Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[PRmerger]

After my first wife committed adultery for the second time I divorced her. She remarried and subsequently divorced again. I waited for 6 years to find the right woman to come along and I married her. However, I married her in a CE church which the RC church does not recognise. Does this mean that I can still have HC like I did before we were married?

No. You are presumed to be still married to your first wife.

What God has joined no one can sever. An indelible mark was placed on your souls at the moment the sacrament of marriage was confected. You and your first wife became One. One Flesh.

Thus, you cannot marry someone else while you are one with someone else.

 

[PRmerger]

Well I’m at least honest about it and what I say about myself is I’m not a practicing Catholic.

So the Cafeteria Catholic says: Well I’m at least honest about it and what I say about myself is I’m a Cafeteria Catholic.

What is your argument as it applies here?

It is interesting the debate and differences on any number of topics though among those who profess to be faithful.

Indeed.

That’s the argument among some atheists as well. The implication is: since all you religious people–people who profess to be faithful–can’t agree and continue to debate and differ on God…

…this necessarily means that Christianity must be false, right?

Now, you as a Christian can (or ought to) see how illogical the atheists’ conclusion might be, yes?

Similarly, I think your implication that since Catholics who profess to be faithful still debate and differ on any number of topics, Catholicism must be false…is also an illogical conclusion, no?

 

[PRmerger]

You misunderstand what it means to loose or bind, because it assuredly does not mean the church has the authority to decide what it thinks should or should not be moral.

You are correct. The Church does not have the power to *determine *what is moral. She only discerns what is moral.

I believe what it means is that the church - the clergy - has the right to forgive or not forgive individual sins.

Very Catholic, this!

I don’t believe the church will readmit the divorced and remarried to communion because she lacks the authority to do so.

I agree.

She cannot change those doctrines and it is not doctrinally possible for them to receive.I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”. (JPII, Ecclesia de Eucharistia)
Ender

Amen!

 

[weller2]

You are making many strange statements.

In what way is the church sanction for murder less than sanction for adultery? are you reading the same catechism we all are reading?

In a way that a murderer can go to confession and receive communion afterwards, while the remarried cannot. The canonical sanction for murder is pretty much nil.

In what way is divorce “OK” in catholic church??? again, are you reading same catechism we all are reading?

*2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

You are not denied communion if you divorce. You are denied communion if you divorce and remarry later, because you are committing public and permanent adultery, per CCC 2284:

*2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.*

How can you say the “latter” (remarriage) does no damage or defy God when it is God who is calling it adultery?? Does adultery do no damage or defy God?

You cannot really damage God, because he is, well… God. You can however damage your partner and children and that happens when you divorce, and not when you remarry.

 

[Sy_Noe]

So the Cafeteria Catholic says: Well I’m at least honest about it and what I say about myself is I’m a Cafeteria Catholic.

What is your argument as it applies here?

Indeed.

That’s the argument among some atheists as well. The implication is: since all you religious people–people who profess to be faithful–can’t agree and continue to debate and differ on God…

…this necessarily means that Christianity must be false, right?

Now, you as a Christian can (or ought to) see how illogical the atheists’ conclusion might be, yes?

Similarly, I think your implication that since Catholics who profess to be faithful still debate and differ on any number of topics, Catholicism must be false…is also an illogical conclusion, no?

My argument is merely that when the professed faithful differ, it gives the appearance of even more cafeteria Catholics. I wasn’t even talking about whether Catholicism is true or false.

 

[weller2]

Why is it in the church of Apostles then, recorded in Bible? If it was created by apostles, who are you to decide it was human rather than divine? How do you pick which ones of apostolic actions were human and which ones were divine?

I’m just deconstructing PRmerger’s strawman.

A fact is that Paul wrote to Timothy that a bishop should be married (and have children!). PRmerger is asserting that Paul could not possibly mean what he wrote, because he was not married himself. PRmerger’s objection makes no sense, because Paul was never a bishop (i.e. a community leader) – his job was travelling around and founding new communities.

Here’s an analogy: I’m unmarried, wealthy, and I want to start a company. Since I don’t want to occupy myself with running the company (I will move to creating a new business), I put a job ad for a CEO and I specify that the candidate for the job must be married. Do you see anything contradictory here?

 

[ProVobis]

In a way that a murderer can go to confession and receive communion afterwards, while the remarried cannot.

The Church sees any Catholic marrying outside the Church as insulting and defiant. Have I missed something? Matrimony is a sacrament. Why would one want the other sacraments when he or she has rejected Matrimony (and its graces) as one?

 

[Burdock]

No. You are presumed to be still married to your first wife.

What God has joined no one can sever. An indelible mark was placed on your souls at the moment the sacrament of marriage was confected. You and your first wife became One. One Flesh.

Thus, you cannot marry someone else while you are one with someone else.

She committed adultery, and jesus did say divorce is alliwed in those cases. This discussion is just going round and b round in circles. I havent been to mass for a few months now.

 

[Ender]

In a way that a murderer can go to confession and receive communion afterwards, while the remarried cannot. The canonical sanction for murder is pretty much nil.

Do you really not recognize the difference between committing a sin once and repenting of it and committing and recommitting the same sin and not repenting of it? Even a murderer may be forgiven if he truly repents of his sin, but how can someone be absolved of his sin if he intends to repeat it and does not repent of it? It is not the severity of the sin that makes absolution impossible but the absence of contrition.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

She committed adultery, and jesus did say divorce is alliwed in those cases. .

But He does not state that a remarriage is possible, only that the offended party may divorce the other.

 

[Burdock]

But He does not state that a remarriage is possible, only that the offended party may divorce the other.

The catholic church is the only church that has these rules, its ridiculous to expect someone who has divorced because their spouse committed adultery to never marry again.

 

[Burdock]

But He does not state that a remarriage is possible, only that the offended party may divorce the other.

The catholic church is the only church that has these rules, its ridiculous to expect someone who has divorced because their spouse committed adultery to never marry again.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Because she’s still married. And is not free to marry a second time.

That’s the whole point. She should be excused (for lack of a better word) from her first marriage because of her philandering husband. She’s being punished for the rest of her life for something she did not do.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

That’s the whole point. She should be excused (for lack of a better word) from her first marriage because of her philandering husband. She’s being punished for the rest of her life for something she did not do.

That is the problem with sin. It can affect others, innocent others. So she cannot be remarried again. Yes that is hard. But when someone murders someone and denies them the ability to go to confession first, that too can be a problem. When some sick person tortures someone then maybe, perhaps there are lasting effects. When a woman is raped and conceives a child, she has affects from the sin. It alters her life. The Church is not a magic wand that is waved to make bad things and the effects of one’s sin go away. It never has claimed that power.

 

[Brendan]

The catholic church is the only church that has these rules, its ridiculous to expect someone who has divorced because their spouse committed adultery to never marry again.

Except that if such a person DOES remarry, then they too are commiting adultery. We have Christ’s own words on that.

A Sacrament entails, by definition, Salvic Grace. A Sacrament SAVES the souls of those who participate.

In marriage, each person looks to the other to help them gain salvation, and to obtain Grace through the other.

The spouse who commited adultery is gravely in need of Grace, and thus, even in separation, the other spouse has an obligation to pray and fast for them, so that they might achieve Salvation

That is how the Sacrament of Marriage works,

Other faith communities deny the Sacramental nature of marriage, they consider it to be simply a contract. So yes, you are correct, as long as the Catholic Church considers Matrimony to be Sacramental, to be an agent of Grace, in it’s own right, it’s outlook will differ from those who view it as simply a contract.

 

[Burdock]

Rubbish

 

[ProVobis]

That’s the whole point. She should be excused (for lack of a better word) from her first marriage because of her philandering husband. She’s being punished for the rest of her life for something she did not do.

But why didn’t she seek help from the Church before she found support from someone else? It’s not like the Church never heard of bad marriages. Seems like we’re talking about people who care nothing much about working with the Church but think they’re entitled to the sacraments anyway? This doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Burdock]

Rubbish

 

[ProVobis]

That’s not an argument.

 

[TEPO]

Except that if such a person DOES remarry, then they too are commiting adultery. We have Christ’s own words on that.

A Sacrament entails, by definition, Salvic Grace. A Sacrament SAVES the souls of those who participate.

In marriage, each person looks to the other to help them gain salvation, and to obtain Grace through the other.

The spouse who commited adultery is gravely in need of Grace, and thus, even in separation, the other spouse has an obligation to pray and fast for them, so that they might achieve Salvation

That is how the Sacrament of Marriage works,

Other faith communities deny the Sacramental nature of marriage, they consider it to be simply a contract. So yes, you are correct, as long as the Catholic Church considers Matrimony to be Sacramental, to be an agent of Grace, in it’s own right, it’s outlook will differ from those who view it as simply a contract.

But Mosaic law allowed men to have multiple wives, and adultery was not committed within that contract. God allowed this. God later changed the law, but then allowed canon law to be bound or loosened by the Church.

So there may or may not be sin in remarriage - depending solely on what the Church decides. Right?