Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
polki said:
My understanding is that a civil divorce shows that the couple has given up on any possibility of reconciliation.
Click to expand...
What bearing does possible reconciliation have on whether or not there was a defect on the day of the wedding? It seems to me that is an objective truth. Doesn’t taking into account the state of the couple now introduce subjectivity?
 
OraLabora said:
I’ve never suggested that someone who doesn’t intend to change their situation be admitted to the sacraments. Read the thread on gradualism.
Click to expand...
Your comments, like the bishops who support change, have been vague, leaving us to guess at what you (and they) are actually recommending. How about a little specificity, as in: I support A but oppose B?

You’ve suggested the church could be more merciful. How would she do that? What specific actions do you support?

Ender
 
Seraphim73 said:
What bearing does possible reconciliation have on whether or not there was a defect on the day of the wedding? It seems to me that is an objective truth. Doesn’t taking into account the state of the couple now introduce subjectivity?
Click to expand...
I can only guess, based on my limited knowledge. Maybe someone else on here can correct me if I am in error. I’d guess the Church doesn’t want to rule marriages invalid if there is still a chance for the couple to stay together. I’m sure there are marriages which, upon examination, could be found to be invalid at the time of the marriage, but the couple still makes it work ie. if someone had a change of heart.
Also, there is really no reason to file for an annulment unless you would like the possibility of remarrying at some point anyway. So if that is the case, the relationship needs to be over and I guess a civil divorce demonstrates that. Again, this is just my own understanding of the matter.
 
When we sit down to a nutritious dinner at night, in theory we know that there are people somewhere in our city, going hungry for one reason or another but it’s easy to wipe the unpleasantness from our minds and savour the meal.

If we sat down to our nutritious dinner and outside the window there are family members, friends or neighbours wanting to join our meal but don’t qualify for a seat at the table for some reason… there is a natural heartfelt sorrow for their suffering. It’s hard to enjoy and appreciate the bounty we have when the starvation of others is so close and visible to us.

When our leadership… our trusted authority in faith and guides on our life’s journey, are moved to say ‘how can we find some resolution to this heartbreaking situation for their sakes and our sakes’… why in the name of all that is godly, would we not be rejoicing. Why are we not grateful that ‘there but for the grace of God go I’?

This synod is a true cause for rejoicing. I can’t imagine not receiving communion for the rest of my life for lack of early catechesis or some personal failure at one the time. I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit is moving the hearts of the faithful to resolve a glitch of which we are all part of in our roles as parents, educators or clergy.
 
polki said:
My understanding is that a civil divorce shows that the couple has given up on any possibility of reconciliation.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Ender said:
Your comments, like the bishops who support change, have been vague, leaving us to guess at what you (and they) are actually recommending. How about a little specificity, as in: I support A but oppose B?

You’ve suggested the church could be more merciful. How would she do that? What specific actions do you support?

Ender
Click to expand...
I support whatever the outcome of the synod will be. I express an opinion that I agree with the Holy Father that the Church needs to be more merciful. I suggest, as discussion points, ways that this may be accomplished. For example a spouse abandoned many years ago with young children (an example given by a bishop), remarried and who strongly desires to regularize her situation, be admitted and nourished by the graces flowing from the sacraments as (s)he works through the complex steps to do so (or perhaps, simplified steps to do so). Working through his/her confessor, to show forward progress, and perhaps receive encouragement when things stall for whatever reason (for example the other spouse isn’t Catholic or isn’t interested in regularizing).

I don’t think, however, a divorced/re-married couple who just want to carry on as though nothing of importance happened should be admitted to the sacraments, but we should take every effort to ensure to encourage a conversion of the heart, by not ostracizing them in the parish community, loving catechesis etc.

This is what’s meant by “meeting them where they are”. From there, we try to move them to the next step in a genuine conversion.
 
OraLabora said:
I don’t think, however, a divorced/re-married couple who just want to carry on as though nothing of importance happened should be admitted to the sacraments, but we should take every effort to ensure to encourage a conversion of the heart, by not ostracizing them in the parish community, loving catechesis etc.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I believe this has already happened in the Polish and perhaps Spanish communities. They still come to Church for their spiritual nourishment, show their devotion to God (and our Lady of Guadalupe inter alia), ensure the proper catechism for their kids, talk to the priest and deacon after Mass, eat cake afterwards, etc. It’s a friendly atmosphere, for sure. I guess it would take time for Anglos who demand and receive communion so perfunctorily to get used to that type of culture, where many don’t receive.
 
polki said:
I can only guess, based on my limited knowledge. Maybe someone else on here can correct me if I am in error. I’d guess the Church doesn’t want to rule marriages invalid if there is still a chance for the couple to stay together. I’m sure there are marriages which, upon examination, could be found to be invalid at the time of the marriage, but the couple still makes it work ie. if someone had a change of heart.
Also, there is really no reason to file for an annulment unless you would like the possibility of remarrying at some point anyway. So if that is the case, the relationship needs to be over and I guess a civil divorce demonstrates that. Again, this is just my own understanding of the matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, it seems to me that the fact of a civil divorce means that reconciliation will not happen. If a couple remains civilly married, the fact that they do remain civilly married adds some weight to the possibility that the marriage bond is valid. Either way, it is not a dependence on the civil law, rather it is evidence for the tribunal.

Not only that, but it would be rather silly to grant a church declaration of nullity, declaring the marriage invalid from the beginning, while the couple remains civilly married!
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
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?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the synod is supposed to resolve all these secular issues. As you note, each country has its own marriage and divorce laws and they’re ever-changing, to say the least. Each state has, for that matter. Perhaps one of the reasons the Pope has formed different committees under different languages? Just my guess.
 
JimG said:
Yes, that’s sort of how it was even in the U.S. when I was growing up. Many, perhaps most, did not go up for communion. And families who did, generally made it a practice to go to confession every Saturday afternoon.

At that time the Eucharistic fast was from midnight. It wasn’t as difficult as it sounds, since you were asleep at midnight, got up early, went to Mass, and then had breakfast. Still, that fast was a useful excuse to me a few times as a teenager, and I wasn’t the only one. I might deliberately break the fast by having a drink of water (yes water was included in the fast!). So if my mother asked why I didn’t go to communion I could truthfully say that I broke my fast, although the real reason was that I needed to go to confession first.

But in those days, since everyone was not going to communion anyway, the ushers did not let communicants out pew by pew. Everyone just got up at random and approached the communion rail if they wished to go to communion.
Click to expand...
Sounds a lot like in my country in central america. Though I must say over there too the church is also suffering a huge attack from secularism 😦
 
LongingSoul said:
When we sit down to a nutritious dinner at night, in theory we know that there are people somewhere in our city, going hungry for one reason or another but it’s easy to wipe the unpleasantness from our minds and savour the meal.

If we sat down to our nutritious dinner and outside the window there are family members, friends or neighbours wanting to join our meal but don’t qualify for a seat at the table for some reason… there is a natural heartfelt sorrow for their suffering. It’s hard to enjoy and appreciate the bounty we have when the starvation of others is so close and visible to us.

When our leadership… our trusted authority in faith and guides on our life’s journey, are moved to say ‘how can we find some resolution to this heartbreaking situation for their sakes and our sakes’… why in the name of all that is godly, would we not be rejoicing. Why are we not grateful that ‘there but for the grace of God go I’?

This synod is a true cause for rejoicing. I can’t imagine not receiving communion for the rest of my life for lack of early catechesis or some personal failure at one the time. I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit is moving the hearts of the faithful to resolve a glitch of which we are all part of in our roles as parents, educators or clergy.
Click to expand...
Amen!~ Very well said. 👍
 
LongingSoul said:
When we sit down to a nutritious dinner at night, in theory we know that there are people somewhere in our city, going hungry for one reason or another but it’s easy to wipe the unpleasantness from our minds and savour the meal.
Click to expand...
Fair point.

But I understand bread and wine weren’t the only things served at the Last Supper. There’s nothing saying churches can’t offer full meals to the disadvantaged or those in scandalous positions.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
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?
Click to expand...
it’s not a written Church rule. It is a rule by dioceses because it shows evidence. When a couple is legally divorced, it can be argued that at least one didn’t honor their vows. If one doesn’t honor their vows, then it leads to the question of what did the person believe their were doing on their wedding day.

But if the couple is not yet divorced, then the vows haven’t been completely broken yet. They might be in terrible condition, but they are not yet severed.

Think of this analogy, for police to investigate a crime, there must be evidence of a crime. In order to arrest someone of a crime, there has to be creditable evidence that a crime as been committed. The court will determine guilt, but the creditable evidence allows for the initial arrest, and . No creditable evidence, no arrest, no arrest, no trial. Similar in the case of the an Annulment tribunal, the divorce is the “creditable evidence.” Doesn’t mean that an annulment is warranted or not. Just shows that there is evidence (not necessary the “creditable evidence” required to decide upon) to start an investigation.
 
ProVobis said:
FWIW, I believe this has already happened in the Polish and perhaps Spanish communities. They still come to Church for their spiritual nourishment, show their devotion to God (and our Lady of Guadalupe inter alia), ensure the proper catechism for their kids, talk to the priest and deacon after Mass, eat cake afterwards, etc. It’s a friendly atmosphere, for sure. I guess it would take time for Anglos who demand and receive communion so perfunctorily to get used to that type of culture, where many don’t receive.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
LongingSoul said:
When we sit down to a nutritious dinner at night, in theory we know that there are people somewhere in our city, going hungry for one reason or another but it’s easy to wipe the unpleasantness from our minds and savour the meal.

If we sat down to our nutritious dinner and outside the window there are family members, friends or neighbours wanting to join our meal but don’t qualify for a seat at the table for some reason… there is a natural heartfelt sorrow for their suffering. It’s hard to enjoy and appreciate the bounty we have when the starvation of others is so close and visible to us.

When our leadership… our trusted authority in faith and guides on our life’s journey, are moved to say ‘how can we find some resolution to this heartbreaking situation for their sakes and our sakes’… why in the name of all that is godly, would we not be rejoicing. Why are we not grateful that ‘there but for the grace of God go I’?

This synod is a true cause for rejoicing. I can’t imagine not receiving communion for the rest of my life for lack of early catechesis or some personal failure at one the time. I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit is moving the hearts of the faithful to resolve a glitch of which we are all part of in our roles as parents, educators or clergy.
Click to expand...
I personally agree that the synod is needed.

However, the Eucharist isn’t the only food. We can “feed” and minister the following to people who cannot receive the Eucharist.
  • Attending Mass EVERY Sunday
  • Attending Mass for every Holy Day of Obligation
  • Regular Confession
  • Spiritual Direction
  • Adult Catechesis
  • Daily or Weekly Rosary
  • Daily Prayer
  • Daily Mass
  • Weekly or Daily Devotions to the Saints or Blessed Mother
  • Catholic Bible Study
  • Pray the LOTH
  • Catholic Retreats
  • Weekly or daily Adoration
  • Receive Blessings from a priest or deacon
  • Have our homes blessed by a priest
  • Watch ETWN
  • Listen to Catholic Answers
  • Purchase books from faithful Catholic authors and publishers
  • Receive help from faithful Catholic therapists, doctors and/or counselors depending on issues
  • etc…
The altar has plenty to offer. But instead, they insist on the one thing that might cause them more harm. Typically, the ones who insist on receiving the Eucharist are not even interested in any of the things I listed.

NOTE: I used to be someone who was not allowed to receive communion due to an irregular marriage. When people where saying to be me “oh I can’t believe the church is punishing you like that,” my reply was “no, they are saving my soul!” I accepted the other “food” at the table and eventually brought myself back into good standings. Why? Because I was sincere in my desire to return to communion with the Church. I accept my Cross and can now move forward.

If people don’t believe in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist and do not believe that Jews literally died when opening the Arc of the Covenant, if not in a state of Grace; then they will never understand the teaching of refraining from Communion when not in a state of Grace.
 
phil19034 said:
I personally agree that the synod is needed.

However, the Eucharist isn’t the only food. We can “feed” and minister the following to people who cannot receive the Eucharist.
  • Attending Mass EVERY Sunday
  • Attending Mass for every Holy Day of Obligation
  • Regular Confession
  • Spiritual Direction
  • Adult Catechesis
  • Daily or Weekly Rosary
  • Daily Prayer
  • Daily Mass
  • Weekly or Daily Devotions to the Saints or Blessed Mother
  • Catholic Bible Study
  • Pray the LOTH
  • Catholic Retreats
  • Weekly or daily Adoration
  • Receive Blessings from a priest or deacon
  • Have our homes blessed by a priest
  • Watch ETWN
  • Listen to Catholic Answers
  • Purchase books from faithful Catholic authors and publishers
  • Receive help from faithful Catholic therapists, doctors and/or counselors depending on issues
  • etc…
The altar has plenty to offer. But instead, they insist on the one thing that might cause them more harm. Typically, the ones who insist on receiving the Eucharist are not even interested in any of the things I listed.

NOTE: I used to be someone who was not allowed to receive communion due to an irregular marriage. When people where saying to be me “oh I can’t believe the church is punishing you like that,” my reply was “no, they are saving my soul!” I accepted the other “food” at the table and eventually brought myself back into good standings. Why? Because I was sincere in my desire to return to communion with the Church. I accept my Cross and can now move forward.

If people don’t believe in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist and do not believe that Jews literally died when opening the Arc of the Covenant, if not in a state of Grace; then they will never understand the teaching of refraining from Communion when not in a state of Grace.
Click to expand...
Good testimonial. Thanks.
 
OraLabora said:
I had an interesting discussion about this with a fellow oblate yesterday at dinner…cut

…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...
Extremely well put, I really could not add to it.

I will say though that I am in a similiar situation, my wife got involved with another man, sexually, I found a letter that she had, hidden, I had been suspicious and searched for evidence, it was all spelled out in the letter. I confronted her, she left for good and I divorced her. How could I stay married to someone who was never coming back? I certainly could not be responsible for her financially, legally or any other way after she was out of my life. There were no children.

Fast forward 6 years later, I met a good woman and we were married, that was 10 years ago. I could have gotten an annullment back then but truthfully, the devastation was so complete that I would not have wanted to deal with it then. I stayed away from the church, I never forgot God, never, I just did not worship or pray properly, not in a way that gives him thanks for all the good things I had received but did not earn.

Recently I have been coming back to mass regularly and attempting to develop a relationship with God that was long overdue and woefully lacking. I went to confession and told the priest about my situation, he replied he could not finish my confession and that I should make an appointment to see him, then he shut the slider, I understand but it was not what I expected.

I looked at the annullment questions online from my Diocese, a lot of that stuff pertaining to what happened 20 years ago, I don’t think I could honestly remember enough to answer, I really think I would be winging it. Look at the questions sometime and you will see what I mean. Get 3 witnesses, no problem, I have the same friends who stood up at my wedding back then, yes they remember it all and told me they are behind me in any way that I need them for this.

Going to church and not going to communion is hard, I have struggled with this greatly, I know people in the similiar situations as I and some go to communion. Truthfully I went a few times, but the guilt was bad, I felt wrong, so I stopped. That being said, when I don’t go, I feel bad too, I feel like I am missing something important, incidentally very few people in my parish don’t go and it’s makes me feel like I have a neon sign over my head with a red “S” on it, probably no-one really notices or even cares but that is how I feel.

I don’t think I did anything wrong in that I would not be granted an annullment, I certainly would never have left my first wife, I still have dreams about her, less now than in the past, reliving the sadness and they always make me feel disheartened when I wake up. I’m sure I have to take some blame for what happened to end my first marriage, I am not completely blameless but I never did anything intentially to ruin it.

Thats why I think the annullment process should be made easier. I don’t see how a tribunal can really decide what happened 20 years ago when I can hardly remember a lot of specifics myself. Saying that I am committing adultery now is hardly the same as cheating on a current spouse, I really don’t feel that it’s in the same ballpark. Expecting people to live alone for the rest of their lives is not, I don’t think what God would really want either, given certain circumstances.

God Bless!!
 
Why do some people think they shouldn’t have to go through the same annulment process as everyone else just because they chose not to do so before they got remarried?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top