Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OraLabora said:
I had an interesting discussion about this with a fellow oblate yesterday at dinner.

He said imagine this: you have a couple who are close friends to you and your spouse. But they divorce, and one of them remarries. You don’t approve of the choice for whatever reason.

You have a dinner party, you invite the friend and her hew husband, but you say “well you know, we don’t approve of your divorce and remarriage, so you can’t really sit at the table and have dinner with us, but you can sit over there in the corner, watch us eat, and listen to our conversation (where we might just, BTW, condemn your relationship)”.

Isn’t that how the divorced and remarried feel?
Click to expand...
What about the other first spouse who was also supposed to be a friend? Any one consider his feelings in all this when he sees everyone having a social good time without him? Just curious.
 
OraLabora said:
I had an interesting discussion about this with a fellow oblate yesterday at dinner.

He said imagine this: you have a couple who are close friends to you and your spouse. But they divorce, and one of them remarries. You don’t approve of the choice for whatever reason.

You have a dinner party, you invite the friend and her hew husband, but you say “well you know, we don’t approve of your divorce and remarriage, so you can’t really sit at the table and have dinner with us, but you can sit over there in the corner, watch us eat, and listen to our conversation (where we might just, BTW, condemn your relationship)”.

Isn’t that how the divorced and remarried feel? We let them come in, listen to the Liturgy of the Word, we let them hear the homily (where their relationship just might be condemned), and then we let them watch us take communion. And we offer basically no sense of inclusion or even welcome, or accompaniment; I’ve heard painful stories of being ostracized, not being made to feel welcome in the parish, no support or even hostility from the priest.

Now if the person acted like a cad towards his ex-spouse, that’s one thing. But imagine a young woman abandoned with 3 young children so her husband could run off with his lover. She remarries, maybe has more children with her new husband, and her new husband acts as a model father to his stepchildren. She feels genuine regret over her loss and confesses for any shortcomings she feels she may have had that drove her first husband away.

We’re telling her she can’t come to the table unless she
  1. leaves her second husband or
  2. stops having conjugal relations with him
  3. or has her first marriage annulled but until then, 1 or 2 apply (which may not be possible because the ex is untraceable/uncooperative).
because the fact that she continues to live and sleep with him shows that she is “unrepentant” and has “no contrition”.

Is this truly merciful towards her? Honestly some bishops who shall remain unnamed must have ice water running through their veins.

I’m sorry but give me a very big break. There needs to be a much better way of dealing with this pastorally.

I will say this though, I know of a man in this situation and he chooses to not receive communion. But he worships in a Cistercian abbey and guess what, he has close spiritual accompaniment from the monks who support him. He hasn’t been left out in the wild, as it were.

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. Whether it includes being invited to communion or not is one thing that can and should be debated (and we’ll have to assent to the result), but the status quo is simply unacceptable. I hear bishops saying that “no, we must instead focus on better teaching about marriage and preventing marriage breakdown”. Well yes, that’s a laudable goal. The problem is that you have thousands upon thousands of couples who need pastoral care now and whose souls are adrift because if inaction on the part of the Church hierarchy. God Bless Francis for recognizing that this is a serious issue that needs discussing.
Click to expand...
Well said, and yes God Bless St Fancis. 👍
Mary.
 
I have always dealt with the idea that we, as Americans, are poorly Chatechized. That we lack some basic theology that we perhaps had in times past. But what I find faith shaking for me is the idea that many in the upper levels of the Church seem to have this same poverty of theology and what exactly the Church teaches and why.
 
ProVobis said:
What about the other first spouse who was also supposed to be a friend? Any one consider his feelings in all this when he sees everyone having a social good time without him? Just curious.
Click to expand...
It’s just an analogy, Pro. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the other first spouse lives in another city.
 
ProVobis said:
What about the other first spouse who was also supposed to be a friend? Any one consider his feelings in all this when he sees everyone having a social good time without him? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Exactly!🙂 What about his feelings??? :o

God bless & thanks for your post. Pax 🙂
 
OraLabora said:
It’s just an analogy, Pro. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the other first spouse lives in another city.
Click to expand...
Lots of permutations possible actually but looking at it only from the remarried individual’s standpoint is a self-serving argument, no? There’s the old spouse. There may be kids involved as well. Other family members have to make an adjustment to a new spouse. (As they say, you don’t marry an individual; you marry a family.) Someone’s going to be short-changed, not to mention possibly scandalized as well.

Again under the old code, these not-free-to-marry remarrieds were excommunicated. I think it was pastoral enough that they removed the excommunication without changing doctrine.
 
ProVobis said:
Lots of permutations possible actually but looking at it only from the remarried individual’s standpoint is a self-serving argument, no? There’s the old spouse. There may be kids involved as well. Other family members have to make an adjustment to a new spouse. (As they say, you don’t marry an individual; you marry a family.) Someone’s going to be short-changed, not to mention possibly scandalized as well.

Again under the old code, these not-free-to-marry remarrieds were excommunicated. I think it was pastoral enough that they removed the excommunication without changing doctrine.
Click to expand...
Yes but the person at the dinner party could have been abandoned by her ex. That’s the problem, the Church needs to look at each case on an individual pastoral basis and apply perhaps a gradual solution while the abandoned spouse works through the annulment process which may complicated by a non cooperative ex.

At the moment the Church is treating all cases in the same way. I don’t think anybody is suggesting the Church apply a uniform solution at the other (liberal) extreme, just that she show more pastoral discernment and expedite the return to the sacraments of the genuinely contrite and aggrieved party. Whether it’s a simplified annulment process, a gradualist approach or a mix of the two would be up to the synod to decide. Each have their risks but the bigger risk IMHO is withholding grace and mercy.
 
OraLabora said:
Yes but the person at the dinner party could have been abandoned by her ex. That’s the problem, the Church needs to look at each case on an individual pastoral basis and apply perhaps a gradual solution while the abandoned spouse works through the annulment process which may complicated by a non cooperative ex.

At the moment the Church is treating all cases in the same way. I don’t think anybody is suggesting the Church apply a uniform solution at the other (liberal) extreme, just that she show more pastoral discernment and expedite the return to the sacraments of the genuinely contrite and aggrieved party. Whether it’s a simplified annulment process, a gradualist approach or a mix of the two would be up to the synod to decide. Each have their risks but the bigger risk IMHO is withholding grace and mercy.
Click to expand...
So how does one accomplish all this without encouraging more (and faster) divorces and remarriages in the future? Removing excommunications certainly didn’t put a stop to it or even slow it down.
 
Megan7 said:
In a case like “Marimagi” or anyone else for that matter. What happens if she or someone else like her, applies for an annulment & the other spouse does not reply? So, they only have one side of the story, can they still grant an annulment?

Thanks & God bless:)
Click to expand...
Yes because that is what happened to me. My former husband refused to participate but it didn’t matter as long as I had enough witnesses (I had two). My annulment was granted. It is desirable that both parties are involved, but it isn’t mandatory.
 
Neofight said:
  1. We believe the Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ. Yet, we are not to approach the Eucharist if we are in the state of mortal sin. 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?
Click to expand...
I look like it like this:
  1. in order to carry Jesus in her womb, Mary had to be the Immaculate Conception and sinless.
  2. in order to look within the Arc of the Covenant, one had to be in Grace. If they were not, they died.
  3. Mary is the new Arc, Christ the new Covenant. If the Jews risked physical death by looking within the Arc; we Christians can surely risk spiritual death by taking in The Lord unworthily.
 
kyria said:
Yes because that is what happened to me. My former husband refused to participate but it didn’t matter as long as I had enough witnesses (I had two). My annulment was granted. It is desirable that both parties are involved, but it isn’t mandatory.
Click to expand...
In my case as well. But neither my ex nor I celebrated it in a joyous manner. In fact, I had a change of heart about the divorce, and I think she did too.
 
eViLpOpTaRt said:
I’m glad things are loosening up some, and I hope this is the start of a new trend in Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Divorce has been the most destructive influence in Western Society .
For the Church to fold under pressure from a wayward society ,removes that Church from the position of authority it was given.

The Neo Christain Churches that allow divorce are in a non bibical position which renders them impotent in the search for salvation.
There agrument is formed by an opposition to the clear message of Jesus on marriage.
A wise man( actually an Atheist once said )
Their are only two real religions in the World
Catholics and Orthodox Jews
If the Church sways from its historic position then there would be only one.
 
PaulinVA said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there’s no way to truly know. If the first marriage is annulled that means the second marriage is not adultery. However, there’s lots of reasons that someone could have an invalid first marriage but there’s simply not enough evidence to declare the marriage invalid. But that doesn’t change the objective truth that the first marriage was indeed invalid.
 
Megan7 said:
In a case like “Marimagi” or anyone else for that matter. What happens if she or someone else like her, applies for an annulment & the other spouse does not reply? So, they only have one side of the story, can they still grant an annulment?

How does a tribunal handle something like that? It seems sad that she was left with 3 children, and has not been able to obtain one. I do not know know if she has or not. Not that getting remarried makes it right. Just wondering how it all works.
Click to expand...
The Respondent does not need to reply. The Respondent is notified that a petition for annulment has been brought before the Tribunal. I think the usual wait time is 6 weeks, if there is no response a final letter is sent. If no response again (I think the second wait is 3 weeks) then the process continues without the Respondent. The times may vary depending where you are, but there is no need for the Respondent to play any part.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
The problem is that there’s no way to truly know. If the first marriage is annulled that means the second marriage is not adultery. However, there’s lots of reasons that someone could have an invalid first marriage but there’s simply not enough evidence to declare the marriage invalid. But that doesn’t change the objective truth that the first marriage was indeed invalid.
Click to expand...
I thought that marriages were supposed to be assumed to be valid unless otherwise decreed. So if there is not evidence to the contrary, how can one conclude that the marriage is indeed invalid?
 
_Abyssinia said:
Canon lawyer Ed Peters regarding John Allen’s article and more, here is an excerpt:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/ambiguity-does-not-serve-discussion-and-bad-logic-destroys-it/
Click to expand...
While I greatly respect Ed Peters, I think he’s doing here what all good lawyers do: splitting hairs. The context of the quotes leave very little guess work about what they’re saying. They’re simply not laying on the line for it.

Secondly, media are not in the room nor are there summaries handed out. So full quotes are going to be hard to come by…
 
ProVobis said:
What about the other first spouse who was also supposed to be a friend? Any one consider his feelings in all this when he sees everyone having a social good time without him? Just curious.
Click to expand...
The example is not one of an abandon spouse. Someone who agrees to a divorce would be aware their ex might eventually remarry.
 
gus said:
The Neo Christain Churches that allow divorce are in a non bibical position which renders them impotent in the search for salvation.
Click to expand...
What about the Eastern Orthodox? They have an ancient tradition of allowing a limited number of divorces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top