by degrees around the whole world. Triggered by the intelligence and creative energies of man, these changes recoil upon him, upon his decisions and desires, both individual and collective, and upon his manner of thinking and acting with respect to things and to people. Hence we can already speak of a true cultural and social transformation, one which has repercussions on man’s religious life as well…

Finally, these new conditions have their impact on religion. On the one hand a more critical ability to distinguish religion from a magical view of the world and from the superstitions which still circulate purifies it and exacts day by day a more personal and explicit adherence to faith. As a result many persons are achieving a more vivid sense of God. On the other hand, growing numbers of people are abandoning religion in practice. Unlike former days, the denial of God or of religion, or the abandonment of them, are no longer unusual and individual occurrences. For today it is not rare for such things to be presented as requirements of scientific progress or of a certain new humanism. In numerous places these views are voiced not only in the teachings of philosophers, but on every side they influence literature, the arts, the interpretation of the humanities and of history and civil laws themselves. As a consequence, many people are shaken…

 

[marymary1975]

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.

If what you stated in your other post is exactly as it is, it seems that the grounds for your case would be a lack of form which is very very quick and does not require too much. Have you even spoke. With a priest about it?