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

[JimG]

Well, if the pastor, or whoever is making the decision regarding such a second marriage, decides that the persons in that marriage can receive communion, and yet does not simultaneously declare the first marriage invalid, here is the message:

Your first marriage remains valid.
Marriage is indissoluble.
Your second marriage is not valid.
Nevertheless, you are not bound by the marriage vows of the first marriage.
You need not abstain from sexual relations in the second marriage.
You may receive communion.

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Just to be clear, this article is from a single blogger and does not represent Gilliam or The Church. When such blogs and off-site editorials are posted, response is limited as there can be no counter-response from a linked site.

Oh yes, I wasn’t singling out Gilliam, merely the quote’s owner. Comments like that make me roll my eyes at the person speaking about mercy, love, and healing, and generally they lose all credibility with me.

You can’t say we need to “meet people where they are” and at the same time say “of course, that doesn’t to people I see as troublemakers in the Church.”

Not to mention, again, it is a joke to single out American Catholics as some group of rabble-rousers, as though there is a lot of passion the faith overall here. It comes off as ignorant of America and Catholicism, or a cheapshot for no good reason.

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, if the pastor, or whoever is making the decision regarding such a second marriage, decides that the persons in that marriage can receive communion, and yet does not simultaneously declare the first marriage invalid, here is the message:

Your first marriage remains valid.
Marriage is indissoluble.
Your second marriage is not valid.
Nevertheless, you are not bound by the marriage vows of the first marriage.
You need not abstain from sexual relations in the second marriage.
You may receive communion.

Am I understanding this correctly?

No doubt if a door is opened to internal forum discernment, there’ll be some theological explanation to accompany that. I don’t find I need to have too much deep theological explanation of Church teaching to have faith in it but I know others do. Perhaps there’ll be a clearer statement regarding the phenomenon of ‘celebrating the sacrament without faith’ to pave the way for regularisation? Perhaps the natural marriage status of this second attempt can be regarded in the way of a non Catholic convert couple by virtue of this state of faithlessness at the time of the first marriage?

 

[JimG]

No doubt if a door is opened to internal forum discernment, there’ll be some theological explanation to accompany that. I don’t find I need to have too much deep theological explanation of Church teaching to have faith in it but I know others do. Perhaps there’ll be a clearer statement regarding the phenomenon of ‘celebrating the sacrament without faith’ to pave the way for regularisation? Perhaps the natural marriage status of this second attempt can be regarded in the way of a non Catholic convert couple by virtue of this state of faithlessness at the time of the first marriage?

If an internal forum discernment results in a decision that the first marriage was invalid due to lack of faith, that ought to be made explicit, especially if the second marriage is now to be viewed as valid.

I have no particular opinion on “lack of faith” as a reason for invalidity. I just think that one ought to be clear about what is being done: the first marriage is being declared invalid, even if through the internal forum, so that the second marriage can be recognized as valid.

The problem arises if a tribunal has already declined a finding of nullity. The internal forum in that cases is overturning a tribunal decision. In any case, if additional factors are allowed for consideration of a nullity decision in the internal forum, they ought to be formally made matters of consideration for the external forum as well.

Whatever the outcome, we seem to keep getting farther from Jesus words, and have to keep explaining them away.

 

[Brendan]

There is more to know especially when we perceive the sacraments as medicine for the sick rather than rewards for the perfect as Pope Francis says. .

Quite true, the problem being, is that, like many medicines, it can only be taken as prescribed by the Physician.

To do otherwise, brings more harm, not healing.

Such is true for the Great Physician, Christ Himself. He has told His Church that those in grave sin do damage to their souls when the falsely attempt to partake of the medicine of the Eucharist.

We believe this Physician, and we seek to keep others from harming themselves when they violate the terms under which the Great Physician prescribed this medicine.

They must first partake of the medicine of Absolution, which brings their soul into a condition where the Holy Eucharist will bring healing and nourishment, not harm

The prescription for healing is before all of us.
The question becomes, so we attempt to write a false prescription for ourselves, our follow the one given to use by the Great Physician Himself?

 

[LongingSoul]

If an internal forum discernment results in a decision that the first marriage was invalid due to lack of faith, that ought to be made explicit, especially if the second marriage is now to be viewed as valid.

I have no particular opinion on “lack of faith” as a reason for invalidity. I just think that one ought to be clear about what is being done: the first marriage is being declared invalid, even if through the internal forum, so that the second marriage can be recognized as valid.

The problem arises if a tribunal has already declined a finding of nullity. The internal forum in that cases is overturning a tribunal decision. In any case, if additional factors are allowed for consideration of a nullity decision in the internal forum, they ought to be formally made matters of consideration for the external forum as well.

Whatever the outcome, we seem to keep getting farther from Jesus words, and have to keep explaining them away.

The reason I don’t feel as bound to the ultimate word of the Tribunal is because the tribunal wasn’t invented by Christ. The fact of nullity in marriage was barely touched on in the bible and has developed over time as an administrative task. Internal forum, that is the person in consultation with the priest or bishop that he has a parish community relationship with… would have been the first place that the issue of marriage nullity would have been addressed… giving rise to a tribunal eventually.

2000 years ago marriage was only developing sacramentally as the human institution ordained as the representation of the relationship of Christ and His Bride the Church. Marriages were still tied to survival and mostly arranged to some degree between parents. Girls were betrothed upon becoming fertile and that was around age 12ish. The speculation was that Mary was around this age when she married Joseph. Today, all these things consitute aspects that could indicate that a broken marriage was invalid.

As far as the tribunal, even the Church has acknowledged its limits to discern a situation and admitted that it can make mistakes. Why doesn’t that fact in itself warrant trying to improve on the situation for the sake of being more healthy and accurately addressing marriage breakdown in this culture?

Pope Francis quite astutely begged that his bishops address this conundrum without either false compassion or hostile inflexibility because either way, the truth of the situation will remain fuzzy and obscured.

 

[LongingSoul]

Quite true, the problem being, is that, like many medicines, it can only be taken as prescribed by the Physician.

To do otherwise, brings more harm, not healing.

Such is true for the Great Physician, Christ Himself. He has told His Church that those in grave sin do damage to their souls when the falsely attempt to partake of the medicine of the Eucharist.

We believe this Physician, and we seek to keep others from harming themselves when they violate the terms under which the Great Physician prescribed this medicine.

They must first partake of the medicine of Absolution, which brings their soul into a condition where the Holy Eucharist will bring healing and nourishment, not harm

The prescription for healing is before all of us.
The question becomes, so we attempt to write a false prescription for ourselves, our follow the one given to use by the Great Physician Himself?

I don’t believe that what’s going on in the Church and by the synod is an attempt to force an agenda on ‘the system’ in the way you are implying. As the Pope reminded us at the start of the synod, he is the guarantor of freedom from error in these decisions and any priest or bishop is well aware of that ultimate truth as they sit in the synod halls expressing themselves. (I think its so wrong for us lay people to keep chanting that ‘popes can be bad’ therefore the pope could teach a sin out of this. That is not our place and is damaging to the immature and ignorant)

If you trust in the Pope than you surely must know that after hearing what the priests and people have to say, he will listen to the Spirit and respond accordingly.

Whatever is prescribed will have a theological and prophetic basis. That sometimes defies peoples logic but much as some Churchs put human logic first, the Catholic Church puts the mystery of papal authority and its unique charism first in making decisions for the flock.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t believe that what’s going on in the Church and by the synod is an attempt to force an agenda on ‘the system’ in the way you are implying. .

What system or agenda are you referring to?? My post mentioned neither…

More specifically, it was addressed at your point about the Sacraments being similar to medicine, in that they heal.

If received in an unworthy fashion, the actually harm the soul

 

[LongingSoul]

What system or agenda are you referring to?? My post mentioned neither…

More specifically, it was addressed at your point about the Sacraments being similar to medicine, in that they heal.

If received in an unworthy fashion, the actually harm the soul

To me it appeared that you were implying that addressing this issue now is trying to change the prescription of the ‘the Great Physician Himself’ when you said “The question becomes, so we attempt to write a false prescription for ourselves, our follow the one given to use by the Great Physician Himself?”

The Church speaks for Christ and we listen in that spirit. Jesus words on the issue of marriage annulment were few. We have relied on the Magisterium of the Church to guide us on the issue. The synod is all part of the Churchs discernment process and what she comes out with will not amount to ‘writing a false prescription’ if there eventually is some sort of pastoral allowance.

 

[Brendan]

That part of my comment was in reference to those who decide for themselves to receive Holy Communion in situations where the Church has directed them not to.

This was not any reference to any agenda, but individual persons or couple acting against Church teaching on the matter, which you correctly noted, is Christ speaking through the Church.

 

[LongingSoul]

That part of my comment was in reference to those who decide for themselves to receive Holy Communion in situations where the Church has directed them not to.

This was not any reference to any agenda, but individual persons or couple acting against Church teaching on the matter, which you correctly noted, is Christ speaking through the Church.

But I wasn’t suggesting a system where everyone decides for himself. I did mention ‘internal forum’ but according to Fr Hardons dictionary that means…

FORUM. The sphere within which the Church exercises her judicial authority. The external forum deals with matters that concern the public welfare of the Church and the people of God; the internal pertains to her jurisdiction in matters of conscience, notably the sacrament of penance, where sins are forgiven or retained and questions of morality are decided as to guilt, restitution, or responsibility.

 

[Brendan]

But I wasn’t suggesting a system where everyone decides for himself. I did mention ‘internal forum’ but according to Fr Hardons dictionary that means…

FORUM. The sphere within which the Church exercises her judicial authority. The external forum deals with matters that concern the public welfare of the Church and the people of God; the internal pertains to her jurisdiction in matters of conscience, notably the sacrament of penance, where sins are forgiven or retained and questions of morality are decided as to guilt, restitution, or responsibility.

But the Church has stated that such is NOT a means to use to adjusted the validity of a Marriage ( nor any other Sacrament)

I presume that you agree that it is Christ speaking through the Church when such pronouncements were made.

 

[LongingSoul]

But the Church has stated that such is NOT a means to use to adjusted the validity of a Marriage ( nor any other Sacrament)

I presume that you agree that it is Christ speaking through the Church when such pronouncements were made.

I didn’t suggest that this was the teaching as it stand today? Why did you say that? I was saying that this was a suggestion put forward at the synod by the theologian members invited by Pope Francis. Some sort of penitential path conducted through the internal forum is one of the proposals.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, if the pastor, or whoever is making the decision regarding such a second marriage, decides that the persons in that marriage can receive communion, and yet does not simultaneously declare the first marriage invalid, here is the message:

Your first marriage remains valid.
Marriage is indissoluble.
Your second marriage is not valid.
Nevertheless, you are not bound by the marriage vows of the first marriage.
You need not abstain from sexual relations in the second marriage.
You may receive communion.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I don’t think so.
It would presumably be a discipline for those still in a state of Canonical limbo for no fault of their own.
It would also presume the first marriage is irretrievable.

I would assume sexual activity is taking place in the 2nd marriage, if it wasn’t then Communion is of course possible anyways.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If an internal forum discernment results in a decision that the first marriage was invalid due to lack of faith, that ought to be made explicit, especially if the second marriage is now to be viewed as valid.

I have no particular opinion on “lack of faith” as a reason for invalidity. I just think that one ought to be clear about what is being done: the first marriage is being declared invalid, even if through the internal forum, so that the second marriage can be recognized as valid.

The problem arises if a tribunal has already declined a finding of nullity. The internal forum in that cases is overturning a tribunal decision. In any case, if additional factors are allowed for consideration of a nullity decision in the internal forum, they ought to be formally made matters of consideration for the external forum as well.

Whatever the outcome, we seem to keep getting farther from Jesus words, and have to keep explaining them away.

Jim “internal forums” and public declarations of the sort you suggest are contradictions in terms. I think you must know this.

I can see you are not used to thinking in this way, it does require a mind shift.

BTW I do not think an inability to come to a finding of nullity is the same as proving validity of the 1st marriage bond is it?

Validity of the first marriage surely is only ever assumed until prepondernace of evidence to the contrary is reasonably found.Tribunal decisions never have had the charism of infallibility as I understand things. Its all merely prudential.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think so.
It would presumably be a discipline for those still in a state of Canonical limbo for no fault of their own.
It would also presume the first marriage is irretrievable.

I would assume sexual activity is taking place in the 2nd marriage, if it wasn’t then Communion is of course possible anyways.

What do you mean by “a state of canonical limbo?
Does it mean that they are living in an invalid second marriage while a valid first marriage still exists?
Does it mean that they have determined in their own mind that the first marriage was not valid and not binding, and that the second marriage is valid?
Does it mean that the first marriage may be valid but that it doesn’t really matter now because the second marriage is going well?

Whatever it means, my point is that both marriages can not be simultaneously valid. One must be invalid. Whatever method is used to determine invalidity, the fact should be made clear that either the first or the second marriage is not valid.

 

[JimG]

Jim “internal forums” and public declarations of the sort you suggest are contradictions in terms. I think you must know this.

I can see you are not used to thinking in this way, it does require a mind shift.

BTW I do not think an inability to come to a finding of nullity is the same as proving validity of the 1st marriage bond is it?

Validity of the first marriage surely is only ever assumed until prepondernace of evidence to the contrary is reasonably found.Tribunal decisions never have had the charism of infallibility as I understand things. Its all merely prudential.

Internal forum and tribunals are not contradictions in terms. They are different ways of coming to a decision about the truth of a marriage validity.
If a decision is made in the internal forum, it inevitably affects both parties to a marriage. Or can one spouse determine through the internal forum that a marriage was invalid, while the other spouse determines through the internal forum that the marriage was valid? If so, one of them is wrong.

 

[JimG]

The reason I don’t feel as bound to the ultimate word of the Tribunal is because the tribunal wasn’t invented by Christ. The fact of nullity in marriage was barely touched on in the bible and has developed over time as an administrative task. Internal forum, that is the person in consultation with the priest or bishop that he has a parish community relationship with… would have been the first place that the issue of marriage nullity would have been addressed… giving rise to a tribunal eventually.

2000 years ago marriage was only developing sacramentally as the human institution ordained as the representation of the relationship of Christ and His Bride the Church. Marriages were still tied to survival and mostly arranged to some degree between parents. Girls were betrothed upon becoming fertile and that was around age 12ish. The speculation was that Mary was around this age when she married Joseph. Today, all these things consitute aspects that could indicate that a broken marriage was invalid.

As far as the tribunal, even the Church has acknowledged its limits to discern a situation and admitted that it can make mistakes. Why doesn’t that fact in itself warrant trying to improve on the situation for the sake of being more healthy and accurately addressing marriage breakdown in this culture?

Pope Francis quite astutely begged that his bishops address this conundrum without either false compassion or hostile inflexibility because either way, the truth of the situation will remain fuzzy and obscured.

No, the tribunal was not invented by Christ. Rather, it was Christ who declared that marriage is indissoluble and cannot be undone by man. I will also note that the fact that a marriage is arranged does not affect validity. The parties must still exchange consent.

 

[Brendan]

I didn’t suggest that this was the teaching as it stand today? .

But until it changes, those would be the teachings of Christ, correct?

And thus fully in accord with the Divine Mercy.

 

[Brendan]

Internal forum and tribunals are not contradictions in terms. They are different ways of coming to a decision about the truth of a marriage validity. .

Tribunals leverage the internal forum. Validity of a Sacrament involves form, matter and intent.

So, by definition, all three must be looked at.

That is why tribunals request testimony regarding the parties intent on various subjects related to the intent of the sacrament. The desire or rejection of children, the view of the parties on the permanence of marriage, if there was pressure or coercion involved.

Those latter facts are from the internal forum.