We have no choice but to pray and obey.
That’s the problem. To obey - which means to give one’s assent to Communion for remarried divorcees who have not regularised their situation - is simply impossible for a Catholic.
Let me reproduce here an earlier post giving my analysis of the Communion paragraph:52. The possibility of the divorced and remarried having access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist was considered. Several Synod fathers insisted in favour of the current discipline, by virtue of the fundamental rapport between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church, and her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Others expressed a welcoming to the Eucharistic table that was not general, in certain particular situations and with strict conditions, especially in what concerns irreversible cases and related to moral obligations towards children who would endure unjust sufferings. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by an accompanying penance under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop. The question must be further studied, bearing in mind the distinction between the objective situation of sin and extenuating circumstances, given that “the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified” by diverse “psychological or social factors” (
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)104 ayes, 74 noes = 58% in favour and 42% against.
I looked up the relevant section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for context. Here it is:
I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude. [172]
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach. [396, 1849, 2006]
1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.” [Cf. Rom 6:17] [1803]
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and
ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts. [1036, 1804]
1735
Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other
psychological or social factors. Notice that this has got ***nothing ***to do with remarried divorcees receiving Communion. It’s about to what extent a decision to commit an evil act is freely made. In the heat of the moment are you acting out of deliberate choice or out of fear, peer pressure, an overwhelming impulse, mental disorder, or what?
A couple living together and who are not married are well aware of what they are doing and have had plenty of time to make it a deliberate choice. It’s not an act of a moment but a settled way of life. And ***nobody ***can engage in a sinful way of life and not sin. They may be troubled in conscience, they may wish they had not done it, but they are still in sin. A troubled conscience does not equate to good will, even less to sinlessness.
The current discipline (for the moment) of the Church permits Communion only for remarried divorcees who give evidence they are living as brother and sister. This is not what section 52 is talking about. Cardinal Kasper made clear that Communion was being considered for remarried divorcees
who are having sexual relations. They are to be granted Confession and Communion without a radical change to their lives that eliminates sex and scandal.
If one believes in the two doctrines of the indissolubility of a consummated Catholic marriage and the obligation of communicants to be in a state of grace (both
de fide incidentally), then it is impossible to square this section with the Faith. The only conclusion is that it permits, purely and simply, institutionalised sacrilege.
There is no sin involved in marrying when one is free to marry and one is free to marry if they have no spouse before God. And one has no spouse before God if their former spouse is dead. Why state it is a sin to do what God has not forbidden? Do you believe St. Paul was in error when he said a woman is free to marry once her husband dies???
He did this to counter my argument that church teaching is infallible and asked me why today’s church teaches that such a thing is sinful when an old council commanded it. My answer to him was that only the doctrinal teachings on faith and morals were infallible but not the disciplinary rules that issued forth. so the council may have been in error in the latter but not the former. we also used to sell indulgences and permit slavery of prisoners of war (not the atlantc trade which we were against from th beginning). I don’t see that situation you describe being all that different. we will just pray for an internal reformation and trust God.
)