Vatican official: adultery incompatible with reception of Holy Communion [CC]

[McCall1981]

But we have to face facts that the times are relevant. The juridical annulment process like any judicial laws, have to take into account the culture of the times to be properly effective. In 1968 in the US 338 annulments were granted compared to 27 000 in 2006. Pope StJPII expressed strong concern about what that fact was saying about the Catholic understanding of marriage among the faithful and initiated a movement within the Church to look at the question more deeply. On the one hand you have people saying that the annulment process needs to be made easier and cheaper but that isn’t really addressing the problem of a general lack of true faith among people presenting at Church for a marriage. Pope Francis in echoing another respected theologian, speculated that probably half of all Catholic marriages are null in the current climate of deficient faith.

For those of us who like JPII worry about what the current annulment process is doing to undermine Catholic marriage in general… there is the realisation that another way of determining validity needs to be developed. A way that is not so much about assumptions and guess work based on what a person says, but something based on the evidence of spiritual fruits that bloom in someones life.

In the early Church certain gratuitous gifts of God were recognised and esteemed in Christian communal life. Things like discernment of spirits, prophecy,wisdom and mercy and these gifts complemented judicial processes in determining questions of faith and morals. Pope Francis coming from the Jesuit tradition is perfectly situated to help bring these charisms to the table in dealing with this huge problem of broken Catholic marriages.

The stance that once the law is implemented it must never be revised or reformulated in any conditions is not the way of the Church. This is why she exists, so that we get the best grasp of scripture and doctrine possible in the light of every age. If not for that, there really would be no need for a Church that is anything more than a library of unchangeable facts.

Well, I don’t agree, but if you want current, the CDF has confirmed it twice this year.

As this topic gets discussed, it seems to flow back and forth from referring to annulments, to referring to communion for remarried people. These are two very different things, and it confuses the conversation (to be fair, I don’t think this is the fault of us posters here on CAF, the “proposals” being put forth are vague so we don’t know what they mean exactly).

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, I don’t agree, but if you want current, the CDF has confirmed it twice this year.

As this topic gets discussed, it seems to flow back and forth from referring to annulments, to referring to communion for remarried people. These are two very different things, and it confuses the conversation (to be fair, I don’t think this is the fault of us posters here on CAF, the “proposals” being put forth are vague so we don’t know what they mean exactly).

I’ve always seen it as an issue of validity and invalidity from the start. Annulments are just a legal process that helps the Church promote the truth of sacramental marriage. It like all entrenched institutional bureacratic concepts has become a bit of a soulless process that is harming the understanding of the faithful. So I certainly don’t agree with you that the annulment process and ‘Communion for the divorced/remarried’ (which is a working title for a concept that will possibly further developed)… are juxtaposed poles. What matters is the truth about Catholic marriage and what the Sacrament really expresses between a man and woman in marriage.

 

[McCall1981]

I’ve always seen it as an issue of validity and invalidity from the start. Annulments are just a legal process that helps the Church promote the truth of sacramental marriage. It like all entrenched institutional bureacratic concepts has become a bit of a soulless process that is harming the understanding of the faithful. So I certainly don’t agree with you that the annulment process and ‘Communion for the divorced/remarried’ (which is a working title for a concept that will possibly further developed)… are juxtaposed poles. What matters is the truth about Catholic marriage and what the Sacrament really expresses between a man and woman in marriage.

I don’t think the two are poles, as in opposite of each other. I think they are just two separate issues, one of which can be discussed and changed, while the other one can’t.

 

[Ender]

But we have to face facts that the times are relevant.

Morality is the same at all times and in all places. Certainly there are some acts that are morally permissible that are unwise depending on time and place, but there can be no case where an immoral act becomes permissible because of “the times”.

The juridical annulment process like any judicial laws, have to take into account the culture of the times to be properly effective.

I don’t think too many people are concerned primarily with the annulment process. Everyone understands that if a marriage is properly declared null the individuals are free to marry again. The concern is with those whose marriages are not annulled who then remarry.

The stance that once the law is implemented it must never be revised or reformulated in any conditions is not the way of the Church.

It is misleading to suggest that the prohibition against the reception of communion for those in irregular marriages is some kind of law the church invented and is free to change. The (Canon) laws involved are based on doctrines that have almost surely been infallibly taught and cannot change. Doctrine can develop but it can never reverse itself.

Ender

 

[McCall1981]

Morality is the same at all times and in all places. Certainly there are some acts that are morally permissible that are unwise depending on time and place, but there can be no case where an immoral act becomes permissible because of “the times”.
I don’t think too many people are concerned primarily with the annulment process. Everyone understands that if a marriage is properly declared null the individuals are free to marry again. The concern is with those whose marriages are not annulled who then remarry.
It is misleading to suggest that the prohibition against the reception of communion for those in irregular marriages is some kind of law the church invented and is free to change. The (Canon) laws involved are based on doctrines that have almost surely been infallibly taught and cannot change. Doctrine can develop but it can never reverse itself.

Ender

Right, like Card Pell said, “no doctrinal backflips”. But now we’re faced with the question of what if there is a backflip?

 

[Mark121359]

Right, like Card Pell said, “no doctrinal backflips”. But now we’re faced with the question of ***what if there is a backflip? ***

Oh, you know the drill. The usual suspects will come on here and post “the Holy Spirit would never allow the Church to teach error…so her backflip must be the new revealed truth!”

Peace, Mark

 

[Sirach2]

Oh, you know the drill. The usual suspects will come on here and post "the Holy Spirit would never allow the Church to teach error…so her backflip must be the new revealed truth!"

Jesus lied?

 

[otjm]

Where is the difficulty with that? In some cultures many have already accepted coming to Mass and not receiving. In fact, in the Spanish and Polish Masses I’ve attended half of the congregation remains in their pews, some in large blocks.

BTW, that last sentence was a very sick pun, if that was your intention.

Considering that the main culture is not he ones you re referring to, the difficulty comes in changing the main culture. That, too, is part of the synod question.

And as to the last comment, you may consider it sick; I consider it graphic. We are talking about the bed, and about sexual congress, and I am asking How many people simply want to turn their backs on this issue, and condemn those in irregular marriages, rather than trying to find ways to reconcile them to Christ.

Let me try to relate another incident. I went to the funeral of a parent of a friend of mine. I cannot speak to the parent’s faithfulness to the Church as I had never met them, but I was definitely aware of the fact that my friend was not what I would call strictly faithful to the Church. The pastor was ethnic and foreign born, and near the time for Communion he really let fly. He sounded angry when he noted who could or could not receive Communion.

I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that where there are a number of non Catholics, that an announcement be made concerning reception. However, that was the nastiest delivery I have ever heard, and I have been to a whole lot of funerals. The message was necessary; the delivery was beyond rude and unnecessary.

Did he tell the truth? Yes, he did. It was not the content, it was the delivery. I seriously doubt that had Christ been saying it, that the delivery would have been done that way.

And yet there are those who would cheer him on, saying that Father really stuck it to them.

So if you did not like my question, I will ask it another way - I wonder how many want to stick it to those in irregular marriages.

 

[ProVobis]

The pastor was ethnic and foreign born, and near the time for Communion he really let fly. He sounded angry when he noted who could or could not receive Communion.

I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that where there are a number of non Catholics, that an announcement be made concerning reception. However, that was the nastiest delivery I have ever heard, and I have been to a whole lot of funerals. The message was necessary; the delivery was beyond rude and unnecessary.

Many people have admitted they have received in mortal sin. When one is used to seeing EVERYONE else receiving all the time, I can understand the discomfort in being told one is not able to receive, no matter how it’s delivered. Must be a tough adjustment.

 

[Brendan]

A way that is not so much about assumptions and guess work based on what a person says, but something based on the evidence of spiritual fruits that bloom in someones life…

The subsequent fruits of a Sacrament actually say very little about the validity of the Sacrament.

It is well possible that a Baptized person lives a horrific life, but that says little about the actual validity of the Baptism.

Likewise, the cases of the pedophile priests, while terrible, do not place their reception of Holy Orders in doubt.

So any attempt at determining the validity of a marriage by a witness to visible spiritual fruits (either positive or negative) has no basis in Catholic theology.

And that does not even address the issue of natural marriages, which likewise are valid, but carry no Sacramental Grace.

 

[LongingSoul]

The subsequent fruits of a Sacrament actually say very little about the validity of the Sacrament.

It is well possible that a Baptized person lives a horrific life, but that says little about the actual validity of the Baptism.

Likewise, the cases of the pedophile priests, while terrible, do not place their reception of Holy Orders in doubt.

So any attempt at determining the validity of a marriage by a witness to visible spiritual fruits (either positive or negative) has no basis in Catholic theology.

And that does not even address the issue of natural marriages, which likewise are valid, but carry no Sacramental Grace.

The way in which the Church was moved to examine this issue of possible communion for the divorced/remarried, (which has been around for along time mind you), was in the light of irregular unions that grew and grow in holiness. Here we aren’t talking about happiness or unity or natural bonds. We are talking specifically of holiness. That is evidenced through the desire for the Church and the Catholic life and also an understanding of suffering and its meaning and an obedient acceptance of Church teaching.

Although people jump on the bandwagon of this possibility with a sense of entitlement and rights, it has actually surfaced through the Priests and Bishops ministering to the people in this situation, that have accepted their sacrifice with obedience. The fact that this situation presents to the clergy as a wound needing attention, is I’m sure why it holds so much weight as an issue at the highest levels of the Church… the Pope no less.

What the clergy are witnessing to are fruits of the Spirit and that means something. Earlier in the thread I raised the phenomenon of the making of a Saint in the Church. I can remember after Pope StJPII died, the strong desire experienced by people myself included to venerate him as a Saint. The Church was moved by that thing to begin the process of beatification. In making a Saint, the technicalities of a persons life are looked at in the light of this veneration. It doesn’t happen the other way around. Marriage is a bit like ‘Saintness’ in that there is a death of one thing and a new creation is made in its wake.

So speaking to your comment “…any attempt at determining the validity of a marriage by a witness to visible spiritual fruits (either positive or negative) has no basis in Catholic theology.”… I would say that the phenomenon of making Saints attests to our capacity
to make significant retrospective determinations regarding the past life.

Remember this particular issue of communion for the divorced/remarried is not about a change to any general rule. It is addressing only relationships that are already manifesting the holiness of a sacramental nature.

This is my impression of the Churchs motivations for raising the issue to the highest levels of examination.

 

[ProVobis]

The way in which the Church was moved to examine this issue of possible communion for the divorced/remarried, (which has been around for along time mind you), was in the light of irregular unions that grew and grow in holiness. Here we aren’t talking about happiness or unity or natural bonds. We are talking specifically of holiness.

But sacramental Matrimony is almost by definition, holy as well. Can one be selectively holy? I guess on how you define holiness.

BTW, the Latin sanctus doesn’t distinguish between holy and saint. So we need to take that into consideration as well.

 

[otjm]

Many people have admitted they have received in mortal sin. When one is used to seeing EVERYONE else receiving all the time, I can understand the discomfort in being told one is not able to receive, no matter how it’s delivered. Must be a tough adjustment.

I have been to Mass on any number of occasions where the priest has said about the same thing that the priest in my prior post said; and none of the others - not a single one- addressed it in such a confrontative manner. It is not a matter of discomfort; I kind of doubt that the Presbyterians and the Methodists who were also at the funeral were unaware of the Church’s position, so no, I seriously doubt that they had any significant discomfort or tough adjustment to make.

 

[ProVobis]

I have been to Mass on any number of occasions where the priest has said about the same thing that the priest in my prior post said; and none of the others - not a single one- addressed it in such a confrontative manner. It is not a matter of discomfort; I kind of doubt that the Presbyterians and the Methodists who were also at the funeral were unaware of the Church’s position, so no, I seriously doubt that they had any significant discomfort or tough adjustment to make.

I guess then I shouldn’t have commented on what you heard or how you heard it. If it was just that one priest being rude, I fail to see what your point was, though. Sorry you were so offended or confronted.

 

[otjm]

I guess then I shouldn’t have commented on what you heard or how you heard it. If it was just that one priest being rude, I fail to see what your point was, though. Sorry you were so offended or confronted.

he wasn’t confronting me. Either he had a really big burr under his saddle that day, or he knew that the deceased’s daughter was a tad it on the disengaged side of her faith.

It wasn’t the message, it was the delivery, and I ahd about 5 people come up to me and either comment on how he delivered it - in a way that asked for my (name removed by moderator)ut, or they outright asked me questions. And every one of them were Portestant. They all were offended, not with the message o they had heard it before - but with the delivery.

One can speak the truth and use it as a weapon, or speak the truth and do it trying to heal.

The point I was trying to make is that there are those who use doctrine in a way that it comes as a weapon; there are others who can use a teaching point to try to heal. The latter is a pastoral approach, and the former is not. And that is not confined to priests; there are any number of laity who can be judgmental in their approach also.

The daughter was part of a group of my friends, and they were reasonably aware that she was less than a very active Catholic. They all saw his delivery as directed primarily at her; I can’t sway that It was, but I certainly suspected it. And given that she was at the burial Mass for her parent; the priest could not have hit her a harder blow if he had come up and slapped her so hard across the face that her ears rang.

And maybe it was not directed towards her.