Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[Ender]

No, the doctrine doesn’t change. There was a thread on gradualism that explained how it might work, basically that the sacraments be permitted to those repentant of their mistakes and willing to take concrete and gradual steps to grow in holiness and conform to Church teaching.

If it is accepted that the second marriage was a mistake, repenting of that mistake means avoiding sexual relations. This would allow the person to receive communion…which is the situation we have today. If by mistake you mean the first marriage, that kind of mistake doesn’t require confession and absolution. Nor can it be the divorce that is the mistake since that is allowed; what is not allowed is the remarriage.

So I’m still confused and the concept of gradualism doesn’t explain anything unless you mean people in a second marriage can receive if they show the intent to…what? The second marriage can only be valid if the first is declared invalid; until then, regardless of their intent, individuals in such marriages may not receive.

Are you supporting the idea that divorced and remarried people be allowed to receive communion even if the first marriage is still considered valid? Also, you didn’t address how mercy would come into any of this.

Ender

 

[Burdock]

I think annulments are a farce

 

[Seraphim73]

If it is accepted that the second marriage was a mistake, repenting of that mistake means avoiding sexual relations. This would allow the person to receive communion…which is the situation we have today. If by mistake you mean the first marriage, that kind of mistake doesn’t require confession and absolution. Nor can it be the divorce that is the mistake since that is allowed; what is not allowed is the remarriage.

So I’m still confused and the concept of gradualism doesn’t explain anything unless you mean people in a second marriage can receive if they show the intent to…what? The second marriage can only be valid if the first is declared invalid; until then, regardless of their intent, individuals in such marriages may not receive.

Are you supporting the idea that divorced and remarried people be allowed to receive communion even if the first marriage is still considered valid? Also, you didn’t address how mercy would come into any of this.

Ender

Have you ever been married and been forced to stop sleeping with your spouse even though both of you were willing and able?

 

[Ender]

As has already been explained, the word is not “adultery” but rather “illicit union.” The Greek word that was used is porneia, which does NOT mean adultery.

This has been an interesting aside but it is all pretty much irrelevant to the real topic. I suspect the largest percentage of divorces are not for adultery, and this is the real question: what is appropriate in those cases where the marriage just collapsed? Forget the question of divorce for cause; what is the proper way to deal with couples who grew apart, divorced, and remarried? Should a person whose first marriage has not been annulled be allowed to receive communion? What is the argument that justifies such a change?

Ender

 

[Burdock]

Quite frankly it all a lot of nonsense, a marriage goes wrong, how convenient to say oh it wasnt a proper marriage in the first place

 

[Burdock]

Quite frankly it all a lot of nonsense, a marriage goes wrong, how convenient to say oh it wasnt a proper marriage in the first place

 

[ProVobis]

I think annulments are a farce

Inter alia (among other things)

But I must say, I partially agree with you, having had one granted myself. It’s like your wedding day never happened, no partying, no in-laws, etc.

 

[JimG]

I think annulments are a farce

Do you mean because they should not be granted; there never should be annulments? Do you mean that they are mistaken in saying that the original marriage vows were null?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok so if the Church has the authority of the Apostles then what’s the problem with the Church making exceptions and allowing some back to Communion?

I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I submit to her authority, just as I submit to Christ.

In fact, I would* love* it.

If I were Queen of the Church that’s how I would design things. I would also say that birth control is fine, esp. condoms. And gay love is cool. And women ought to be priests. And no one with mortal sin needs to go to confession before communion. In fact, I’d do away with confession in the first place, because it’s often quite…icky.*

But, alas, I am but a servant, and, as such, I must defer to the God of Creation and do what He says, not re-create a church that conforms to my own ideals.

*Hey! I just realized this: there already is a church(es) that are created just like I would like them to be…

Wait–no. I can’t create a church after the Almighty Self. I need to conform my views to Christ’s, no matter how unpalatable I may find the teachings.

 

[Brendan]

Ok so if the Church has the authority of the Apostles then what’s the problem with the Church making exceptions and allowing some back to Communion?

Your premise presumes that the Letters of St. Paul were written on his own authority.

The Catholic teaching is that they are inspired by the Holy Sprit.

So what St.Paul was inspired to write by the Spirit are not his personal teachings under his personal authority, but under God’s Authority.

And that is distinct from the authority given to the Apostles and their heirs, the bishops.

Is Orthodox teaching that much different that the Catholic in this regard? My experience with the East has been that they too do not regard a letter written by a bishop to be inspired Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

This has been an interesting aside but it is all pretty much irrelevant to the real topic. I suspect the largest percentage of divorces are not for adultery

You are absolutely right!

So it makes it all the more curious that people want to make this the norm.

Even if we accept the “adultery loophole”, truth is most re-marriages would NOT fall into this category…

MOST RE-MARRIAGES STILL would be considered adulterous…

and as such all Christians who embrace divorce and re-marriage are espousing an arrangement that is CONTRARY to Scripture.

and this is the real question: what is appropriate in those cases where the marriage just collapsed? Forget the question of divorce for cause; what is the proper way to deal with couples who grew apart, divorced, and remarried? Should a person whose first marriage has not been annulled be allowed to receive communion? What is the argument that justifies such a change?

Ender

I am looking forward to see the “communion for the divorced and re-married” advocates’ responses.

Perhaps a deafening silence?

 

[PRmerger]

Have you ever been married and been forced to stop sleeping with your spouse even though both of you were willing and able?

Sure. Pregnancy (last stages). Post-partum. Ovulation. Illness. Distance. Child sleeping between us.

Yep.

What’s your point?

 

[Seraphim73]

Your premise presumes that the Letters of St. Paul were written on his own authority.

The Catholic teaching is that they are inspired by the Holy Sprit.

So what St.Paul was inspired to write by the Spirit are not his personal teachings under his personal authority, but under God’s Authority.

And that is distinct from the authority given to the Apostles and their heirs, the bishops.

Is Orthodox teaching that much different that the Catholic in this regard? My experience with the East has been that they too do not regard a letter written by a bishop to be inspired Scripture.

Aren’t the bishops and the Pope in particular inspired by the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit can guide an Apostles to make an exception why couldn’t He guide the bishops or the Pope to make one?

 

[Seraphim73]

Sure. Pregnancy (last stages). Post-partum. Ovulation. Illness. Distance. Child sleeping between us.

Yep.

What’s your point?

I said willing and able. I assume you eventually resumed relations. My point is I’m not sure it’s appropriate for us to be telling someone else what the fruits of repentance are, especially if we have never been in their situation. That’s what the entire proposal is about, allowing pastors to make that determination.

 

[1newcatholic]

I am looking forward to see the “communion for the divorced and re-married” advocates’ responses.

Perhaps a deafening silence?

What would you like to hear? That the church with the power to bind and loose on earth and heaven should be able to forgive all sins, not just some?

But whatever. I obey the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely she does not. As someone who has been through all the stages of Catholic education (except for marriage preparation as I am not married) – there is a complete lack of positive message. Instead, the teaching about marriage (and sexuality in general) focuses on what you SHOULD NOT do. Discussion of what you SHOULD do is absent.

Read Pope JP2’s Theology of the Body, and then we can talk.

Read the Song of Songs, and then we can talk.

Read Humane Vitae, and then we can talk.

Read the Pauline epistles, and then we can talk.

Until then, you are speaking out of ignorance.

Where I am, about $500 in diocesian fees, plus typically $1-3K in lawyer fees. Typical salary is $700 net.

Interesting.

Cost for a divorce?

“Price is usually for couples who have already agreed on the terms of their divorce and just need a lawyer to sign off. Bruce Cameron of Cameron Law PLLC in Rochester, Minn. says the generally accepted figure is anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000.” huffingtonpost.com/galtime/how-much-does-the-average_b_3360433.html

 

[Brendan]

Aren’t the bishops and the Pope in particular inspired by the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit can guide an Apostles to make an exception why couldn’t He guide the bishops or the Pope to make one?

Because the Spirit does not contradict Himself.

 

[PRmerger]

What would you like to hear? That the church with the power to bind and loose on earth and heaven should be able to forgive all sins, not just some?

Absolutely. This is very Catholic.

But do you think an unrepentant wife beater ought to be able to receive communion?

Or should he repent, confess and then go before Him to receive?

 

[PRmerger]

I said willing and able.

Oh, believe me. There was willingness. And ability.

 

[Brendan]

I said willing and able. I assume you eventually resumed relations. My point is I’m not sure it’s appropriate for us to be telling someone else what the fruits of repentance are, especially if we have never been in their situation. That’s what the entire proposal is about, allowing pastors to make that determination.

Interesting, your proposal would presume that the pastor has been in their situation, if he can make the determination that you say should not be done by others.