What to do about Pastor misinfoming members

  • Thread starter Thread starter KatherineS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KatherineS

Guest
A friend who is involved in the Catholic Church, sent kids to Catholic school and married in the Church, recently found out their spouse has been having an affair for 7 of the last 12 years of marriage. They went to counseling, met with the pastor, and have decided to divorce as he won’t stop the affair. She has been continuing to serve at Church and attend Mass; however, went to go to Communion and the Pastor wouldn’t give her the Blessed Eucharist. He asked her to meet with him after Mass. He proceeded to tell her she cannot receive because she is getting/is divorced. Why would the pastor misinform her in this way? What can she do other than contact her Bishop who hasn’t answered her. She has been so distraught over this she is leaving the Church she has grown up with and served most of her life. Any suggestions?
 
On the face of it, it sure seems like her pastor is mistaken. However, it’s possible that there’s more to the story than she’s telling you. Perhaps there are other dynamics in play that have led the pastor to his stance? If there’s more there than meets the eye, and she’s not sharing that info with you, then there’s not much you can do to help, other than pray.

She’s taken the appropriate step – she’s written the bishop. The fact that the bishop hasn’t replied directly to her doesn’t mean that he isn’t following up on the situation. The fact that she hasn’t seen a change doesn’t mean that the bishop isn’t working on it.

I don’t get her solution, though. If what she wants is the Eucharist, then why is she leaving the Church? She won’t get the Eucharist outside the Church, either…! 🤔
 
A lot of times, there’s he said/she said, and the truth is somewhere in between. The issue is between her, her pastor, and her bishop— no matter how much I felt for her, it’s not my situation to stick my oar in. 🙂

But it does remind me of numerous situations with St. Pio or St. Faustina. Over and over, they would experience hostility and unfairness and untruths---- and it was their opportunity to grow in humility and trust God.
 
He specifically told her that it was because she was Divorced that she couldn’t receive, which stunned her. And I agree, leaving the Church because of one priest doesn’t seem right, either.
 
She needs to start the annulment process right away as she can specify her reasoning for the divorce. This is most certainly not her fault and if you do some research, Pope Francis authorized communion (formerly excommunication) for those divorced in the Roman Catholic Church (Latin rite)

Mark 10 might make her feel better also:

 
Last edited:
If she feels her canonical rights may have been violated, then she should contact the Judicial Vicar of her diocese for a consultation. He will be able to assess the situation and also has the canonical authority to address any problems he may discover. This will be a better approach than discussing the matter with other parishioners.
 
Communion has always been open to those who have divorced but not remarried (as long as they were not the primary cause of the divorce and/or repented of their sins if they were). The Pope has NO authority to authorize Communion for those who are divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity if they are living as man and wife.
 
KatherineS said:
He specifically told her that it was because she was Divorced that she couldn’t receive
Click to expand...
To be fair, that’s not what we’re dealing with.

Rather, it’s “she told you that he told her that it was because of the divorce.” It’s still a possibility that either she misunderstood or she’s not telling you the whole story. 'Cause you’re right: otherwise, it doesn’t make much sense.
 
By “intends to get remarried”, I’m guessing you mean “she thinks that, at some point in the future, she might get remarried”, and not simply “is in the process of planning a wedding.” If it’s the former, then yeah – annulment is proper. And, it’s much better than attempting to push through an annulment after getting engaged. Just sayin’…

This seems to me to be playing off a misunderstanding and a conflation of terms. There’s a difference between “unable to receive the Eucharist” and “excommunicated.” Whereas Flosi is correct that excommunication has never been in play, it is not true that there was never a time that the divorced (in the U.S.) were denied the Eucharist. (It really was the case that, a hundred years or so ago, Catholics who divorced were unable to receive the Eucharist.) . Flosi is playing fast and loose with terms, it seems, in order to avoid discussing the situation in America in the 19th century.

Hang on. @(name removed by moderator), you’re a stand up guy, but it seems that (with all due respect to you and to the men quoted in this 1980’s-era article) you’re saying something that runs counter to the Church’s teachings. Let me ask a very (deliberately precise) question:

Can a Catholic who has civilly divorced, not received an annulment, civilly remarried, consummated the marriage, and is living as husband-and-wife receive communion?

(Let’s leave Amoris Laetitia out of the context of the question for the moment.)

What say you, then?
 
Agreed.

And, that’s the misunderstanding that the average Catholic labors under – that “excommunicated” means “unable to receive communion” (and vice versa). The folks who wrote that article did us no favors by not pointing out that distinction.

After all, when we miss a Sunday Mass, we’re unable to receive communion (until we receive sacramental absolution). We’re not ‘excommunicated’. It doesn’t help to raise the specter of ‘excommunication’ in the context of this discussion (IMHO), which isn’t about canonical penalties, but rather, only about the ability to receive communion.
 
Last edited:
KatherineS said:
He specifically told her that it was because she was Divorced that she couldn’t receive, which stunned her. And I agree, leaving the Church because of one priest doesn’t seem right, either.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case then the priest is mistaken. Obviously he believes he’s in the right, otherwise he wouldn’t be taking this course of action. Maybe she should see the priest and discuss the situation in more detail.
 
Gorgias said:
Father Edgar Holden, director of the tribunal of the Seattle archdiocese, agrees. “Nothing in church law forbids a person with irregular status from receiving the Eucharist. This is a personal decision of conscience
Click to expand...
There were a lot of priests who believed that people in irregular marriages could just talk the matter over with their priest and then receive the Eucharist. This was knows as the internal forum solution, which was rejected in Familiaris Consortio. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger also clarified that previous apparent permissions of the use of the internal forum solution were in concert with living as brother and sister.
Gorgias said:
Nothing in church law forbids a person with irregular status from receiving the Eucharist. This is a personal decision of conscience.
Click to expand...
I cannot imagine this to be the case in the Code from 1917, and it certainly isn’t the case from the Code of 1983, so it’s hard to tell what he could possibly have been thinking when he said this, unless he meant it in a limited way --“Nothing in church law forbids a person with irregular status from receiving the Eucharist” when the person is in serious danger of death. This simply makes no sense to me at all.
 
I was a divorced Catholic for 8 years before receiving my annulment and I was never refused the Eucharist.
 
Annie said:
I cannot imagine this to be the case in the Code from 1917, and it certainly isn’t the case from the Code of 1983, so it’s hard to tell what he could possibly have been thinking when he said this
Click to expand...
He was thinking just what he said. It was, and is, a common view. Common…but still wrong.

Dan
 
His_helpmeet said:
The Pope has NO authority to authorize Communion for those who are divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity if they are living as man and wife.
Click to expand...
You might want to do a bit more study into the process of obtaining a decree of nullity before you make such a statement. I’m a little surprised a layman would state what a pope can and cannot do. After all, I do think Christ gave Peter (and his successors) the power to bind and loose.
 
acanonlawyer said:
What should a person study, exactly?
Click to expand...
Everything one can find about it. Most people have a truncated view of the scope of the concept.

Oh, and I think I know where you next question is coming from, but I’ll let you ask it. Then again, I could be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top