M
What a Priest Said to the Question, "I Wasn't Married in the Church; Can I Receive Communion?"
- Status
P
PaulinVA
Guest
And?
D
dmar198
Guest
I think the point is to show how we can be both faithful and merciful in dealing with people in irregular marriages who want to receive Communion. Pope Francis is calling us to this, and is looking for creative ways to share the Church’s message with people in irregular marriages, without compromising Church doctrine. This post helps point the way, IMO.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
It seems to me that people who have been in irregular marriages, people who have made mistakes (not mortal sins) are the people who NEED Holy Communion the most. The saints have merited it, but they don’t need it as badly as someone who has made a mistake in judgment. Holy Communion helps one conform his or her life to Christ.
I will abide by Church doctrine, of course, but I’m all for Pope Francis’ more charitable outlook on this subject.
I will abide by Church doctrine, of course, but I’m all for Pope Francis’ more charitable outlook on this subject.
A
adrift
Guest
What do you mean by irregular marriages?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Whatever the poster above me meant.
I honestly think the Church should allow divorced people to take Holy Communion as long as the people were not married in the Catholic Church. However, as I said, that’s not my call to make, and I will follow Church doctrine whether I agree with it or not.
I
ialsop
Guest
I thik the Church should just stop recognizing civil marriages. Then all you have to do is go to confession and boom its over. You can get Communion.
Charitable… And totally true to moral doctrine.
Charitable… And totally true to moral doctrine.
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
Question: How does the fact that stopping the recognition of civil marriages stay true to Doctrine?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
The Church recognizes civil marriages. If it didn’t, it would assume all of those people were fornicating…
The problem is that some people have done things in their lives that, while forgivable, have real consequences. One example of that is getting married again after being married in the Church and divorced. If the Church declares that this first marriage was valid, you don’t have a lot of options.
Remember, people in these situations can’t go to Communion because they are in a state of mortal sin (adultery). That is the problem. Not being able to receive Communion is a result of the problem.
The problem is that some people have done things in their lives that, while forgivable, have real consequences. One example of that is getting married again after being married in the Church and divorced. If the Church declares that this first marriage was valid, you don’t have a lot of options.
Remember, people in these situations can’t go to Communion because they are in a state of mortal sin (adultery). That is the problem. Not being able to receive Communion is a result of the problem.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I believe the Church does believe baptized Catholics who were married outside the Church are fornicating:
*Catholic Church law ordinarily requires baptized Roman Catholics to marry before a priest or deacon. Unless they requested and received a “dispensation from canonical form,” Catholics who exchange marriage vows in the presence of only ministers from other religious traditions or authorized civic officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. *
americancatholic.org/Messenger/Feb2004/Feature2.asp
I
ialsop
Guest
Well…we could assume once upon a time that most people has good marriages, but now more and more people ARE fornicating, with divorce rates at half, and gay marriages.
Look, if it is considered a valid marriage, annulment is the answer, which causes so many problems, OR we allowed divorced and remarried approach the Sacrament, which is not what the Church teaches. (Yes, Pope Francis rejected Cardinal Kasper’s plan, Kasper said so himself).
But if they were just fornicating outside of valid marriage, well darn, but then they go to confession, they are cleansed, takes five minutes not months. And they are free of the past then. And they are no longer in mortal sin. So it allows them to truly go to Communion, without all the complications of an annulment.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
That would only work if the couple did not continue to live together and stopped having sexual relations.
I’m not arguing with the ridiculousness of the whole thing, just stating the fact that the Church does not consider baptized Catholics who married outside the Church to be in a valid marriage. That is why the remedy of convalidation exists. Confession without convalidation in front of a priest of deacon would mean these Catholics are not in good standing with the Church.
The whole annulment process is just a loophole to allow divorced Catholics back into good standing with the Church. I can see reasons why a marriage should be annulled, e.g. if one was duped into the marriage through fraud, if a spouse is impotent, if a person married without all of his or her mental faculties, etc., but the Church allows far too many annulments for no good reason. It might as well just allow divorce or do away with annulments except in the most extraordinary of situations.
How do you know Cardinal Kaspar’s ideas were rejected? The synod does not even take place until October. Never mind, I found it here: catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/06/04/cardinal-kasper-says-francis-did-not-approve-his-communion-proposal/
But I also see the Pope wants the bishops to decide in October: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404088.htm
*VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The author of a controversial proposal to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion says he believes Pope Francis backs the measure but would not apply it without support from bishops at two upcoming synods on the family.
“I had the impression the pope is open for a responsible, limited opening of the situation, but he wants a great majority of the bishops behind himself. He does not like division within the church and the collegiality of bishops,” German Cardinal Walter Kasper, speaking English, told Catholic News Service Oct. 1. “I have the impression the pope is ready to reaffirm such a thing, but now it depends also on the voices of the bishops in the synod.”*
H
Horton
Guest
This
I truly believe it shouldn’t be easier for divorced & civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. It’s not like this is all new information, just made available to the faithful. This throw away culture we live in already makes things too easy. Fall in lust, get married, have babies, fall out of lust, get divorced, shack up with new partner, fall in lust, get married…then oh poor me I can’t take communion.I’m sorry to be so harsh, but we need to get back to the state of reverence for marriage, family, commitment, permanence of your vows.
I
ialsop
Guest
Well, I totally agree.This
I’m sorry to be so harsh, but we need to get back to the state of reverence for marriage, family, commitment, permanence of your vows.
And if we keep recognizing civil marriages as valid, what does that say about how much we ACTUALLY care about reverence in marriage?
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
From my understanding, though, the annulment trial people usually look into an annulment only if they believe that there are grounds for an annulment (usually cases get tossed out if the case doesn’t have much grounds for an annulment). If someone can confirm me on this, I’d be super grateful. Sorry for the lack of technical terms; I’m a 17 year old layman, not a canon lawyer.
However, I do know for sure that if the diocesan tribunal believes that the marriage was invalid, they must send the case to another diocesan tribunal in a different diocese so they can investigate that case too. I just don’t see how the granting of that many annulments is necessarily wrong per se. There’s so many safeguards in the annulment process that the chance of an annulment being wrongly granted is slim.
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
Well what do you think it says?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I agree with that, but the Church seems not to recognize civil marriages as valid:
*
Catholic Church law ordinarily requires baptized Roman Catholics to marry before a priest or deacon. Unless they requested and received a “dispensation from canonical form,” Catholics who exchange marriage vows in the presence of only ministers from other religious traditions or authorized civic officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
*
americancatholic.org/Mess…4/Feature2.asp
Catholics KNOW they must be married in the Church and they KNOW divorce is not permitted.
I don’t believe marriages outside the Church should be recognized, either, and I believe Church annulments should only be granted in the most extreme of cases. To use a civil example, in the state where I live, one can only obtain a civil annulment if one of the spouses in physically unable to consummate the marriage, or if one of the spouses is already married to another (the marriage is void rather than voidable in that case anyway, and civil law here says a divorce isn’t even necessary).
I don’t mean to be harsh, either, but marriage is a sacrament and should be treated as such.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Thank you for the information.
I am a fifth year RC theology student, who has taken a class in Canon Law, but I am FAR from a canon lawyer!
I will just copy from an article written by a canon lawyer because he explains it better than I could:
The grounds for ruling a marriage invalid fall generally under three categories: capacity, consent and (for a Catholic) canonical form.
*The most common annulments are granted due to the lack of canonical form, such as Catholics married by a justice of the peace or a non-Catholic minister, because canon law requires a Catholic priest or deacon with faculties to officiate the marriage.
Another common reason for annulments involves capacity, such as a civil marriage with someone who was not free to marry because of a prior marriage bond.
“In these cases, all you need are the documents to show that’s the case,” he said, explaining these were among the most clear-cut declarations of nullity for the Church to grant.
However, the third category of grounds for annulment — and the most involved processes for tribunals — are marriages involving consent, where one or both of the spouses did not intend to embrace all the goods of marriage: permanence, exclusivity or openness to children, for example.*
Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/no-catholic-divorce-grounds-and-obstacles-to-annulments/#ixzz3fkk5ezhB
It’s in the third category that I think the Church bends its own rules a little too frequently. It is fairly easy for people to give testimony that another party did not intend to remain in the marriage permanently. If both parties do not desire to remain in the Church, all the Catholic party has to do is tell the other party to get the divorce. Then they can say, well, he or she didn’t intend for the marriage to be permanent. Perhaps when that person did enter the marriage he or she did intend it to be permanent but the other spouse was so difficult he or she couldn’t remain.
I understand the necessity of having this third category since some marriages involve fraud - a man or woman could tell a prospective spouse he or she wants children, and then, after marriage, let his or her true feelings of never wanting them be known. However, the third category is so broad and so easily manipulated by the parties.
I suppose I am skeptical of Church annulments because I know several couples who obtained one and really, they had a valid marriage. They lied on the form they filled out saying they never consummated the marriage or one person never intended it to be permanent, etc.
It’s a great burden for the Church. The reconciliation of divorced persons and Holy Communion is also a great burden for the Church, but I feel they are going to allow it. I don’t want to sound harsh, but I don’t like the trend toward laxity in the Church, though I do see why a handful of marriages should be declared null, but only a handful.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
The following two stories illustrate just why I look askance at Church annulments:
*My father had an annulment from my mother back in the late 70’s. They were married for 20 years, had four children from the marriage when it dissolved. He petitioned the church because my stepmother wanted to receive communion after marrying my father in a civil ceremony eight years prior to them requesting the annulment.
I seriously doubt that based on what the church has stated that a marriage of twenty years resulting in 4 children would qualify for an annulment, but guess what, my father paid $1500.00 dollars, got his annulment, remarried in a joke of a ceremony, and my stepmother who rarely went to church to begin with, and almost never went back to church after got what she wanted. All this did was create more disturbance in the lives of the four children.
It’s a load of garbage and more egg on the face of the Catholic church.*
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the current liberal American Catholic Church annulment process is a joke. I am a Protestant who was married to my first husband, also a Protestant, for 16 years, bore his three children and then divorced him for extreme verbal abuse, physical abuse toward me and the children and adultery. We both moved on and remarried. I never had a problem with his second wife until about two years ago when I found out she wanted to annul my marriage so she can take communion in the Catholic Church and threatened my ex-husband with divorce if he refused to go along with it. Absolutely ridiculous. That woman knew what she was getting 15 years ago when she said “I do” . . . a divorced Protestant man with a vasectomy who made her sign a pre-nup. And she lived with him for two years prior. I refuse to reinterpret the Bible to feel better about myself and know I will have a lot of explaining to do on Judgement Day, but I do not believe God calls us to atone for our sins by hurting other people. Meanwhile, this re-enforces my two oldest children’s anti-organized religious stance, because if this is an example of how Christians show their love for one another, they want no part of it.
They can be found in the comment section here:
providencejournal.com/article/20140918/NEWS/309189989
I don’t disagree that annulments should, in rare cases, be granted, however I do believe they are granted far too easily and for reasons that do not strictly adhere to Canon Law.
A lot of people today believe marriage “is just a piece of paper.” It’s getting so a Church annulment is “just a piece of paper.” The bishops might as well let divorced persons take communion because that is what they are doing anyway.
*My father had an annulment from my mother back in the late 70’s. They were married for 20 years, had four children from the marriage when it dissolved. He petitioned the church because my stepmother wanted to receive communion after marrying my father in a civil ceremony eight years prior to them requesting the annulment.
I seriously doubt that based on what the church has stated that a marriage of twenty years resulting in 4 children would qualify for an annulment, but guess what, my father paid $1500.00 dollars, got his annulment, remarried in a joke of a ceremony, and my stepmother who rarely went to church to begin with, and almost never went back to church after got what she wanted. All this did was create more disturbance in the lives of the four children.
It’s a load of garbage and more egg on the face of the Catholic church.*
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the current liberal American Catholic Church annulment process is a joke. I am a Protestant who was married to my first husband, also a Protestant, for 16 years, bore his three children and then divorced him for extreme verbal abuse, physical abuse toward me and the children and adultery. We both moved on and remarried. I never had a problem with his second wife until about two years ago when I found out she wanted to annul my marriage so she can take communion in the Catholic Church and threatened my ex-husband with divorce if he refused to go along with it. Absolutely ridiculous. That woman knew what she was getting 15 years ago when she said “I do” . . . a divorced Protestant man with a vasectomy who made her sign a pre-nup. And she lived with him for two years prior. I refuse to reinterpret the Bible to feel better about myself and know I will have a lot of explaining to do on Judgement Day, but I do not believe God calls us to atone for our sins by hurting other people. Meanwhile, this re-enforces my two oldest children’s anti-organized religious stance, because if this is an example of how Christians show their love for one another, they want no part of it.
They can be found in the comment section here:
providencejournal.com/article/20140918/NEWS/309189989
I don’t disagree that annulments should, in rare cases, be granted, however I do believe they are granted far too easily and for reasons that do not strictly adhere to Canon Law.
A lot of people today believe marriage “is just a piece of paper.” It’s getting so a Church annulment is “just a piece of paper.” The bishops might as well let divorced persons take communion because that is what they are doing anyway.
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
It’s wrong that people lie in the annulment trial just to get what they want. But they will answer to God when they die (Let us hope they repent). I don’t know what the solution is to stop the lying in the annulment process or if we can even have an efficient solution.
I did hear of a bishop that decided to get rid of the costs of the annulment fee for his diocese. Generally speaking, dioceses ask for a stipend for the annulment tribunal, but the fee can be waived for financial reasons. However, I think making the annulment process free can help stop the impression that you can “pay” for an annulment to be granted, thus making annulments look like a Catholic version of divorce. The first commenter you quoted from Providence Journal, the one who talked about the $1500 fee, may have gotten a different impression of the annulment process if the fee hadn’t been there.
From my understanding, the Church does allow divorced but not remarried people to receive communion if the divorce wasn’t their fault. This document from EWTN sheds more light on the marriage situation and receiving communion, and I don’t feel like summarizing what was in it. ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm
- Status