Papa Francis Considering Allowing Remarried People To Receive Communio

[arfink]

I think both KoC and Nihil have very good points. The Church's teaching on the indissolubly of marriage cannot and will not change. The tricky bit is when people look at changes in discipline in the Church regarding tribunals and canon law and then believe that marriage is no longer viewed as indissoluble, or when they fear that such changes will lead people to believe that marriage is not a life-long thing.

 

I think the reality is a little more hopeful than that. Many Catholics probably don't even know what the Church teaches on marriage, and a great many of the ones who do don't even understand why the Church asks them to do what they do, and either obey without understanding or shrug off their eventual failure because they didn't get it when it was taught to them. This kind of thing (readmission to the sacraments) should hopefully provide an opportunity to clarify the Church's position and infuse grace into marriages which have lost it.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think what the question boils down to is: can we, as a Church, simply abrogate our laws concerning who can or cannot, should or should not present themselves for and receive the Eucharist?

If those who are divorced and remarried are allowed to receive communion, then we are saying that there are at least some people who live in "public and objective grave sin", who can receive the Eucharist. So who else? Why not a gay couple then? Or a non-Catholic? Or an abortionist? Are there fundamental differences between any of these groups that qualify some and disqualify others? To use Cardinal Kasper's language, can we "tolerate but not accept" other sorts of serious sin?

The relevant canons are widely disregarded, but they have moral force.

 

The Church will not change in this matter.

[arfink]

I think what the question boils down to is: can we, as a Church, simply abrogate our laws concerning who can or cannot, should or should not present themselves for and receive the Eucharist?

If those who are divorced and remarried are allowed to receive communion, then we are saying that there are at least some people who live in "public and objective grave sin", who can receive the Eucharist. So who else? Why not a gay couple then? Or a non-Catholic? Or an abortionist? Are there fundamental differences between any of these groups that qualify some and disqualify others? To use Cardinal Kasper's language, can we "tolerate but not accept" other sorts of serious sin?

The relevant canons are widely disregarded, but they have moral force.

 

The Church will not change in this matter.

 

I think you're reading more into this than is actually there.

 

From my understanding, this re-admittance to communion is based on the idea that large numbers of Catholics are, in fact, in marital situations which would normally be recognized as invalid and non-sacramental and which would normally take years of work in the tribunal systems to regularize. This is essence traps them in limbo: their status is one of not being married, but the Church's current legal framework does not allow them to exit that state. This is not a case of sin being openly tolerated, but one of the Church seeking to reconcile people instead of forcing them to wait on the bureaucracy in order to be forgiven and return to grace and the sacraments.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think you're reading more into this than is actually there.

 

From my understanding, this re-admittance to communion is based on the idea that large numbers of Catholics are, in fact, in marital situations which would normally be recognized as invalid and non-sacramental and which would normally take years of work in the tribunal systems to regularize. This is essence traps them in limbo: their status is one of not being married, but the Church's current legal framework does not allow them to exit that state. This is not a case of sin being openly tolerated, but one of the Church seeking to reconcile people instead of forcing them to wait on the bureaucracy in order to be forgiven and return to grace and the sacraments.

I think that is a very dangerous game to play. It is not simply bureaucracy. It is due diligence. It is moral certainty. Either the parties involved were married, or they were not. If they were not, i.e. if they can and do receive a declaration of nullity, then it is not a question of admitting divorced and remarried to communion. If the tribunals find that there is no grounds for a declaration of nullity, then likewise there is no grounds to admit them for communion besides the renunciation of sin already expected in canon law.

If anyone has ideas on making tribunals more efficient and effective, and in reducing the number of invalid marriages, then excellent. Legal systems can usually be fine-tuned. But that does not seem to be what we are discussing here. We are talking about ignoring some rules because the processes are onerous. But the processes are onerous precisely because the subject matter is of such grave, eternal importance.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

 

 

St paul states "those whom eat and drink without discerning(and confessing i assume) call Gods judgement upon themselves, but only to save them from eternal hell." St paul doesn't actually state you can't receive the most precious body and blood without confessing as far as i can see. But on the marriage matter i think if it is adultery which i know not which i can't see definitively as being in holy scripture. Be and a friend where discussing this exact dilemma once before and he rekons that if they confess they are having such a sexual relationship outside of there original marriage than they should be fine to receive the eucharist as with any sin, theologically though of course it is up to the confessors dicression as whether to absolve or not therefore allowing or disallowing the confesee the rite to holy communion, theologically though but again scripturally saint paul says otherwise.

 

All glory to GOD.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[chrysostom]

if they confess they are having such a sexual relationship outside of there original marriage than they should be fine to receive the eucharist as with any sin, theologically though of course it is up to the confessors dicression as whether to absolve or not therefore allowing or disallowing the confesee the rite to holy communion

 

But the thing is, the sacrament of confession requires for validity contrition, which in the Catechism is defined as "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."  If someone confesses the sin of adultery but has no intention to stop the sexual relationship (and fully intends to go back home and continue committing adultery), he lacks true contrition.  In that case, absolution, if given by the priest, is invalid.   Receiving the Eucharist in that state will only bring greater harm to his soul.

[Nihil Obstat]

But the thing is, the sacrament of confession requires for validity contrition, which in the Catechism is defined as "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."  If someone confesses the sin of adultery but has no intention to stop the sexual relationship (and fully intends to go back home and continue committing adultery), he lacks true contrition.  In that case, absolution, if given by the priest, is invalid.   Receiving the Eucharist in that state will only bring greater harm to his soul.

Not to mention great harm to the priest, who attempted absolution sacrilegiously.

[blazeingstar]

Like Catherine, I think the answer is more annulments and greater understanding of what a Catholic Marriage IS.

 

For instance for a Catholic to get married anywhere else besides the Catholic church that's not a valid marriage, it's lack of form.

 

Now, if someone who dosn't understand the rules has a civil or non-Catholic ceremony marries then divorces, they may not understand that their second marriage is not recognized either.

 

Many, many Catholics have marriages outside of the church, then get divorced, then get remarried with the right mindset and focus and believe that simply having their children Baptized or attending Mass means that they are back in step with the Church.

 

In this case, where the couple is earnestly attempting to do things right, the first thing out of a Priest's mouth should not be that they are not allowed communion.  

 

I think part of the problem with the Catholic Church is that we either have the "that 70's crowd" that practically mocks the rules of the church, we have the Charismatics who mix feelings and rules, and we have the traditionalists who seem to allow no understanding even in the most dire of circumstances...like understanding head-covering is a private devotion or reassuring a grieving mother her infant is in heaven.

 

For me, personally, one of the single most damaging things to my faith has been super-traddies....and I've never done anything that "really" sets them off.  If they wouldn't accept me becuase I wanted to attend Mass in jeans, I shutter to think what they would do to a woman who was on her second civil marriage.

[NotreDame]

I think part of the problem with the Catholic Church is that we either have the "that 70's crowd" that practically mocks the rules of the church, we have the Charismatics who mix feelings and rules, and we have the traditionalists who seem to allow no understanding even in the most dire of circumstances...like understanding head-covering is a private devotion or reassuring a grieving mother her infant is in heaven.

 

For me, personally, one of the single most damaging things to my faith has been super-traddies....and I've never done anything that "really" sets them off.  If they wouldn't accept me becuase I wanted to attend Mass in jeans, I shutter to think what they would do to a woman who was on her second civil marriage.

 

I agree with your sentiments, but you are painting with a broad brush here regarding traditionalists.  Yet this is the Church we find ourselves in.  Leaders have let their bishops, priests and parishioners "mock the rules" so those who hunger for orthodoxy and/or tradition will often find themselves pushed into fringe groups.   These fringe groups are by no means limited to fans of the EF.  The worst among these groups practice the NO. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

But the thing is, the sacrament of confession requires for validity contrition, which in the Catechism is defined as "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."  If someone confesses the sin of adultery but has no intention to stop the sexual relationship (and fully intends to go back home and continue committing adultery), he lacks true contrition.  In that case, absolution, if given by the priest, is invalid.   Receiving the Eucharist in that state will only bring greater harm to his soul.

 

Unsure whether it will do greater damage to there soul because i think there recognising something as a sin which they know is wrong but can't stop doing, this surely is something better than nothing with only half hearted resolution to sin no more due to the powerlessness over a particular sin but some hope to amends, this in itself in time through the grace of God i believe would change there action, eventually. Grave disorders are confessable and i think usually it's not that the person want's to commit this sin but due to the gravity in the manner of  lack of hope in being able to stop this sin. Which as far as i can tell is relying on ones own power and not Gods to stop which is the cause of most dysfunctional disorders/addictions, from my own experience anyway. And holy scripture tells us that "God also loves honour ", so if there simply honouring there obligation for going to confession if having committed a sin as a catholic christian according to scripture God loves this also, just like the commandment ' honour thy mother and father" you don't need full knowledge and understanding of the request given by the mother and father, you do it anyway, just like a soldier in the army. And what of saint paul? Do we disregard what he said about the manner of partaking in jesus body and blood without 1st discerning offences/examining conscience and for catholic christian confessing them, being only a judgement offence in the temporary and not eternally in that the body and blood saves them from that fate. :)

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I'm not saying just any old joe can rock up for the precious body and blood, although a priest can deny no one, which is also catechises. Of course your meant to be baptised and confirmed and believe to receive the precious body and blood or you don't actually receive jesus, because he doesn't come. Though in that matter i'm sure the odd person that has read holy scripture and never been baptised or confirmed and rocked up to holy mass and received the host that jesus has come to them because they believe truly that it is the body and blood of christ. And all this is just musing from me with only a little biblical,traditional and chatechises knowledge, all i know is that Jesus will be the final judge of all this, and the vatican of course is a good precursor but not the final end although needed, and i'm very if the pope don't know it you probably shouldn't grow it.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[AugustineA]

General Note, let's try to avoid stereotyping, even though that's often how most of us organize our thoughts.

 

At the same time I recognize this is the internet. :) 

 

 

[arfink]

I think that is a very dangerous game to play. It is not simply bureaucracy. It is due diligence. It is moral certainty. Either the parties involved were married, or they were not. If they were not, i.e. if they can and do receive a declaration of nullity, then it is not a question of admitting divorced and remarried to communion. If the tribunals find that there is no grounds for a declaration of nullity, then likewise there is no grounds to admit them for communion besides the renunciation of sin already expected in canon law.

If anyone has ideas on making tribunals more efficient and effective, and in reducing the number of invalid marriages, then excellent. Legal systems can usually be fine-tuned. But that does not seem to be what we are discussing here. We are talking about ignoring some rules because the processes are onerous. But the processes are onerous precisely because the subject matter is of such grave, eternal importance.

 

That does seem a bit Pharisaical, by definition. If the annulment process is onerous (and it is) and the Church does nothing to alleviate this, then they are merely tying up heavy burdens, difficult to carry, and not lifting a finger to help the faithful to live in grace.

[KnightofChrist]

That does seem a bit Pharisaical, by definition. If the annulment process is onerous (and it is) and the Church does nothing to alleviate this, then they are merely tying up heavy burdens, difficult to carry, and not lifting a finger to help the faithful to live in grace.

 
 
That it sounds pharisaical, seems a bit Protestant. It's the classical Protestant argument to compare Catholic Doctrine, dogma, discipline, rules etc to the Law of the Pharisees, and that these rules keep the faithful away from grace.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I think technically as far as i'm aware a priest can't actually refuse anyone communion as i stated earlier. That may be what the pope actually told her and that she was free to receive communion though i assume also he said something along the line of st paul about gods justice and judgement of the matter in this life for the eternal salvation of her soul, the article seems very brief and has just taken one line of what he has declared and not the whole matter into effect, as the media sometimes, half the time or most of the time does in the modern age, kind of like shock jocks.