Vatican denies Pope told Italian journalist that ‘all divorced’ will be admitted to Communion

[JimG]

Your statement, as previously noted, appears flawed. “Validity” is a juridical term and therefore is only meaningful when pronounced by a public authority.

The private judgments of individuals on “validity” is no more than personal disagreement or agreement on an official pronouncement of legal “invalidity.” It cannot change the legal status so declared in the external forum can it?

Yes, I understand that “validity” is a juridical term. But it is also a term to refer to the reality of the first marriage and that is the way I have been using it. Without regard to juridical findings, the marriage is either “valid” from the start or it is not. The marriage is either real or null. One hopes of course, that a juridical finding conforms to reality. One also hopes that a private judgment on the matter conforms to reality.

Your real difficulty seems to be with the possibility of the remarried being officially allowed to receive Communion when the invalidity of their 1st one has not yet been legally proven in the usual external forum (a Tribunal)?

Yes, I would think that the status of the first marriage needs to be recognized in some way, either by a tribunal decision, or by some new method. It would not seem right to make a decision for communion without also acknowledging either formally or otherwise, that the prior marriage is null.

You seem to refer to the “accompanyment” proposal?

Well that proposal is currently stated ambiguously about how the decision is actually reached. But one thing is for sure, if it is made a formal process with steps that require consensus with an appointed Priest before “ascending” then it is definitely a form of external forum. But it is an external forum that makes decisions about Communion reception not the marriage’s actual legal status (“validity”).

So, it sounds as though the status of the first marriage is to be ignored in this forum, whatever form it may take. It seems contradictory to me that such a decision might have the effect, for example, of acknowledging that the parties are actually still married to a former spouse while cohabiting with a new partner in a putative second marriage, and yet allowed to receive communion. Perhaps that is not the intent of the proposal, but it could be the effect if the status of the first marriage is not taken into account.

Obviously such a couple would only be admitted to this process if their original marriage had annulment merit but which tribunal judgement has not yet been made for a variety of well known tribunal process weaknesses discussed at length elsewhere even by the Popes themselves.

If that’s the case, then this might clear up the difficulty, provided that a decision to allow the person to receive communion would also act as a decision on the status of their former marriage.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, I understand that “validity” is a juridical term. But it is also a term to refer to the reality of the first marriage and that is the way I have been using it.

I suggest your own thoughts would become clearer if you used a different word to signify which of the two marriages “exists before God”. I use the expression “marriage bond” myself. Keep in mind that it is of course possible that neither of the two marriages exist before God.

But I suggest this is a theologically sterile path to travel down. Noone this side of the grave knows which of the two marriages is the “true” one and never will.
The best we can do is go by the fallible pronouncements of Canon Law and the tribunals authorised by Canon law. They merely pronounce on legal “validity” not on absolute “truth”.

Without regard to juridical findings, the marriage is either “valid” from the start or it is not.

If you mean 'true" then of course you are logically correct.
But of course this statement is meaningless because we can never know with certainty which marriage (if either) actually is the true marriage .

One hopes of course, that a juridical finding conforms to reality.

This can surely only ever be a hope. It doesn’t matter though as judgements of legal validity (whether right or wrong) allow individuals and societies to make decisions and pragmatically move forward (which is the case for all Court findings on guilt or innocence).

I think that the status of the first marriage needs to be recognized in some way, either by a tribunal decision, or by some new method.

I don’t understand this statement Jim.
The status is the legal status. The legal validity of a 1st marriage always holds until a tribunal says otherwise.
I suggest your real problem is re reception of Communion by those in a 2nd Marriage whose 1st marriage’s assumed validity has not yet been overturned by a tribunal?

It would not seem right to make a decision for communion without also acknowledging either formally or otherwise, that the prior marriage is null.

I understand that you personally dislike this reality.
Unfortunately you actually have no strong theological grounds for holding it as sacrosanct or for assuming that a 2nd marriage if wilfully continued necessitates personal mortal sin.

Are you aware that those in an invalid 2nd marriage may receive Communion privately if they are not sexually active? This accepted exception does seem to militate against your personal intuition that the standing validity of the first marriage should deny this possibility outright whether they are sexually active or not. As Pope JP II stated in FC, the 2nd simulated marriage/cohabitation, regardless of sexual activity, is of itself enough to contradict Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and such a situation is intrinsically disordered. Interestingly it would appear that the simulated marriage is not always gravely disordered - otherwise Communion would not be allowed under any circumstances.

So, it sounds as though the status of the first marriage is to be ignored in this forum, whatever form it may take. It seems contradictory to me that such a decision might have the effect, for example, of acknowledging that the parties are actually still married to a former spouse while cohabiting with a new partner in a putative second marriage, and yet allowed to receive communion.

Yes I agree that seems a reasonable conclusion Jim. But as above, that has already been happening since last century if the couple in the 2nd marriage are prepared to abstain from sexual activity and only receive Communion “privately” (ie where no scandal is aroused).

Perhaps that is not the intent of the proposal, but it could be the effect if the status of the first marriage is not taken into account.

I believe it definitely is the intent Jim. It is an external forum decision purely about reception of Communion and in the face of the currently assumed validity of the first marriage. Of course there is the proviso that the marriage tribunal is prudently judged to have likely failed the couple in question through no fault of theirs and the 2nd marriage is likely “true” … but this cannot be rigorously demonstrated by the fallible tribunal process requirements.
I believe you are mistaken to think that a Tribunal makes negative judgements about the 2nd marriage. All it can do is make a negative judgement about the first marriage or fail in that attempt for a variety of reasons - including lack of evidence, money or excessive delays.

If that’s the case, then this might clear up the difficulty, provided that a decision to allow the person to receive communion would also act as a decision on the status of their former marriage.

I do not believe that is the intention at all, precisely the opposite.
The intention appears to be to assist into Communion those 2nd marriages that are prudently considered by Church authorities to be likely true marriages but have been failed by the tribunal process. This would be a “stop-gap” measure completely outside of a tribunal process and therefore cannot be expected make findings wrt nullity or legal validity as you wish.

Regardless those 2nd marriages may very well be “true” - hence the desire that Communion be allowed to them in some other way.

 

[JimG]

I suggest your own thoughts would become clearer if you used a different word to signify which of the two marriages “exists before God”. I use the expression “marriage bond” myself. Keep in mind that it is of course possible that neither of the two marriages exist before God.

But I suggest this is a theologically sterile path to travel down. Noone this side of the grave knows which of the two marriages is the “true” one and never will.
The best we can do is go by the fallible pronouncements of Canon Law and the tribunals authorised by Canon law. They merely pronounce on legal “validity” not on absolute “truth”.

If you mean 'true" then of course you are logically correct.
But of course this statement is meaningless because we can never know with certainty which marriage (if either) actually is the true marriage .

This can surely only ever be a hope. It doesn’t matter though as judgements of legal validity (whether right or wrong) allow individuals and societies to make decisions and pragmatically move forward (which is the case for all Court findings on guilt or innocence).

I don’t understand this statement Jim.
The status is the legal status. The legal validity of a 1st marriage always holds until a tribunal says otherwise.

I suggest your real problem is re reception of Communion by those in a 2nd Marriage whose 1st marriage’s assumed validity has not yet been overturned by a tribunal?

I understand that you personally dislike this reality.
Unfortunately you actually have no strong theological grounds for holding it as sacrosanct or for assuming that a 2nd marriage if wilfully continued necessitates personal mortal sin.
'=Are you aware that those in an invalid 2nd marriage may receive Communion privately if they are not sexually active? This accepted exception does seem to militate against your personal intuition that the standing validity of the first marriage should deny this possibility outright whether they are sexually active or not. As Pope JP II stated in FC, the 2nd simulated marriage/cohabitation, regardless of sexual activity, is of itself enough to contradict Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and such a situation is intrinsically disordered. Interestingly it would appear that the simulated marriage is not always gravely disordered - otherwise Communion would not be allowed under any circumstances.

Yes I agree that seems a reasonable conclusion Jim. But as above, that has already been happening since last century if the couple in the 2nd marriage are prepared to abstain from sexual activity and only receive Communion “privately” (ie where no scandal is aroused).

I believe it definitely is the intent Jim. It is an external forum decision purely about reception of Communion and in the face of the currently assumed validity of the first marriage. Of course there is the proviso that the marriage tribunal is prudently judged to have likely failed the couple in question through no fault of theirs and the 2nd marriage is likely “true” … but this cannot be rigorously demonstrated by the fallible tribunal process requirements.
I believe you are mistaken to think that a Tribunal makes negative judgements about the 2nd marriage. All it can do is make a negative judgement about the first marriage or fail in that attempt for a variety of reasons - including lack of evidence, money or excessive delays.

I do not believe that is the intention at all, precisely the opposite.
The intention appears to be to assist into Communion those 2nd marriages that are prudently considered by Church authorities to be likely true marriages but have been failed by the tribunal process. This would be a “stop-gap” measure completely outside of a tribunal process and therefore cannot be expected make findings wrt nullity or legal validity as you wish.

Regardless those 2nd marriages may very well be “true” - hence the desire that Communion be allowed to them in some other way.

Yes, I understand that under existing teachings, the couple in a second marriage can receive privately if they are not engaging in marital relations. This avoids the problem of approving communion in a putative adulterous situation.

You say that “the intention appears to be to assist into Communion those 2nd marriages that are prudently considered by Church authorities to be likely true marriages but have been failed by the tribunal process.”

Fine. It also seems to be the case that those seeking such a process will be those who are convinced that their first marriages were never real marriage bonds. Then why not simply take the extra step of affirming that in permitting the couple to receive communion within the second marriage, the Church considers with moral (though not legal) certitude that the original marriage is not a true marriage bond.

That at least would free the couple and the Church from holding to the contradictory position that there exists two simultaneous marriage bonds, or that communion is approved for a couple who are in a merely cohabiting relationship.

You say that no one can really know the actual status of the first or the second marriage. But in Catholic theology at least, we can know that they are not both simultaneously real marital bonds.

 

[clem456]

Indeed. It’s not too complicated, really.

Dan

There you go again, making simple comments.

I really believe that a thread on simplicity would be good.
We tie ourselves into knots because our souls are noisy. Our desires speak to us louder than God’s will. What do I hear when I listen to God’s revelation?

The first thing, or at least one of the essential attributes I should hear, is simplicity. If the simple cannot be heard and grasped in the truth, then I surely cannot find the truth by trying to complicate it with my own convoluted desires. Simplicity is an essential attribute, and it is not the same as “simplistic”. They are not the same thing.

And where do I hear God’s will? In my noisy heart?
Maybe.
Through the Church, Christ’s body. The Church gives us every thing we need: scripture, Tradition, Magisterium. The Church provides plenty of guidance that takes a lifetime to appreciate, yet because our noisy hearts distract us, we gloss over what is in front of our faces, preferring our own complicated interpretations.

“How can I make what God reveals and the Church teaches fit my will?”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You say that “the intention appears to be to assist into Communion those 2nd marriages that are prudently considered by Church authorities to be likely true marriages but have been failed by the tribunal process.”

Fine. It also seems to be the case that those seeking such a process will be those who are convinced that their first marriages were never real marriage bonds.

Of course only those judged sincere in the private forum belief their 1st marriage is not true will be eligible for this parallel process.
However a sufficient reason is not the same as a necessary reason is it… which your mildly outraged tone here suggests you mean?

Then why not simply take the extra step of affirming that in permitting the couple to receive communion within the second marriage, the Church considers with moral (though not legal) certitude that the original marriage is not a true marriage bond.

Yes Jim, I believe that expresses well exactly what this parallel process is designed to do and will do. The official local decision to allow designated couples to receive publicly is exactly the affirming you seek.
What more do you want from an official “permitting” to turn it into an “affirming”?
What you seek is already inherently obvious in the first from what I can see.
The only proviso I would attach is that this permission, not being as robust as a legal process, would obviously be far more tentative in nature and could be withdrawn if and when more objective info comes to light. Perhaps it would be like a medical cert… needing to be reassessed and renewed yearly.

That at least would free the couple and the Church from holding to the contradictory position that there exists two simultaneous marriage bonds

I don’t see how this reasonably follows from the above clear analysis you’ve thus far made. There is no real contradiction. It is simply an honest acknowledgement that Church legal views can and regularly do likely diverge from what God may see. This has been admitted in Papal Encyclical. This is an acknowledgement of fallibility and uncertainty over discovery of which marriage is likely true in significant cases of otherwise faithful Catholics. Where is the certain contradiction you speak of?

or that communion is approved for a couple who are in a merely cohabiting relationship.

The merely cohabitation is not a certainty Jim. The accepted possibility of retro active radical sanation is a legal judgement that the valid marriage began when vows were exchanged at the beginning of the 2nd marriage. Which is also why their sexual activity is never explicitly called adultery when referred to in Church docs that refer to these issues.

You say that no one can really know the actual status of the first or the second marriage. But in Catholic theology at least, we can know that they are not both simultaneously real marital bonds.

I don’t see what this truism actually adds to the analysis or how it consoles participants?

 

[JimG]

Of course only those judged sincere in the private forum belief their 1st marriage is not true will be eligible for this parallel process.
However a sufficient reason is not the same as a necessary reason is it… which your mildly outraged tone here suggests you mean?

Yes Jim, **I believe that expresses well exactly what this parallel process is designed to do and will do. The official local decision to allow designated couples to receive publicly is exactly the affirming you seek. **

What more do you want from an official “permitting” to turn it into an “affirming”?
What you seek is already inherently obvious in the first from what I can see.
The only proviso I would attach is that this permission, not being as robust as a legal process, would obviously be far more tentative in nature and could be withdrawn if and when more objective info comes to light. Perhaps it would be like a medical cert… needing to be reassessed and renewed yearly.

I don’t see how this reasonably follows from the above clear analysis you’ve thus far made. There is no real contradiction. It is simply an honest acknowledgement that Church legal views can and regularly do likely diverge from what God may see. This has been admitted in Papal Encyclical. This is an acknowledgement of fallibility and uncertainty over discovery of which marriage is likely true in significant cases of otherwise faithful Catholics. Where is the certain contradiction you speak of?

The merely cohabitation is not a certainty Jim. The accepted possibility of retro active radical sanation is a legal judgement that the valid marriage began when vows were exchanged at the beginning of the 2nd marriage. Which is also why their sexual activity is never explicitly called adultery when referred to in Church docs that refer to these issues.

I don’t see what this truism actually adds to the analysis or how it consoles participants?

Well then, if such a new process results not only in approval for communion, but an acknowledgment that the first marriage is considered null, that solves the problem. I had been under the impression that the process would allow for communion while continuing to recognize the first marriage. But if the approval for communion involves a recognition that the first marriage is considered null, the problem is solved.

If the first marriage is recognized as null for one party, it goes without saying that it is recognized as null for both.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But if the approval for communion involves a recognition that the first marriage is considered null, the problem is solved.
.

Jim I am not sure we are on the same sheet re the difference between “moral certitude” and “legal certitude.”

By “legal certitude” I obviously mean “legal validity.”
By “moral certitude” I mean the fallible, non legal judgements re human affairs/conduct which is how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines the term.

I have opined continually that this parallel Communion access process has nothing to say wrt the legal validity status of either the 1st or 2nd marriage which legal status remains unaffected.

Nevertheless, yes, a decision to allow Communion surely is an **a-legal ** form of recognition that the current 2nd marriage is likely true (and logically that the 1st likely not true). Above you used the word “null”, that is a legal term. So to say the 1st marriage is therefore “considered null” is different from what I said.

But a Communion decision in favour of the 2nd marriage is clearly making a fallible, non-legal assertion that the couple in this 2nd marriage are likely in a marriage recognised by God. The first marriage is still of course officially “not null” (ie still legally valid). That doesnt mean the first marriage is “true”.

If you consider “legal validity” (as well as annulments thereof) as merely an arbitrary court based designation that can change and may have no bearing on the reality God sees things should fit into place.

Sometimes the judgements of a local pastor (with “moral certitude”) will surely be more accurate wrt what God sees than the legal designation (ie “legal validity”).

 

[JimG]

Jim I am not sure we are on the same sheet re the difference between “moral certitude” and “legal certitude.”

By “legal certitude” I obviously mean “legal validity.”
By “moral certitude” I mean the fallible, non legal judgements re human affairs/conduct which is how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines the term.

I have opined continually that this parallel Communion access process has nothing to say wrt the legal validity status of either the 1st or 2nd marriage which legal status remains unaffected.

Nevertheless, yes, a decision to allow Communion surely is an **a-legal ** form of recognition that the current 2nd marriage is likely true (and logically that the 1st likely not true). Above you used the word “null”, that is a legal term. So to say the 1st marriage is therefore “considered null” is different from what I said.

But a Communion decision in favour of the 2nd marriage is clearly making a fallible, non-legal assertion that the couple in this 2nd marriage are likely in a marriage recognised by God. The first marriage is still of course officially “not null” (ie still legally valid). That doesnt mean the first marriage is “true”.

If you consider “legal validity” (as well as annulments thereof) as merely an arbitrary court based designation that can change and may have no bearing on the reality God sees things should fit into place.

Sometimes the judgements of a local pastor (with “moral certitude”) will surely be more accurate wrt what God sees than the legal designation (ie “legal validity”).

Well, I guess we are not on the same page. I don’t care if the decision as to the status of the first marriage is made by a tribunal or by a new process involving evaluation by a pastor. But the conclusions have to be consistent. If the pastor concludes the first marriage to be null—that the vows never became binding for whatever reason—then that decision can’t be in conflict with a tribunal finding.

How that would work I don’t know. In many cases, there may never have been an application for nullity, or perhaps an uncompleted application. In that case, the pastoral process would of necessity have to serve as a final resolution to the marital status. I would not want a pastoral process to proceed in a case where there was already in existence a tribunal finding in favor of the first marriage’s validity. (Unless such a decision could be successfully appealed or the pastoral process could act as a de facto appeal whose decision would be effective.)

You said earlier that a tribunal decision was fallible, and also that a pastoral decision is fallible. So regardless of the difference between the legal and pastoral process, one must end up with a single decision either favoring the existence of the first marriage or concluding it to have never been real. To end up with a process which ends with “legal validity” but “pastoral nullity” would be simply a contradiction.

But I don’t think that will happen. We’ll just have to wait and see.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, I guess we are not on the same page. I don’t care if the decision as to the status of the first marriage is made by a tribunal or by a new process involving evaluation by a pastor.

You still do not understand Jim. The local Pastor process will have no authority to change the current legal status of the couple in a 2nd marriage it deals with. That is a judgement only a tribunal may make. The 1st marriage will still be the legally valid one.
The Pastor process only makes a Communion access judgement.

But the conclusions have to be consistent.

What is inconsistent? If the Church allows access to Communion to select couples when the local pastor prudentially judges that the 1st marriage is likely not the true one … why is it a serious “inconsistency” if this is done because the tribunal process in this case is merely too clumsy, inefficient or ponderous in its processes to catch up with this reality just yet. To deny such couples Communion for many years simply because of purely technical weaknesses in a tribunal process which should be finding in their favour … is reasonably judged unjust. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The inconsistency is really no more than one of a delayed legal judgement that officials already know will be in favour of the 2nd marriage.
That seems to be a trivial inconstancy if the Church, by an official process outside of the tribunal process, gives its blessing so there is no scandal.

But you still want to be scandalised?

If the pastor concludes the first marriage to be null—that the vows never became binding for whatever reason—then that decision can’t be in conflict with a tribunal finding.

The local Pastor will makes no formal judgement re legal status of either marriage.
I keep saying this but you somehow don’t understand.
It does not logically follow that an official judgement to allow Communion is also an official judgement that the couple now have a legally valid marriage.
Clearly they do not have a legally valid marriage until a tribunal annuls the first marriage.
That is the only official body that can change the legal status of a marriage.

I would not want a pastoral process to proceed in a case where there was already in existence a tribunal finding in favor of the first marriage’s validity.

This is exactly the point of the Pastor process Jim. You are going to be disappointed unless you understand what it all really means and its actually OK.

You said earlier that a tribunal decision was fallible, and also that a pastoral decision is fallible.

Of course, no process or forum internal or external can ever discover with certainty the true state of a marriage that only God sees.

So regardless of the difference between the legal and pastoral process, one must end up with a single decision either favoring the existence of the first marriage or concluding it to have never been real.

The Pastoral process has no legal standing wrt judging the legal status of a marriage.
Therefore the tribunal judgement stands.

The Pastoral process simply allows Communion on the prudential premise that the legal status is likely wrong but technical difficulties mean the tribunal is unable to catch up with that reality and make that decision. It may never be in a position to do so for purely technical obstacles.

To end up with a process which ends with “legal validity” but “pastoral nullity” would be simply a contradiction.

From above it should be clear there is no contradiction at the legal level. The first marriage is obviously to be assumed as the legally valid one. Admission to Communion does not change the legal reality.

 

[JimG]

You still do not understand Jim. The local Pastor process will have no authority to change the current legal status of the couple in a 2nd marriage it deals with. That is a judgement only a tribunal may make. The 1st marriage will still be the legally valid one.
The Pastor process only makes a Communion access judgement.

What is inconsistent? If the Church allows access to Communion to select couples when the local pastor prudentially judges that the 1st marriage is likely not the true one … why is it a serious “inconsistency” if this is done because the tribunal process in this case is merely too clumsy, inefficient or ponderous in its processes to catch up with this reality just yet. To deny such couples Communion for many years simply because of purely technical weaknesses in a tribunal process which should be finding in their favour … is reasonably judged unjust. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The inconsistency is really no more than one of a delayed legal judgement that officials already know will be in favour of the 2nd marriage.
That seems to be a trivial inconstancy if the Church, by an official process outside of the tribunal process, gives its blessing so there is no scandal.

But you still want to be scandalised?

The local Pastor will makes no formal judgement re legal status of either marriage.
I keep saying this but you somehow don’t understand.
It does not logically follow that an official judgement to allow Communion is also an official judgement that the couple now have a legally valid marriage.
Clearly they do not have a legally valid marriage until a tribunal annuls the first marriage.
That is the only official body that can change the legal status of a marriage.

This is exactly the point of the Pastor process Jim. You are going to be disappointed unless you understand what it all really means and its actually OK.

Of course, no process or forum internal or external can ever discover with certainty the true state of a marriage that only God sees.

The Pastoral process has no legal standing wrt judging the legal status of a marriage.
Therefore the tribunal judgement stands.

The Pastoral process simply allows Communion on the prudential premise that the legal status is likely wrong but technical difficulties mean the tribunal is unable to catch up with that reality and make that decision. It may never be in a position to do so for purely technical obstacles.

From above it should be clear there is no contradiction at the legal level. The first marriage is obviously to be assumed as the legally valid one. Admission to Communion does not change the legal reality.

If the pastor concludes that the tribunal “should be finding in their favour” or would be finding in their favor but for technical problems, or “that officials already know will be in favour of the 2nd marriage,” then give him the authority to make that conclusion official.

Without that authority, the pastor ends up saying something like this: “We conclude that the first marriage is likely invalid but the tribunal is unable to reach that conclusion for now. So the first marriage still stands, but in view of the fact that that decision is likely wrong, we recognize the couple’s second marriage as the valid one and they are therefore allowed to receive the Eucharist.”

If we are going to have an alternative process, allow it to be definitive.

It’s not up to me, but I hope we don’t end up with the Church somehow affirming both marriages simultaneously merely by calling one result legal and another one pastoral.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If the pastor concludes that the tribunal “should be finding in their favour” or would be finding in their favor but for technical problems, or “that officials already know will be in favour of the 2nd marriage,” then give him the authority to make that conclusion official.

You don’t get it Jim. That is impossible, legal declarations of “validity” must be based on objective legal processes requiring hard objective evidence. We are here examining the hard cases (which are not insignificant in number) that may never be able to meet the requirements that objective evidence based legal proceedings intrinsically require.

That’s why its a different **Pastoral process **of discerning the truth, NOT a legal process of discerning the truth. Clearly you assume the last word on truth in the Catholic Church must be a legal process?

The Catholic Church, and esp this Pope, I am afraid, is completely disagreeing with you.
When the whips are cracking we see the Church at its base is personally Pastoral in nature and NOT impersonally Legal.
The legal super-structure is but a tool of the underlying Pastoral approach. In rare cases when the two are in discord the Church has the freedom to decide practices that may well appear to bypass the usual legal apparatus it relies on 99% of the time to implement Pastoral care of its flock. This appears to be one of them.

Without that authority, the pastor ends up saying something like this: "We conclude that the first marriage is likely invalid but the tribunal is unable to reach that conclusion for now. So the first marriage still stands…

Absolutely correct I believe.

… but in view of the fact that that decision is likely wrong, we recognize the couple’s second marriage as the valid one and they are therefore allowed to receive the Eucharist."

Completely skew. How can a Pastoral process make any legal judgement/recognition/conclusion/callit whatyouwill wrt validity. Validity is a purely legal term. A Pastoral process merely makes an authoritative practical judgement that this particular couple may receive Communion because it is likely that legal process of the Church has failed them.

If we are going to have an alternative process, allow it to be definitive.

Its not an alternative legal process Jim. So it has no authority to make legal judgements about the legal status of the marriage which therefore remain.
I would agree there is some legal authority in this Pastoral process. The Pastor has the legal authority to pronounce Communion open to this couple - on the basis that the assumed validity of the first marriage is highly questionable.

Jim, as a trained moral theologian (lay), I have provided you a middle of the road analysis which I believe is pretty much what a priest moral theologian would personally advise were you fortunate enough to know one well enough to invite home for a meal and a port.
(Many of my fellow post grad theology students are now experienced moral theologians and I discuss these things regularly).

You appear not quite able to wholly grasp the fairly simple principles I am laying before you with which your own wishes prove more of a theological inconsistency than the pastoral/legal inconsistency you think you see.

My own experience, for what its worth, is that when I am seriously at odds intellectually with a Church practise or teaching…this reminds me that I am fallible myself despite my strong convictions otherwise.
I see this as a meditation or even confessional opportunity. I explore the conundrum either in prayer or with my spiritual director.
Invariably it turns out to be an emotional block on my side which clouds my intellectual judgement. It may be a past grief I am obstinately holding onto, a resentment of others who benefit from the issue I oppose, an unwillingness to re-assess a moral security I thought I had and judge against my own laxity… and so on.

In short you do not seem to understand that this proposed Pastoral inititiative is being discussed precisely to solve a greater inconsistency that doesn’t seem to have pinged on your radar.

This is the far more serious inconsistency that Tribunals are seriously failing to annul some first marriages that clearly should be annulled - and, under current Communion practice unjustly barring the remarried couple from Communion and a full Church life.

I have raised this multiple times below…but this far more serious inconsistency doesn’t bug you - though it has bugged the last 3 Popes who have spoken about it.
They clearly put lesser weight on your more aesthetic desire for external legalistic Communion consistency/congruity in these cases.

This is probably as far as we can go on this topic.

 

[JimG]

Blue Horizon, I did not quote your entire post, but these things struck me:

That’s why its a different Pastoral process of discerning the truth, NOT a legal process of discerning the truth. Clearly you assume the last word on truth in the Catholic Church must be a legal process?

No, I don’t assume that at all. I assume that both processes, conducted in good faith, can discover truth. I think that truth should be acted upon.

The legal super-structure is but a tool of the underlying Pastoral approach.

Great. If the legal process is but a tool of the pastoral, then why can’t the pastoral process make a binding decision?

I would agree there is some legal authority in this Pastoral process. The Pastor has the legal authority to pronounce Communion open to this couple - on the basis that the assumed validity of the first marriage is highly questionable.

This is precisely the problem. The pastoral process makes a decision based on the assumed wrongfulness of the legal process decision, but has no ability to correct a wrongful decision.

This is the far more serious inconsistency that Tribunals are seriously failing to annul some first marriages that clearly should be annulled - and, under current Communion practice unjustly barring the remarried couple from Communion and a full Church life.

If they should be annulled, then declare them null.

Here is what I think:

I think that no couple in a second marriage would approach a pastor for this pastoral process unless they believed that their first marriage was not a valid marriage.

I think that no pastor would make a pastoral finding to permit communion in a non-continent second marriage unless he was convinced that the first marriage was not valid.

And if that is the basis of the decision, why would they wish to leave in place a fictitious first marriage?

But neither of us know what the outcome of this will be. Will we end up with no change at all? Will we end up with the Kasper proposal? I have no idea.